Read Adam’s Petition for Rehearing

Rosebush logo
Radical creativity.©

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals continued to throw the case out. The Court claimed the similarities did not outweigh the differences between the works. The next step for Adam was to file a Petition for Rehearing, and this is how he started off:

This petition for rehearing is submitted because the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judges 1.) failed to show an examination of the 63-category, 250-specific-item lists of proof that were plainly and painstakingly presented by the Plaintiff; 2.) the Court gave suspiciously illogical reasons for diminishing the voluminous evidence; 3.) the Court continued the star-struck deference to the high-powered Defendants as did the District Court, with the whole why-hasn’t-Mayor Booker-been-served-when-his-office-is-right-around-the-corner-from-the-U.S.-Marshals’s-office caper; and 4.) The Third Circuit Court of Appeals lied and prevaricated in favor of the Defendants.

Read the full petition below.



Case Number 11-3400

District Case Number 10-05371


  Plaintiff, Appellant.





  Defendants, Appellees.


Everett Adam Jackson

Newark, New Jersey

Plaintiff, Pro Se


This petition for rehearing is submitted because the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judges 1.) failed to show an examination of the 63-category, 250-specific-item lists of proof that were plainly and painstakingly presented by the Plaintiff; 2.) the Court gave suspiciously illogical reasons for diminishing the voluminous evidence; 3.) the Court continued the star-struck deference to the high-powered Defendants as did the District Court, with the whole why-hasn’t-Mayor Booker-been-served-when-his-office-is-right-around-the-corner-from-the-U.S.-Marshals’s-office caper; and 4.) The Third Circuit Court of Appeals lied and prevaricated in favor of the Defendants.

This petition sets down the cause of action as creation of a derivative work, and invokes the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction to enforce the copyright “derivative work” law and to pronounce legal judgments thereof, but must do so fairly. The copyright “derivative work” law is under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court has the power and authority to act ethically by publishing their itemized consideration of each and every copyright violation listed by the Plaintiff. The Court has been determined to ignore the essence of the complaint: that the Defendants created a derivative work. The Court’s failure to carefully consider Plaintiff’s complete lists of similarities, which do clearly establish a genuine dispute of fact, is harmful to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s evidence was diminished by the Court, an act in favor of the superstar Defense. Not putting every single piece of evidence in the context of the law renders impossibility on determining that the movie was derived from the book. The Court put blinders on itself and that is an injustice.


The decision has the words NOT PRECEDENTIAL at the top of the first page, and that is a legal shame. Because in this case of genre-busting counterclaims at these high levels of creative originality, political power and ground-breaking edutainment, the Court must keep up with society and elevate its service to protect citizens from piracy by the powerful.


The Court’s reviewer wrote that the Brick City book “tells a story about five teenagers from a hard-life big town housing project.” Indeed, those young folk were at the root of the copyright violation because their unique stories were the seed of the Brick City mockumentary. The heroic, football-playing, Brick City crime-stopping Jeep was transformed into Cory Booker. The prominent and unique stories of the teenagers’ parents were recast into the parents of Cory Booker. Those are similarities, especially when a fair reviewer appreciates that the book was handed by the author directly to Defendant Cory A. Booker and mailed by the author directly to Defendant Lisa Durden. A reasonable reviewer would look past the stars’ bright lights and big money to admit that the Defendants significantly and substantially used E. Adam Jackson’s book to make their movie.

Plaintiff would win at trial if the Court does not protect the Defendants by running the same old game of an African-American “has no rights the Court is bound to respect.” The Defendants had the book and decided to adapt it without the author’s permission. They committed a conscious act to take something of value that was not theirs.

The Court should not aid and abet just because they like Forest Whitaker as an actor or because they fear this case could mar the ascending political career of Cory Booker. That’s on the Defendants. “The Court leaves lawbreakers where it finds them.” The Court should allow the Plaintiff to get at the stealers of his work through the judicial branch of the United States government. The Court should respect the Plaintiff’s rights and his work instead of sloughing off the excess of similarities to leave a simple sip that is easily disposed of.


