Cory Booker and his copyright pirates owe us $21 million. Here’s why:

The Copyright Law Broken by the Cory Booker Media Pirate Crew

What is copyright infringement?

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Cory Booker and his crew created a derivative work of Brick City without the author’s permission.

Main Evidence of Cory Booker Fraud

The Brick City Copyright Violation: Similarities and Differences Between the Sundance Movie and E. Adam Jackson’s Book

By E. Adam Jackson

April 2, 2010 A.D.

Similarities

The following format is used to show what page number of my book was used at what minute and second of their movie. : “(Page #)” denotes the book page number; “(##:##)” designates the approximate minute and second of the movie.

H {Start of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”}The first similarity is the film title being the same as the book: Brick City

H The location mentioned in the book is “could be a Newark…” p. 2; the film series is focused on Newark and now from the very first visual scenes in the intro
H Executive producer Forest Whitaker locates the project in Newark in his introduction (0:19)
H The book is structured in five chapters; the film includes five episodes
H The Brick City crime patrol organized and led by Jeep become in the film Cory Booker’s and Police Dir McCarthy leading the police force against crime (86-88) (1:15…) (9-12:13) (14:25) (32:21-33:55)
Both feature a politician in a dilemma (Booker and Mizzetti) (50-53) (1:50…)
Police officers at the projects are a recurrent theme (1-4,90-93) (4:43…)
H A romantic couple are two of the main characters (3,4,18-20,80-86,95-98,103-105) (6:31…) (12:34-13:49)
H The film’s line “I know the guy” after a crime at 10:04 is similar to the line in the book on p. 89 where Angelo Bruno says “I know the kid” as Casher contemplates robbing Angelo’s pizza parlor (89) (10:04)
H A pregnancy announcement is made by the female romantic to the male romantic (95) (13:13)
H A pregnancy announcement is made to the female romantic’s mother (86) (13:27)
There is a visit to a politician’s home (51-53) (13:52…14:20)
A swimming pool is featured (12-17) (15:08)
The line, “in the midst of a movement” at 15:33 is reflective of the Rosebush Business Plan, which describes and details the Brick City movement which began with the publication of our book Brick City (Business Plan 1-4)
H The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were replaced in the movie in part by The Street Doctor (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (17:37-20:55)
H Fathering issues are a focus in both, in which the movie is reminiscent of book characters like Scottsboro who is mentored by Mr. Abdullah; also in the movie they become the bus load of boys on Father’s Day being mentored by the Street Doctor (26-28) (19:18-20:55)
Police motif throughout (1,2,3,4,93) (21:09-)
H Police filming crime and videotaping suspect’s actions (1,3) (22:23-25:15)
In the book, the Cool House is an entity designed to elevate the community, in the movie the Integrity House is a parallel entity (3, 41-43,49,50,108) (26:06-26:50) (35:16)
Both romantic couple are leaders within the community (80,84,86-88) (26:12-29:09) (35:10-36:32)
An approach is made to drug dealers within the action (88) (26:58-27:21)
H In the movie the Street Doctor is on the scene after a shooting; in the book Rashid Hasan is on the scene after Casher smash-n-grabs a blue leather jacket (42-44) (29:54)
H Like the book, the movie focuses on parenting: Mother Iris Vine and daughter Liana Vine, mother Willamina and son Jeep, mother Violet and son Scottsboro, father Robert Burns and son Scottsboro; this parenting focus was similarized by the Father’s Day scene featuring The Street Doctor, Creep being a stepfather and father, Cory Booker’s parents being repeatedly featured throughout the film including at a tribute speech, at home, in an interview, and on the radio (22-38,45,46,51-65,72,73,78,79,85,86,94-98) (8:27…) (13:52) (34:20-37:52)
Both refer to children of politicians (38,39,51-53,65,66) (16:23)
Both show politician in attendance at community sports events (102) (16:00) (38:32-39:28)
HThe incident at 40:31 of the DVD in the project courtyard is like the Casher holdup in the project lobby, considering the actions: get the drugs and the money and fire one gunshot done in different sequence but composition is similar (90,91) (40:31-40:54)
Police swarm the scene at the projects (93) (41:10)
