As a political blogger I expect my fair share of dissent, hostility and challenges to my notions of the state of the political scene. In many ways I welcome it because the more dissention the greater I feel my message is getting through to those who read my blog. To create community discussion is the goal of any blogger.

What amazes me is the hypocrisy lost in the city’s useful idiots, although it really shouldn’t because by their nature useful idiots do not intellectually think about what they are writing; they, instead, regurgitate what they are told to write.

For those that do not know who Jay Koester is let me refresh your memories a little bit. Koester launched the El Paso Times online blogging platforms that were used by Bob Moore and the horde to protect the Ray Caballero administration from outspoken challenges to Caballero’s attempt to reinvent El Paso under his vision of a utopian paradise devoid of the character that makes El Paso unique.

Jay Koester used the word “crazy” so many times against those daring to challenge the gentrification of El Paso under Ray Caballero that I believe the word “crazy” is now synonymous to him.

However hypocrisy and thief are now new tags that, in my opinion, should now define him, as well.

hy•poc•ri•sy (noun) The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

On October 19, 2013 Koester wrote a blog titled; “El Paso blogging scene”. On his blog post, Jay wrote that he “will never recommend ‘blogs of personal destruction,’ for example those written by TC or El Paso’s own Sherlock Holmes.” He was referring to the list of local blogs he had created on his blog.

Of course it does not surprise me that his hypocrisy in writing “blogs of personal destruction” is completely lost to him when he not only created the mechanism by which those challenging the status quo were labeled “crazies”, but in fact he coined the use of the word in El Paso when referring to those opposing downtown redevelopment under the Caballero regime.

As a useful idiot I do not expect him to understand such a simple concept.

Therefore his misappropriation of intellectual property is definitely not something he is capable of understanding. Although I don’t expect him to understand it, in fact I expect him to retaliate by doing what useful idiots do best and that is to attack the messenger instead of the message by deflecting away from the message through out-of-context innuendo I nonetheless feel the need to point out the facts.

mis•ap•ply (noun) See theft.

thief (noun) A thief is a person who steals another person’s property.

Theft by Misapplication of Property

Generally, theft by misapplication of property is defined as the use of property for a purpose other than that for which it was intended. It implies a conscious misappropriation of property.

According to online legal sources, a person is guilty of misapplication of property when he knowingly uses the property of another without the consent of the owner.

Intellectual Property (IP)

According to Wikipedia Intellectual Property (IP) is “a legal concept which refers to creations of the mind for which exclusive rights are recognized.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.”

Fair Use

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use of intellectual property as a: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report…”

On November 15, 2013, Jay Koester posted a blog post he authored titled; “Subscribing to the El Paso Times: An exercise in futility”. On his post he goes on to describe his frustration trying to subscribe to the local paper.

However in his post he used a graphic I had created for my blog post; “Election Season Starting: Stable of Useful Idiots Increased by One”.

His use of my graphic on his blog has little, if anything, to do with his blog post. In fact Jay writes under the stolen graphic; “’What the heck is this Jay?’ Lol, I know, right? It’s a logo Martin ran over on his blog, I liked it a lot, and because nobody reads that blog, I thought I should put it over here. I love how it equates my power to the El Paso Times and ABC-7. What can I say? I’m bad to the bone. Or Martin’s crazy. I’ll let you decide which is true. There is one way, however, that this blog is similar to the El Paso Times. Neither of us has a circulation department.”

I know the hypocrisy is obviously lost to him however I cannot leave some of his comments unchallenged. He wrote; “I liked it a lot, and because nobody reads that blog, I thought I should put it over here.”

Hmm, at least one thief, if not many others, have at one time, or another rationalized that stealing property is good because no one will see it, or miss it. Just because he “liked it a lot” does not give him the right to misappropriate property that does not belong to him.

The graphic Jay Koester used without my permission is a graphic I created for my blog. By the fact that I created it, under copyright law the graphic is automatically vested with my copyright on it and as such it became my intellectual property. Therefore its use is completely subject to how I want it used.