Page 2 of the Court’s decision mentions Forest Whitaker having received an Academy Award, as if the Court was writing an article for a fanzine. Mention of the Academy Award was immaterial, but its mention shows a deferential attitude that contributed to Plaintiff’s points not getting a full and fair review.

The Court’s mention of Forest Whitaker having an Academy Award is one indication that the Court has tended to be star-struck over the lofty political and entertainment personalities on the Defense side. E. Adam Jackson has won awards too. He received the Polemarch’s Award of Kappa Alpha Psi’s Newark Alumni Chapter in 2007 for serving the fraternity, whose members include former Federal Appellate Court Judge Leon Higginbotham Jr., whose book “In the Matter of Color” details the history of unfair treatment of African-Americans by the law. E. Adam Jackson was also honored with a Certificate Of Appreciation from an organization named The Attic, “In recognition of valuable contributions to Orange Middle School Students,” 2006. E. Adam Jackson was awarded for Dedicated Service by Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity’s chapter at Morgan State University, 1980. He received awards for Dedicated Service as well as for Outstanding Achievement And Dedicated Service from the Morgan State University Student Government Association, 1980. One of the presidents of the Morgan State University Student Government Association during this era was Peter Harvey, who became the Attorney General of New Jersey. Before that, E. Adam Jackson was awarded for Outstanding Contribution To Student Services, 1979. At the age of 19 years old, E. Adam Jackson received a Mayor’s Citation from the City of Baltimore for “Community Programs for Incarcerated Men and Women,” 1977. Prior to that E. Adam Jackson was a Commended Student in the National Achievement Scholarship Program, 1976, for having high scores on the SATs. In 1976 the future author of Brick City won Second Place in the Orange Citywide Creative Writing Contest.

This resume of awards is humbler than Forest Whitaker’s but the Plaintiff’s show the background of the true Brick City creator. Forest Whitaker won an Academy Award and has shared magnificent performances, but he did not conceive Brick City without help from the book by E. Adam Jackson. The Cablevision version of Brick City did win a Peabody Award and was nominated for a Primetime Emmy. Those awards were because of the book by E. Adam Jackson and the hybrid movie produced by the Defendants. E. Adam Jackson wrote the book, handed it to a Newark politician and a local cable show host, and was ripped off by those persons and their associates.

The Court’s interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a) “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” is a misinterpretation that favors the Defense, who can’t be allowed to just show their case but must prove their case, which they did not. The Court erred in determining that the differences had more weight than the similarities. The Court in fact did diminish the actual numbers of similarities listed in detail by E. Adam Jackson. The Court only picked out “a few” similarities to compare against the few differences that the Defense and the Court could come up with to achieve a comfortable verdict for the Academy Award winner, the Mayor of Newark, and other big-time violators of the Brick City copyright.

In order to handle this case at the level necessary to process this case, the Court must realize the staged aspect of what appeared on the screen. Without investigating the actors and producers/directors of the mockumentary, the reviewer cannot accept that any scenes in the show were 100% “entirely random,” as stated on page 9 of the Appellate decision. The Court must do the math from available evidence to see that the Brick City mockumentary was scripted from the book by E. Adam Jackson: 250 documented similarities, including 75 of 113 pages of his book, are in the Brick City movie. That’s 66% of the pages of the book being similar to specific areas of the movie, with 93 character similarities and 2/5 or 40% of the movie content being attributable to the book.


The Court lied that Plaintiff claimed his book was a hybrid. Plaintiff said that his book was an original genre, but the term “hybrid” came from the Defendants. The point is that “hybrid” infers a mixture of fiction and fact, with the fictional ingredient coming from the Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson.

The mixing of fiction and fact took place not only through how the characters in the book inspired the movie personalities, but also how the book informed their actions. The dozens of similarities listed in detail by the Plaintiff show distinct copying of the book characters by the movie’s actors. The Brick City real people often do what the book’s fictional characters did; scenes evolve similarly. The so-called historical real-life actions of the mockumentary players are substantially directed by the unique creative expression written by E. Adam Jackson.