HOld gangster counsels young gang member (King Sau counsels Jayda in movie, in book Rashid Hasan counsels Casher) (42,43) (41:21-43:00)
H Cops confer on criminal behavior as do the book’s group of young men following Jeep, just before a sweep at the projects (86,87) (43:01)
Meaningful scene of the sun over the downtown buildings and over the canal (58) (43:45)
H Movie’s pregnant romantic female vomits in toilet, as does book’s Liana on (p. 22) (43:51-44:54)
H Movie has barbershop scene at 44:54; book has virtual barbershop scene on (p. 108) (44:54)
Scenes of projects, (some houses), correctional facility, bridges (2,47,105) (50:27)
H Jayda turning herself in to the law is like when Casher gets “baptized” (he is then facing the law after falling into the canal, like Jayda’s fall) and when Casher is in jail looking out the window at Jeep, Rashid Hasan, and the other bridge walkers after he bragged all big and bad (93,105-107) (45:35-46:17…) {End of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”}
H {Start of Episode 2, “The Struggle”} The female romantic gets locked up as the book’s Casher got locked up, loved ones show concern (93,105-107) (3:01-4:10) (9:52) (18:31-20:43)
H Book shows The Canal and the Canal Master making economic plans/ Movie features Port Newark waterfront and Newark economic development plans (70-72) (4:11-6:17)
H “Making Newark the model for urban transformation” a quote which takes form our original Brick City idea as written in our Business Plan (Business Plan 87,88,74) (4:34)
H Property development/ economic development issues show similarities between Rashid Hasan from the book and similarities between the Rosebush Business Plan and the Brick City Development Corporation whose logo is shown interposed with Deputy Mayor Stefan Pryor from the movie (BP 88) (5:28)
The book’s Brick City anti-crime patrol is like the movie’s Men Against Murdering Our Children group (86-88) (6:51-9:06)
H Councilman Mizetti has a demolition scheme/ Movie shows reminiscent scene of workers in city demolishing buildings; Cory Booker helps demolish and speaks about development (50-51) (11:35-12:18) (22:11-24:05)
The church as a place of transformation, (1, 2, 18, 66…) (13:57)
Redemption of jailed souls (49,107) (15:41-20:43) (24:05-26:22) (33:08)
H The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were replaced in the movie in part by the mentoring program at Central High School (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (20:45) (26:23-26:39)
H Book features high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (26:40…)
In the book a healing of interethnic neighborhood divisions is shown by Casher hanging out with Italian Boys at night in the movie it’s shown by Cory Booker visiting with the Latina from Grafton projects (12-16,107) (29:57-30:39)
H The book features Scottsboro, the background of his name and his dream embodies The Struggle Against Racism/ In the movie Baraka and the POP demonstration represent The Struggle, by remembering the rebellion of 1967: both have court trial scenes, both have organizations that make a move to control their environment by patrolling the building and confronting criminals (46,56,74,75) (31:36-33:06)
The urban politician as a positive force (52,53,102) (28:56-29:50)
H Controversy about a male touching a female’s chest occurs in both (21, 22, 54, 85, 86) (35:41-)
H Cory Booker anti-crime pep talk with police and their ensuing anti-crime efforts is like Jeep leading the anti-crime meeting and the fellows moving against crime on p. 86-88 plus more (police helicopter at 46:43 & 47:13) in Brick City (86-88) (43:12-45:29){End of Episode 2 “Struggle”}
H {Start of Episode 3 “Central”} Both show the struggle of the high school principal and the high school, struggling within the system (9,10,98-100) (3:11-5:21) (9:40-10:33) (27:44-29:28) (31:56-33:20) (40:55) (44:21)
A city official trying to get past corruption and drama in Brick City (38,50-53) (7:01-9:25…)
H Male-female relationship building (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (5:24 -6:55) (11:47 – 14-54) (26:07 – 27:43) (29:37 – 31:55) (54:45)
HCory Booker adopts the characteristics of main characters: athletic leadership of Jeep, movement in the struggle of Scottsboro, fatherlessness of them and Tyrone ((INSERT PAGE NUMBERS)) (15:07-15:33) (42:20 – 44:09)
H Male mentoring in Brick City 25-28,30,31-34,42,43,46,47,50,60,74,87,89,108-110) (40:55 – 44:50) (46:15 – 46:50) (47:43 – 50:44)
