Copyright Office Fraud

June 4. 2007

Here is an excerpt from my United Nations human rights abuse complaint, related to the legal case Aisha v. Madonna, that was delivered to the appropriate party to file. This excerpt is regarding copyright office fraud that I've encountered twice:

COPYRIGHT OFFICE FRAUD

"As Section 12 of this complaint illustrates, I am the owner of dozens of copyright certificates from the Library of Congress in Washington, DC.

While all my works are securely copyrighted, a copyright submission titled AISHA WORK 19, was returned to me, via fraud, by Copyright Office Supervisor Brenda Roseboro.

In a Copyright Office letter dated February 28, 2007, postmarked by the U.S. Mail service on Friday, March 2, 2007 and received by me on Monday, March 5, 2007, it stated I only sent in $30 for this particular copyright and that the rates were just raised that very month to $45.

In a letter dated May 7, 2007, Copyright Office Supervisor Brenda Roseboro, committed fraud, via writing that she sent me a letter on August 31, 2006, stating I had remitted the copyright registration fee accompanying AISHA WORK 19, $15 short and to send the additional funds in the amount of $15 within 60 days.

She did nothing of the sort. The letter she sent me flagging AISHA WORK 19 for being $15 short, due to the Copyright Office increasing fees that same month I sent in that registration for the copyright AISHA WORK 19, was DATED February 28, 2007, NOT August 31, 2006 as she claimed in her letter.

Furthermore, I remitted the additional $15 requested, within the allotted time, via a U.S. postal order, no 10720786544 and sent it via U.S. mail that is stamped and marked with a record of having been sent and on time.

Ms. Roseboro's deeds constitutes fraud of the highest order, as the Copyright AISHA WORK 19 is worth a significant amount of money.  

Prior to sending in the copyright registration AISHA WORK 19, I purchased ICANN internet names for the copyrighted songs and scripts in the project, as well as securing the copyright via other means.

AISHA WORK 19 is also embedded in other copyrights that were approved, unbeknownst to Ms. Roseboro. The works are thoroughly registered in multiple ways and protected under domestic and international law.

However, this was another blatant attempt at trying to get rid of one of my Copyrights, to pave the way for uncreative, lawbreaking parties in Hollywood to use it in violation of the U.S. Code and United Nations laws.

This misconduct transpired once before, via U.S. Copyright Office employee Robert Blakenburg, mentioned in the lawsuit Aisha v. Madonna, who told me over the phone, "You can't sue Warner Bros" which is Madonna's record label, without me even telling him I was suing them. He further fraudulently and menacingly told me items really "Aren't copyrightable and anyone is free to use your works." If that is the case, what is the purpose of having a Copyright Office.

Mr. Blakenburg fraudulently flagged one of my copyright registration submissions and did not send out the required Copyright Office letter stating what he had done. Copyright Office rules mandate any works flagged by a Copyright Office agent must be accompanied by a letter sent to the registrant notifying them of the work being flagged and giving them the standard 120 days to make corrections and or answer the questions the copyright agent had with their registration submission.

After the 120 days elapses without a response from the registrant, the copyright registration can be thrown out and the registrant loses all rights to their work.

Mr. Blakenburg, threw out that copyright registration without even sending the letter, which constitutes fraud under the U.S. Code, as it was a valuable copyright.

I had to complain to his supervisor to have the works reinstated. She apologized and reinstated the copyright.

It is disgraceful that the Library of Congress, which exists as apart of the U.S. Congress, would resort to such tactics to defraud a minority and an immigrant, because parties in Hollywood have designs on a valuable copyrighted work that does not belong to them.

However, tellingly, W-------- (name withheld from the internet until investigations are completed), mentioned previously in this complaint, who had placed harassing phone calls to my home, threateningly stated to me over the phone months prior to this incident regarding Ms. Roseboro, that the labels in the lawsuit, "Have people at the Copyright Office who backdate things for them." Months later, Ms. Roseboro did just that on a copyright that Madonna is currently infringing in association with her partners in Hollywood.

However, unbeknownst to her, the work was lawfully protected, registered and imbedded in other copyrights I own as well, all pre-dating her willful thefts and that of her associates. 

Such conduct does not belong in Congress, as it is not the principles the United States was founded upon."