Cory A. Booker not only showed a positive strong personality like the character Jeep, but also involved his parents, playing football, and gathering his crime-fighting group to battle lawbreakers in Brick City, like Jeep.

The Court was wrong when they called The Hustler “a minor character.” The Hustler, aka Rashid Hasan, was the major transformative force in the book! He not only changed himself for the better, he changed the face of the neighborhood, directed young men’s goals in life, improved the political prospects of corrupt leaders, and changed the perception of a determined detractor – so the Court was way off, again.

The Court admits that Principal Baraka bears resemblance to Mr. Shell, but then casts doubt on dozens of other similarities. The character Jayda did the same things as the unique character Liana: both vomited, both announced to her mother and the baby’s father separately, both were executive organizers…this is another substantial similarity. Mr. Abdullah wore doctor’s costumes and so does Street Doctor. What an amazing coincidence it would be if Street Doctor’s appearance in the movie was due to happenstance.

The item labeled as “most egregious” by the Court was also unfairly assessed. Because it’s more than just the same words being spoken. The copied dialogue is accompanied by a substantial similarity in action. A jury of twelve will see this evidence and would be in favor of the Plaintiff’s case.

The Defendants used dialogue and more from the book: In the book where Angelo Bruno says “I know the kid” just before Casher robs the drug sellers, firing one shot, it is similar to the film’s dialogue “I know the guy” after a similar crime in the movie. See page 89 in the book and 10:04 of the movie, as directed in Item 7 of the similarities list. Note the get-the-money-and-one-shot-is-fired format that waves the red flag of infringement. The Appeals Court left that out in favor of the famous Defendants.

So the Court, in its star-struck attempt to nudge justice in favor of the idolized Defendants, would be operating with self-adjusted blinders to say that the movie cameras just happened to turn on and capture the same words and the same action. The similarities go way beyond the title.

On page 3 also, the Court suspiciously places a footnote stating that they will not discuss all of the similarities listed by the Plaintiff “because the parties, for whom we write primarily, are well-acquainted with the contents of Jackson’s response in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary motion.” Since the Court was writing for the Plaintiff, he would like to see every chapter-by-chapter comparison from the book discussed in context with every minute-by-minute similarity cited in his lists. There are not merely 63 similarities, but 63 categories of similarity. There are multiple incidences of similarity within those categories, adding up to 250. That is substantial and overwhelming. Yet that would not be enough for a Court that may be star-stricken, color prejudiced, or politically opposed to the Brick City Movement and its creator, E. Adam Jackson.

Since the Court impeded E. Adam Jackson’s right to a jury of his peers, the Court must perform due diligence in investigating and reporting each and every incident detailed for the convenience of the Court by Plaintiff.


The copying prong of “copying the constituent parts of the work that are original” was proved by Plaintiff but unjustly put aside by the Court.   By leaving the bulk of listed similarities out of the discussion, the Court unfairly isolated a few admitted similarities and ignored many others.

That the Court did not fully review the volume of violations based on some presumption of familiarity with the list’s contents is not sufficient to protect Plaintiff’s right to exclusive use of his own materials.

Since the Court found some similarities, logic would then take them through a full investigation of all 250 points.  Such a red flag should give the Court probable cause and pique their interest. But obviously it did not, and both the Court and the Defense failed to show any other works that had specific similarities as did Plaintiff’s case.

The Court prevaricated in writing that Plaintiff did not rebut the Defendant’s “established” fundamental differences, after the author gave strong and genuine disputes of fact.

If the Court saw any similarities, then they should have extended the review and addressed each item given in the lists in comparing the book with in the mockumentary. The responsibility and dedication of the Court is challenged in this case.

The judges or other reviewers of the Brick City case have an unprecedented opportunity. The Court can rule fairly where rich and powerful interests have historically stolen valuable assets of vulnerable brown-skinned persons. Racists and their cronies historically stole the land that holds the United States, stole Africans across the ocean to the United States, and famously stole the music of African-American artists.

The descendants of these cultural robbers have now arrested the artistry of a single writer whose concept would change the deplorable condition of the mass of non-elite classes. The Court can free the concept that would liberate the minds and physical condition of many by establishing a legal precedent that big corporations are no longer going to be allowed unrestricted access to the copyrighted creativity of individual artists.