H Female romantic shows organizational skills (80-84,86-88, 104-105) (44:51 – 46:15) (46:51 – 47:42) {end of Episode 3 “Central”}
H {Start of Episode 4 “Circus”} In the book police take action at the projects with helicopters, the movie shows similar scene; (1,2,3,4,93) (1:12 – 2:14) (helicopter 24:35)
Positive interethnic relations: between Euro-American and Afro-American people of Brick City; interactions between ‘black and white associates} (12-14,107)
Political controversy in the news (police feud, Councilman Mizetti) (38, 51) (3:34 – 6:06) (9:50 – 13:23) (27:43 – 28:12) (34:05 – 36:02) (42:24 – 46:
H Male-female relationship building (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (6:11 – 7:01) (26:48 – 27:38)
H In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/in movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (7:02 – 7:40) (13:23 – 14:12) (29:24 – 30:32) (43:34 – 44:16 this scene also furthers the “organizer” characteristic) (48:06 – 51:04)
Rapping happens within the story (p. 24, 26, 76, 109, 111) (8:46 – 9:01)
Humanization of young gangsters and thugs occurs in both (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
Cory Booker used the circus like Councilman Mizzetti used the karate tournament & the medical program: to let something go through for the people that helps the community and then take as much credit as possible (102) (14:57 – 15:27) (47:13 – 48:03)
H Female romantic has heart to heart with mother about baby and baby’s father and about plans for organizing — of course theirs is negative and mine is more positive (96-97) (24:50 – 25:45)
H In the book Liana consulted with a sportswriter and a scout about her project, which was to manage the million dollar talents of her quarterbacking boyfriend Jeep Thomas and then he performs his talent as planned on the field/In the movie female romantic organizer consults with Cory Booker about her female mentoring project and then takes her project to the streets/ (80-82) (36:03 – 39:26)
Preachers and preaching (17, 66-69)
Prayer as a redeeming factor—Jayda’s son says The Lord’s Prayer/ Miss Ella Mae praying over the three ladies; Rev. Tucker praying over the congregation {end of Episode 4”Circus} (67-69)
{Start of Episode 5 “Red October”} In the book the Hustler goes from criminal to caring community member, dealing with crime and youth/ In the movie Ali Muslim is put in the role of a former criminal who now cares about the community and comments on crime and youth ((INSERT PAGE NUMBERS)) (1:32 – 2:37)
In the book the Hustler goes from criminal to caring community member/ In the movie the producers use the Street Doctor in that role ((INSERT PAGE NUMBERS)) (6:15 – 6:30)
H In book Scottsboro represents the struggle against racism/ In movie Cory Booker assumes “We are freedom fighters” posture ((INSERT PAGE NUMBERS)) (2:37)
H In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/in movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (4:04 – 4:36) (19:01) (39:47 – 40:23)
Mothers raising sons, guiding young men to manhood: Jayda and son at 5:00 or so (16, 17, 25, 27, 29-34, 35, 55-65, 72, 73, 79) (4:51 – 5:24)
H Cory Booker statement “Newark will set a national standard for urban transformation” echoes page 87 of the Rosebush Production Company Business Plan; Booker makes statement both in movie and it’s quoted on BCDG Web site (BP p. 87)
Humanization of young gangsters and thugs occurs in both (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107)
H In book, football scene leads to Liana doing PR to promote Jeep; in movie football scene leads to Jayda mentoring (public relations) scene (80-82) (11:56 – 13:09)
H In book, Councilman Mizzetti consults with his lawyer; in movie politicians repeatedly consult in playing politics (51, 52) (11:00 – 11:54) (14:00 – 15:33)
In the book, there is the Brick City patrol, an aggressive anti-crime group that witnesses a drug robbery in which there is a shooting amid dissension between opposing gangs (86-94) (30:50)
H Book features high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (27:48 – 30:52) (33:04 – 36:00)
H At 41:42 Police Director McC. says “if I were to write a book” perhaps stating the guilty awareness of those who recognized a great story and then stole it, tipping us off by unconsciously telling on themselves (41:42)
H The book ends off with a poem by Scottsboro Wood; the film’s Bonus Features section includes a poem by Mayor Corey Booker (111)

