Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

J Case 1 :04-cv-01486-JJF Document 15 Filed 05/05/2005 Page 1 of 3
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE " < :*`
_.._..._.— 2 —5 P:-1 3: O2
Robert H. Kalk pro se
Post Oftice Box 56
Havre de Grace, MD 21078-0056
240-381-5289
Plaintiff
,,,_ Civil Number: 04-mss jj F
Fairfield & Sons et al
DBA Fairlield Language Technologies
135 W. Market St.
Harrisonburg VA 22801
540-432-6166
Eugene Stoltzhrs
3893 Mountain Valley Rd
Keezletown, VA 22832-2100
540-269-2005
Kathryn S. Fairfield
165 S. Main Street
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
540-434-0059
Defendants
Motion for Definite Statement
New the Plaintrjf having received and read rhe Courfs ORDER and MEMORANDUM OPINION respecgfulljv
stares asfnllows:
I That there are omissions in the Court’s Memorandum, omissions that serve to nulliiy constitutional
imperatives and are highly relevant, pertaining to matters that were clearly on the record. The Plaintiff
has moved to Maryland and shall re—file the Complaint there. He also plans to appeal this Court’s
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of those unsuspecting
Citizens of Delaware still naive enough to believe the law will protect them. The Court is hereby
afforded this onetime opportunity to state, for what shall become a widely published public reeord,
whether its obvious omissions were deliberate or simply negligent. And;
2 That the Defendants have asked the Court to engage in the age old folly of straining at gnats while
swallowing camels- Accordingly, the Court has indulged the Defendant in this case by eondoning
perjury. The Court, in its refusal to hold a proper hearing on the matter, has seen fit to ignore a perjtues
affidavit filed by Defendant Kathryn S. Fairfield and the possible subomation of perjury on the part of
Defendant’s counsel, Judith M. Kinney. And; ·
Motion for Detinite Statement — Kalk vs. Falrtield
Page 1 of 3 —- Filed 5I3f2005

Case 1 :04-cv-01486-JJF Document 15 Filed 05/05/2005 Page 2 of 3
3 That the Court has seriously diminished the constitutional protections of all working Delawareans in its
failure to honor its constitutional obligations and recognize the uniqueness of this case. This is a case
where the Defendant claims protection through the Long Arm Statutes while simultaneously exercising
its own “long arm” in Delaware, and asserting a supposed right to impair a Delaware resident’s most
fundamental right to work in his field anywhere throughout a universe of universes. And;
4 That the Court has stated that no evidence was offered that would allow the Court to conclude that the
Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the opportunity to conduct business in Delaware. The
Plaintiff not only provided the Court with an excerpt from the Delaware Immigration Directory
showing the active solicitation of Delaware business, the Defendants, through their own attomey and
on the record, have admitted to having paid for the insertion within that same Delaware Immigration
Directory. And;
5 That the Plaintif`fQ having failed to secure any remedy through this Court, has decided to invoke the
Court of Public Opinion. The Plaintiff` has secured the Internet Domain UnFairtield.§Lrg and intends to
publish his own opinions conceming the squelching of competition, those who are intent on making a
mockery of the most fundamental constitutional rights, and those in authority that are impotent or have
otherwise failed to fulfill their constitutional obligations with respect to securing those rights. The
Plaintiff shall also publish all material relevant to this case for the benefit of all potential consumers
and industry participants.
6 That the Plaintiff has also secured the Intemet Domain RosettaClone.Com. On this site the Plaintiff and
others will combat the anti-competitive practices of Fairfield & Sons DBA Fairfield Language
Technologies. This action shall include a challenge to any Trademark protection for the generic term
Rosetta Stone. The site will also highlight the pedagogical unfitness ofthe term in light of Fairtield’s
idiosyncratic implementation. The site will expose the public domain components and generic qualities
of Fairfielcl’s product including the four-square multiple-choice fonnat and other industry standard
generic features. These activities will be ongoing while the Plaintiff actively enlists open source
developers that could help to make language instruction more affordable for everyone. The Defendant
will undoubtedly attempt to impair the Plaintiff s free speech rights, just as it has impaired his right to
work. The Plaintiff} however, will not be deterred through the kind of simplistic reasoning, selective
contextualization or legal sophistry that has characterized the immediate case. Arrangements are
therefore underway to mirror the site in three countries.
Whereas, the Plairmjfprays this honorable Court ivilh
1 Describe with specificity and particularity what steps were taken in this case to insure process integrity
and how the Court addressed the issue of perjury on the part of Defendant Kathryn S. Fairfield.
2 Describe with specificity and particularity what steps were taken to address the possible subomation of
perjury by the Detendanfs artomey, Judith M. Kinney, thereby to insure the integrity of judicial
proceedings in Delaware.
3 Explain the value of ajudicial proceeding that does not depend first and foremost on Truth, and instead
relies on a confused and narrow disintegration of the Truth.
4 Explain the value of ajudicial system that permits the long arm of a scofflaw Defendant to reach into
Delaware destroying a resident’s livelihood, making a mockery ofthe constitutional protections
supposedly afforded to Delaware residents, and then enjoy the protections of Delaware’s long arm
statutes.
Motion for Definite Statement — Katt: va Fairfield
Page 2 of 3 - Filed 5I3I2005

I Case 1 :04-cv-01486-JJF Document 15 Filed 05/05/2005 Page 3 of 3
5 Describe how the Count came to conclude that a paid insertion in the Delaware Immigration Directory
did not signify intent or demonstrate that the Defendants "purposely availed” themselves of the
opportunity to conduct business in Delaware.
6 Retimd the Plaintiff" s $150. Filing fee due to the Court’s failure to provide, a constitutionally
guaranteed, fair and balanced review in the context of integrity centered process.
Submitted Mqy 3, 2005 by
-r·`S= .: ~ »¢’ ·* -’ -
__. ·¤;— F .pT;?;,J $p ·’ -. ~
Robert H. Kalk, pro se
Certificate of Service
I, Robert H. Kalk, hereby certity that on this 3'° day of May, 2005, l caused two (2) true and correct copies of the
forgoing to be served upon the Attomey listed below for the Defendants, in the above captioned matter, via First
Class, U.S. Mail.
Judith M. Kinney
l20l North Market Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE. 19801

.
Robert . Ka l ‘— 05-02-2005
Motion for Definite Statement - Kalk vs. Fairlield
Page 3 ot 3 - Filed 51312005