The Court’s surmise that a layperson would not know the similarities is another artful distortion of reality that gives deference to the Defense. The Court imposed their own personalized level of dumbed-down analytical skill that does not address the actual similarities. A real-life layperson that, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, is not a college graduate did see both and behaved as though he believed they were the same. The Court claims they would not see the similarity because they don’t want to see it. The Court should allow a jury of U.S. citizens to see the evidence. Twelve laypersons would find for the Plaintiff.

Even if the layperson viewpoint was used, it would only be fair if the “layperson” read the book, saw the movie, and then carefully reviewed the law and the evidence. Plaintiff’s claim is not whether or not a layperson would recognize the similarities, but that the Defendants expertly knew what they were doing, that the work was E. Adam Jackson’s and they used it without his permission. Those who turned the author’s work into a mockumentary were not laypersons, they were the educated elite — well aware of their wrongful actions, but for some reason the Court sees no evil.

Unless the Court presents a discussion on every position presented by Plaintiff, the Court is not giving full consideration to the evidence. The Brick City Copyright Infringement Case should not be judged by a casual, whimsical method.

The Court was star-struck, from the U.S. Marshal’s reluctance to serve Mayor Cory A. Booker and the Defense team’s willingness to proceed in disrespect of Court procedures, with not a peep from the Court, to the unnecessary noting of Forest Whitaker’s Academy Award. Plaintiff wrote a letter that lead to Cory A. Booker finally being served, and this petition should lead to this case finally being seriously heard.

If the alleged scenes a faire written by Plaintiff resemble so many other books, what books would those be and what pages of those books? The Defense mentioned some stories that supposedly meet the criterion, but never specified any similarities. There was not one character offered that fits the unique characters created, published, and copyrighted by E. Adam Jackson.

Did any other authors of this hypothetical group of similar books hand one to Cory A. Booker and mail more than one to Lisa Durden? Those Defendants followed distribution with an active repetition of copyrighted materials that were first published in Plaintiff’s book then appeared after the book was handed to Cory A. Booker and mailed to Lisa Durden.


The Court describes “A handful of similarities.” How many similarities fit in one’s hand? Two? Two dozen? Surely the more than 250 specified by Plaintiff can fit in a person’s hand, but that does not make the similarities “few.” That “handful” line is tricky language from the Court intended to diminish the Plaintiff’s case.

The Appellate Court failed to hold Judge Linares accountable for incorrect citation of a rule. This is incompetence by one Court, and its condoning and continuation by another. The sloppy and inconsiderate errors of the Court serve the treacherous ends of the Defense. The Court shows no curiosity about the term “hybrid” used by the Defendants. The “hybrid” statement by one of the Defendants deserves to be investigated by trial.

The Court conveniently left out the many similarities, conceding only enough to keep the Defendants in deniable circumstances. The Court’s decision downplays the rights of the Plaintiff as if his rights don’t count.   Meanwhile, the Court acts as if their mandate to give the Defendants a decision means the Defense is entitled to a favorable decision. The Defense is not entitled to a favorable decision, and “The Court must consider all facts presented and the reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”.

The Defense has never denied that Cory A. Booker received the book directly from E. Adam Jackson on a Newark street. Nor do they deny that Lisa Durden, who was the show’s Associate Producer, received the book by mail from E. Adam Jackson. The Court showed no interest in what the Defendants did with the books Plaintiff shared. The Court seems not to have entertained the question of how the movie crew came together and what role the book played throughout their project. Testimony on this would be of interest to a jury of Plaintiff’s peers.

The Court artfully and intentionally diminished the power of Plaintiff’s claim by ignoring evidence, misstating facts, and fabricating mistruths against E. Adam Jackson. The Court was awed by the power of the Defendants. The Brick City Copyright Infringement Case should be re-heard as prescribed in this petition.

Dated:   February 27, 2012 A.D.

Plaintiff pro se:


Newark, NJ

           Use the side menu to reach other pages