Character Similarities

((EAJ REVIEW AND INSERT MOVIE TIMES))

Character copy: in the book Councilman Mizzetti is a politician who plays a central role by doing the right thing; in the movie he became Mayor Cory Booker who plays the central role
Character copy: Councilman Mizzetti the politician also became Councilman Oscar James
Character copy: Liana and Jeep, the book’s couple who becomes pregnant as (cover, 3,4,18-20) Liana plans and organizes for family’s future despite issues with her mother, (80-86,95-98) became in the movie the gang-related couple who gets pregnant but the young mother is a gang girl who becomes an organizer of a girl’s mentoring group
Character copy: High school principal Mr. Shell became the principal of Central High School (9,10,98-100)
Character copy: Rashid Hasan, a.k.a. The Hustler, is a former criminal who (34,35,42,43) transforms himself to be a pillar of the community; in the movie The Hustler/ Rashid Hasan became The Street Doctor and Brother Ali Muslim as well as Jiwe (40-50, 102-108); all three explain their transformation from criminal to communal behavior
Character copy: The property development activities of The Hustler became the property developers in the film series (41-43, 49, 50, 108)
Character copy: Tyrone Broadway, the book’s young karate fighter, became Michael Perez Central High School’s young boxer (3,34,78,101,108,109,46,47)
Character copy: The trials and transformations of the book’s young gang member Casher became the trials and transformations of the movie’s young gang member/ female romantic partner Jayda (3,4,5-17,39-43,88-93,105-107)
Character copy: The anti-gang, anti-crime activities led by Jeep and the boys become the anti-gang, anti-crime activities in the film led by Mayor Cory Booker, Police Director McCarthy and Cory Booker, and community groups and individuals like my next door neighbor Sister Donna Jackson (86-88)
Character copy: Mr. Abdullah, the librarian who wears costumes including a doctor’s costume to help make his points for self-improvement, became The Street Doctor, who often wears a doctor’s costume (26-28, 87)
Character copy: Scottsboro, the fatherless young man whose name symbolizes the struggle against US racism, is the model for the movie’s group of fatherless youth being mentored by the school administrators, for Cory Booker and his parents relationship being explored, and for Cory Booker posing as the freedom fighter (25,27,29-33,55-65,94)
Character copy: The repeated police helicopter monitoring and dealing with crime in the book is mimicked by repeated police helicopter monitoring in the film (1,2,3,4,93)
Character copy: The parents Orleen and Ty Sr., Violet and Prof. Burns, became Corey Booker’s parents (72,73,78,79,94)

Telling Differences

(First three episodes together)

((EAJ REVIEW AND INSERT MOVIE TIMES))