Hold on a second! Aren’t you misapplying the logos of the El Paso Times and KVIA on your own graphic? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite as well? Before giving the useful idiots an opportunity to deflect from the message by creating an illusion I’ll address the concept of Fair Use.

I believe that my use of the logos falls under the theory of “fair use” because not only are the logos not a major component of the overall graphic they are also a part of the “criticism” I continually write about the news outlets and it is also a “parody” of their activities.

Jay Koester’s theft of my intellectual property does not “parody” my work because he doesn’t bother to make it a part of the content of the post; in fact, he himself writes that he used it because he “liked it a lot”. Since he “liked” he is obviously not criticizing it.

Ok, so I got that off my chest.

I could easily have him take it down by filing a take-down demand as per the Digital Millennium Act however useful idiots need to be exposed by their own stupidity.

So, Jay, since I know you read my blog, please know that by the simple fact that I did not send your service provider a take-down demand I am tacitly giving you permission to use my graphic after you stole it.

Allowing you to use it gives me the opportunity to easily expose your hypocrisy and for that I appreciate your misuse of my property. Oh, and thank you for liking it a lot especially since you would never recommend my blog to others but I understand, in your mind, it’s ok to steal my property.

Martin Paredes

Martín Paredes is a Mexican immigrant who built his business on the U.S.-Mexican border. As an immigrant, Martín brings the perspective of someone who sees México as a native through the experience...

17 replies on “Jay Koester: Thief and Hypocrite”

  1. Your circular argument and ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, Jay’s use of your graphic is patently fair use (a legal definition, not “theory”) under copyright law as even his caption includes commentary on your site. Besides, as it is such a small representation of the whole of your site, it is also clearly fair use. Whether you think it is (or grant permission for use) is irrelevant, as are your faux-benevolent promises not to file a DCMA takedown request. I’d point you to some pertinent legal discussions of the matter that would show you don’t have a leg to stand on, but I think Google works in Orlando, too.

    Your use of KVIA and El Paso Times logos is also fair use under trademark law. However, you’re confusing copyright and trademark law in your rush to absolve yourself from being a hypocrite. They’re separate, and you can’t file a DCMA request based on a trademark violation claim.

    Stop pretending to be a lawyer, Martín. You are as bad at interpreting the law as you are at writing succinctly. Oh, and don’t forget that Jay can file an anti-SLAPP motion against you if you ever try to claim copyright infringement. You’ll not only lose, you’ll pay his legal bills too.

  2. Martin,

    now you’re just being petty. Pick yourself up and fight back like a man. When they come at you with the truth you gotta hit them back with a conspiracy theory! Hell, I was just starting wonder where your grand conspiracy was going next and now you’ve detoured. Come on now, tell me the rest of the story!

  3. File the Digital Act. But you’re bullshiting and are to scared to do it. Just like how you won’t address the fact you don’t have anything to do with El Paso

  4. martin, why do you worry about shit like this especially coming from Jay. nobody reads his crap and his only fame to blogging was his once “naked harem” column and all the idiots that would chime in on it. it was hilarious and reminded me of the jerry springer show, but after that i believe nobody cared about his blogs and they shut it down at the times.

  5. I think most of this is right on, Martin. Good work, once again. Your posts are exceeded only by your cool graphics.

    I challenge only the notion that I called a lot of people crazy on my old Times blog. Everybody knows I only called one person crazy. But I don’t speak her name anywhere anymore. It’s too dangerous poking La Cucuy with a stick. I’m trying to live a quiet life.

  6. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    If DavidK and JayK have nothing better to do than mimic and make fun of Martin’s graphics and commentary, that says more about their blogs than Martin’s. Come on, dudes, get some original content.

    This city has precious little respectable print media. We turn to blogs for information. Can someone please ‘spane to me why the blogs have to attack each other?

    1. How can’t you make fun of this? It’s all so childish and stupid, but there are those like yourself that think this “original content” is real. It’s fiction.

      1. I do not believe everything I read — anywhere. I appreciate the way Martin presents his ideas and take his blog with a grain of salt, as with other blogs. Martin’s blog has more content than others. Why else would DavidK and JayK even worry about what’s said here?