My book is fiction, the film series has been described as a docu-drama, a hybrid genre-buster — actually it’s a mock-u-mentary, a staged documentary based on my idea and trespassing on my intellectual property. The Booker Administration used my characters mixed with their own self-serving, self-determination-diminishing violation of my vision. The Booker Administration overwhelmingly used Brick City the book to promote their own partisan political perspective. In the process they aggressively abrogated my original 100-page business plan and its accompanying colorful paperback novel. My Brick City package was hard to miss in their office or in the bookstore across the street from Newark City Hall, which city workers bought from me, were given to them hand to hand from me on the street. If the producers and all their associates claim not to have seen anything about Brick City by E. Adam Jackson, it challenges belief that such a big professional media organization did not search out the copyright to discover the longest held copyright on Brick City is Adam Jackson. The producers and associates should have been familiar with my work, since I hand delivered the book around Newark City Hall numerous times to numerous offices. I distributed the book all around town for over a decade and for years the book was on the shelves over at Source of Knowledge, the bookstore across the street from Newark City Hall
The film makes Cory Booker the main character and hero, absorbing the main characters of Scottsboro and Jeep with Scott’s personification of “The Struggle” and Jeep’s athleticism and heroism as well as focus on their parents (3, 8, 9, 20, 30-34, 45, 46, 55-65, 74-77, 80-88, 95-97, 103, 104) (15:25)
Movie is more specifically focused on Newark; the book says it could be Newark and other cities (2)
The book promotes community development through community members; the movie shows community development mostly through outsiders (14, 18, 19, 20, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41-43, 46-50, 52, 55, 58, 61)
Movie changes the true meaning of how the name Brick City came about, re-planting the root and origin of this grassroots phenomenon; obscuring the projects for a more promotionally friendly version {the eventual international union of Brick Cities is my concept} (see Rosebush Business Plan; Brief History of Brick City)
The romantic couple is gang-related instead of sports-related as in the book (3, 20, 80-85, 103, 104)
In the movie the romantic couple already has stepchildren; then female gets pregnant with their first baby together; in the book the teenage couple is having their first baby (19,22, 81, 82, 86, 95-98, 103-105)
In the movie the romantic male works at the Integrity House; in my book Rashid Hasan works operates the Cool House, both houses are places for role modeling, resources, employment etc. (3, 41-43, 46-50, 101-103, 107-109)
In the movie the female romantic mentors young ladies; in my book Liana does PR for her boyfriend Jeep (80-85, 104, 105)
In the movie a little girl interviews Cory Booker; in my book Liana interacts with a sportswriter and a scout (80-82)
In the movie Dave Kerr runs Integrity House; in my book Rashid Hasan runs the Cool House (3, 41-43, 46-50, 101-103, 107-109)
In movie Jayda deals face to face with Dave Kerr to help her organization; in my book Liana interacts with media and scouts to advance her man’s career (80-82)
The Booker Administration has big money; I do not
Cory Booker’s transformation of Brick City is a moderate modification of my original radically transformative vision
In the movie the romantic couple has issues of alleged male infidelity; in my book Jeep is rock solid in love with no mention of other women
The movie shows African-American males in a more negative light, reinforcing negative images
The movie emphasizes violence with Cory Booker and police dir McCarthy as savior heroes
The movie expands the role of the Mayor’s office and the police
(Episode 4, circus) The movie shows specifics particular to Newark in 2008 A.D.
The movie features a book by an enlightened gang member named Jiwe, which may represent a continuation of the movement {for reference, look for the phrase “Brick City” in Jiwe’s book, “The War of the Bloods Runs in My Veins”}. My book started the movement and featured gangs and gang members, practicing gangs as well as positive and reformed ex-members (movement info: Rosebush Business Plan p. 1) (gangs and gangsters info: 1-17, 19, 27, 39-53, 70-72, 86, 87-94, 102, 103, 105-108 {half the book}) (10:46-11:42)
Brick City the book is a tool in The Struggle, not a sideshow (Rosebush Business Plan p. 1 & throughout; Brick City book throughout, include Brick City Study Guide)
Movie uses the circus as the climax, Cory Booker states that the circus is “the symbolic crown jewel of excitement”; while the book uses the Wild Night with its extreme weather and calamity destroying the evil plans of the criminally corporate government domestic enemies (80-94)
The Mayor and the police director are the main characters instead of Jeep, Ty, Scottsboro (cover, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18-20, 22, 22-36, 44-47, 53, 55-65, 74-88, 91, 93-98, 101-105, 107-111 {approx 62% of the book})
The movie goes deeper into gang activities (perpetuating the violence motif)
Emphasis on voting in movie deals with Obama campaign, in book it deals with political expedience by a elected official and his positive acts among the citizens to maintain the status quo by keeping himself in office and out of trouble (52, 53, 102)
Movie shows conflicts between man and woman as opposed to the tranquil relationship Jeep and Liana have (cover, 3, 4, 18-20, 78, 80-85, 103-105)
The movie features the election of President Obama, under the category of politics characterized by Councilman Mizetti who uses his elected office to nominate Serena for the medical program, then showing up at the karate tournament for a little handshaking and paparazzi action to bulletproof and redeem himself after the demolition scam (52, 53, 102)
The passionate speechmaking of Cory Booker mimics the sermons of Rev Tucker (66-69)
The producers did an excellent job of what they did – treating the Brick City original with character alterations, twists in plot, and changes in focus to promote the Booker administration (as abundantly illustrated in this document)
In the book the Brick City High School principal struggles and moves into soybean farming; in the movie Central High School principal struggles and finally moves his students and staff into the new building (9-11, 98-100)
In the book Rev Tucker prays for redemption and relief for his congregation; in the movie the preacher thanks God for Cory Booker (they’re even getting God in on the act) (66-69)
Councilman James of Newark is like Councilman Mizzetti in elected position and appearance at community events (102)
The book has The Canal Master; the movie shows Port Newark and its (director)

(2, 70-72, 92, 93, 109)
Marc Benjamin and Marc Levin Points of Interest

Marc Benjamin and Marc Levin almost immediately falsify the origin and meaning of the phrase Brick City in the Executive Producer’s /Director’s “Behind the Scenes of Brick City” first chance they get — they introduce themselves and immediately start lying (see “History of Brick City” by E. Adam Jackson (0:16)
Marc Benjamin and Marc Levin say they started out with a normal production process, and explained away how they met the romantic couple
Who is Evan Benjamin (sound mixer) to Marc Benjamin? Did Marc Benjamin cut his family in and cut me and my family out?
In the director’s comments Marc Levin says that author Jiwe “wasn’t a nobody” because he was a star quarterback and a warrior from the streets. Was I a nobody to Marc Levin, with my Brick City manuscript stolen through his movie, me with my English degree, with my other literary accomplishments as editor of The Spokesman and Chicory poetry magazine?
Forest Whitaker Points of Interest

Forest Whitaker says in his Executive Producer comments: “not just for Newark but for people struggling everywhere.” My book says on p. 2 “…it could be Newark…”
“I was really interested in the piece ((this comment of Forest Whitaker denotes or describes a “piece”,” as in something already existing; Forest Whitaker did not say “the concept” or “the idea” he said “the piece”))
“If we (???) it right it would represent a lot of the cities across the country that needed urban renewal”
Forest Whitaker was working with Marc Levin on another project
Forest Whitaker said that all the individuals decided to make a difference and a change (the Rosebush Business Plan laid it all out, first and original)
Speaking of people who stepped up, a term used by Forest Whitaker, it’s me who stepped up with Brick City following my university education and the teachings of those like my mentor, Amiri Baraka — and I’m stepping up to take back control of my Brick City idea
In the Executive Producer’s intro to Episode 2, Forest Whitaker says, “At times this might feel like a Hollywood movie, but this is 100% real.” The S.W.A.T. team raid apparently seeking Jayda was real? How would the moviemakers know that a raid was going to happen? Did they just happen to be there, or was it staged? Would they really send a squad like that for her for the crimes she committed? The numerous scenes that mirror and echo the book, 100% real? Real what?

Bonus Scenes

Ali Muslim represents the changed criminal a la Rashid Hasan; Brother Ali as a parent also represents the anguish in The Mother’s Cry p. 53
The Booker Administration’s promotion of and plans for Brick City are so similar in structure to the business plan of the Rosebush Production Company; see pp. 63-77 o f the RBP, and there’s more
The book’s Brick City anti-crime patrol done on pp. 86-88 is mirrored by the anti-violence people’s demonstration in the movie
In the book Liana holds court with the sportswriter and scout to persistently and intelligently promote her male counterpart/ in movie Tai Dunn interviews Cory Booker
The book ends with a poem “Brick City” by Scottsboro Wood; the movie’s Bonus Scenes include a poem recited by Corey Booker
Preachers are involved
Cory Booker absorbed the characters of Jeep, Scott, and Ty to an extent; he is the leadership-able, anti-crime, football-playing hero whose mother and father are oh so proper focal points in the action like Jeep. Plus Cory Booker becomes the poet, the symbol of struggle like Scottsboro, again with the parenting focus associated with Ty