  7. balmorhea,

    hate to break it to you, but Martin started this blog solely to go after me. His handlers don’t like me. Martin likes money. They made a little trade and you have what you have here.

    Besides, this is hilarious. Bullying the bully is the new “in thing,” FYI

  8. Watch out, Martín! Automattic, the company that created WordPress (which it looks like both you and Jay use for your blogs), just filed suit against two entities that submitted fraudulent DCMA takedown notices against two of its users. From their blog posting:

    These cases are both infuriating and increasingly common. While there are no legal consequences (like fines) under the DMCA for copyright abusers, there is a provision that allows victims of censorship (and their web hosts) to bring legal action against those who submit fraudulent DMCA notices. So today, we’ve joined with Oliver, Ivan, and Adam to take a small strike back at DMCA abuse. We’ve filed two lawsuits for damages under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for suits against those who “knowingly materially misrepresent” a case of copyright infringement.

    Until there are some teeth to the copyright laws, it’s up to us – websites and users, together – to stand up to DMCA fraud and protect freedom of expression. Through these suits, we’d like to remind our users that we’re doing all we can to combat DMCA abuse on….and most importantly, remind copyright abusers to think twice before submitting fraudulent takedown notices. We’ll be watching, and are ready to fight back.

    1. Hello Anson,

      I’m touched by your concern about my wellbeing. I also appreciate your attempt to keep me out of trouble. However I’m a big guy (much bigger than I wish to admit) and I can handle pretty much anything coming my way. As a proud owner of a Registered Trademark and a holder of numerous copyrights, too numerous to list here, I believe I’m well versed in the nuances of the two. Oh, I almost forgot, I have filed numerous takedown demands via the DCMA on my personal behalf and have helped my clients protect their online interests as well.

      I’m not sure your expertise on the matter since you are anonymous however I’m very confident that my experience on this far surpasses yours.

      But I thank you for your continued participation on my blog and for your attempt to help me, however misguided it might be.

  9. The same hubris and malpractice you exhibit, Martín, cost Charles Carreon hundreds of thousands of dollars due to judgments against him. How are you any different?

    1. Anson, hmmm, where do I begin? If you equate self-confidence with hubris then I accept your characterization of me. As a pilot I was taught to anticipate and evaluate each situation and respond appropriately as the facts around me change. In flight there are no brakes to use when the aircraft gets ahead of you. Instead, a competent pilot always stays ahead of the aircraft. I’m alive today so I believe I’m a competent pilot, and yes that may make me arrogant in your eyes. From my flying experience I have learned to anticipate rather than to react to any given situation. As a human being I’ve learned from my many mistakes and more importantly I have learned to learn from other’s mistakes. I don’t know the particulars of Charles Carreon’s actions therefore it would be unfair for me to do a comparison.

      However I get the distinct impression that my expression via my blog is personal for you. Since you choose to hide behind a pseudonym it is improper for me to get into a debate with you on the merits of how I choose to deal with how I manage my blog, my intellectual property or my other business activities.

      Again I thank you for taking the time to read my blog, although apparently what I write is very distasteful for you, which makes me wonder why you bother at all. However I appreciate that my writings are apparently significant enough for you to take the time to comment on them. A blogger is only effective when those that disagree with him take the time to read his material and comment on them.

      Thank you for your continued participation,

  10. First, I don’t equate self-confidence with hubris. No one who owns a dictionary does.

    Second, if you are in the online reputation business, as you allege you are, and don’t know about Charles Carreon, you are not a very good online reputation manager and are clearly doomed to repeat his gross errors in judgment. I previously thought that Google worked in Orlando, but perhaps I was mistaken?

    Third, flattered though you may be, your blog is neither personal nor significant to me, just a form of idle entertainment. I enjoy reading your fiction, though others suggest I am enabling your delusions of grandeur. If so, I apologize.

    Fourth, my anonymity seems to really bother you. You comment on it nearly every chance you get, but don’t on the others who comment pseudonymously here. Why is that? Perhaps it is my comments that are personal to you, not the other way around?

Comments are closed.