Miscellaneous

Mayor Cory Booker says the words “…change the law” – which is indicative of The Booker Administration attitude towards things currently legal and illegal
In Episode 4 police director McCarthy says, “You couldn’t get a fiction writer to make this up” – telling on themselves again? H At 41:42 of Episode 5 Police Director McC. says “if I were to write a book” perhaps stating the guilty awareness of those who recognized a great story and then stole it, tipping us off by unconsciously telling on themselves (41:42)
Ex-mayor Sharpe James was criticized for not creating so-called “black millionaires,” yet here is The Booker Administration taking the original idea of E. Adam Jackson — a longtime Newark resident — and stealing his concept, his plot, his plan, and his profits by making Brick City their own, denying the originator of the movement who paid his dues and put blood sweat and tears into the creation of a movement that would elevate communities locally and across the nation

The Booker Administration expanded my plan for Brick City paraphernalia, gangs, movie — the Brick City Development Corporation for example shows the logical evolution of my concept as introduced by my publication of Brick City the book. The Booker Administration stole my ideas and tried to cut me out of the movement I began.
The Booker Administration overlooked the creator of the Brick City brand and the originator of the movement to unethically do their own version of my idea
Sundance (a Cablevision company) tags the production as “original,” yet their program could only be an afterthought to the foundation of Brick City, an outgrowth of the seed I planted in 1990-91. Sundance is falsely claiming “original”

End of document

EAJ

Video Evidence of Cory Booker Criminality

Click the link below to watch Brick City Video Evidence episodes 1 thru 40 on our E. Adam Jackson YouTube Channel. See how Cory Booker was involved in a clear violation of U.S. Copyright Law. Cory Booker helped to rip off his own constituent. And now thie guy wants to become your President.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTjivFZuxmbdo4Ucb6tebNg/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0

About The Lawsuit Against Cory Booker

Original Brick City author sues over copyright

November 1, 2010-16 — Newark, NJ

E. Adam Jackson, author of the book Brick City, has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a powerful group. Jackson says that the award-winning Brick City series that appears on Sundance Channel is in part an unauthorized adaptation of the text he copyrighted in 1990 and published in book form in 1991.

The defendants are Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker, the star of the series; Forest Whitaker, executive producer; Marc Benjamin and Marc Levin, executive producers/directors; Lisa Durden, associate producer; and top executives from Sundance Channel, Rainbow Media, and Cablevision.

Jackson, who lives in Newark, owns the original copyright among all entities titled “Brick City.” The website of the U.S. Copyright Office, located at www.copyright.gov, confirms that the registration held by Adam Jackson is the oldest of all Brick City works.

Jackson personally handed Cory Booker a book and a business card when he saw him walking near Newark Penn Station. When Jackson discovered that Lisa Durden had a television program on Cablevision called Brick City, he sent her media packages including his book and business plan in hopes of appearing on her show. Even without those contacts, if experienced professionals such as the defendants had conducted a proper search of the phrase Brick City, they would have seen that Adam Jackson held the original copyright. The fact that the Brick City book has been sold at the Source of Knowledge bookstore across Broad Street from Newark City Hall since 2003 also indicates that Jackson’s work was accessible to the makers of the Sundance series.

Jackson believes the similarities between the book and the movie, along with the amounts of money pledged in the movie, the high quality of the advertisements on the show, and reported revenues of the corporations justify the $21,325,828 he demands.

He believes that specific portions of the movie compared with specific parts of the book are clear and convincing evidence that he will use in a jury trial, which he also demands.

E. Adam Jackson says he worked too hard to write, publish, and promote his book to allow the infringement to stand. He said, “If Brick City was good enough to steal, it should have been good enough to make a deal and make it real.”

Complaint Against Cory Booker and his Media Pirate Crew

COMPLAINT Civil Action No. ________________

Name of Court:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Title of Action:

Everett Adam Jackson

Plaintiff

vs.

Cory A. Booker, Lisa Durden, Marc Benjamin, Marc Levin, Forest Whitaker, Evan Shapiro, Sundance Channel, Ed Carroll, Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, James Dolan, Cablevision Systems Corporation

PARTIES

Plaintiff:

Everett Adam Jackson 126 Smith Street Newark, NJ 07106

Defendants:

-Cory A. Booker Newark City Hall 920 Broad Street Room 200 Newark, NJ 07102

-Lisa Durden PO Box 4238 Newark, NJ 07114, c/o Sundance Channel 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY USA 10001

-Marc Benjamin Benjamin Productions, Inc. 60 East 8th Street Apt. 30N New York, NY 10003

-Marc Levin c/o Sundance Channel 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY USA 10001

-Forest Whitaker c/o Sundance Channel 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY USA 10001

-Evan Shapiro, Sundance Channel 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY USA 10001

-Ed Carroll, Rainbow Media 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY USA 10001

-James Dolan, Cablevision Systems Corporation 1111 Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY 11714

JURISDICTION

The United States District Court, District of New Jersey holds jurisdiction over U.S. Copyright Law in this lawsuit.

CA– USE OF ACTION

Everett Adam Jackson, Plaintiff, is author of the book Brick City and owns the oldest and original copyright among all entities titled Brick City. The above named defendants violated that copyright by adapting the particular manner of expression in that book, without the author’s permission, in their movie Brick City.

DEMAND

I demand judgment to relieve loss of profits and repair multiple damages caused by the infringement, in the amount of $21,325,828.

False Information Circulated by Cory Booker’s Thieves

Dear Journalist or Public Person,

There are a series of articles going across the country spreading false information about the Brick City Copyright Infringement Lawsuit. The articles attempt to confuse the issue and put me in a bad light.

I won’t litigate the case outside of court. But I am a pro se litigant, representing myself against some very powerful people. This letter contains relevant information that does not tell my whole case but could make a good report for you. Because the case is already being distorted by people connected with at least one of those influential defendants.

This interesting development emerged only about a week into the case – even before I sent out notice to the defendants, the media, or the general public. See the following timetable:

•October 18 – I filed the case at the Federal Courthouse

•October 26 – someone unknown to me was putting out false info on the case

• October 29 – I mailed out the notifications to the defendants

•October 31 – I started sending my news release out

It would be interesting to know who is the real source of the articles that started circulating the nation as early as October 26. Again, their propaganda started before I officially notified any defendant or sent my news release.

In general, the articles state that I was suing Forest Whitaker, which is a bit selective, and that the lawsuit was over a trademark issue, which is outright false.

Search the term, ‘Adam Jackson Brick City.’ When I did that, a bunch of articles appeared, spreading false information online from upstate New York to California, from Mississippi and Alabama to Ohio and beyond. Most of the articles said that the information came from allhiphop.com.

First of all, the information is selective because the respected Brother Forest Whitaker is actually fifth on the list of eight defendants. Second, I purposely did not trademark the name Brick City because I always wanted folks to have access to the Brick City Movement; and I have never said anywhere at any time that I trademarked the name Brick City. Third, where did allhiphop.com get the idea that I ever did claim to have trademarked the name?

I found an interesting connection between one of the defendants and a founder of allhiphop.com. You can look for the connection at http://people.famouswhy.com/chuck_creekmur/

Who’s that in the video section on that page when you scroll down and look under “Chuck Creekmur Videos?” It’s Mayor Cory A. Booker speaking at the Allhiphop.com Social in Newark, NJ. I’m not saying who started the false information, because I do not know. But it’s fair to say there is a connection between at least one of the powerful defendants and the website cited by many of the false articles as their source. That’s very interesting.

That’s also the proverbial smoke. I would reveal the fire in court. I hope you will report the truth to your audience and associates, contrary to the false information being spread around the Internet: The Brick City Lawsuit is a copyright infringement case. Not a trademark case. It’s a case where I have the truth on my side.

Thanks,

E. Adam Jackson

Letter to U.S. Marshals Demanding Cory Booker be Served

Operations Supervisor

U.S. Marshals Service

Martin Luther King Courthouse

50 Walnut Street, Room 2009

Newark, NJ 07102

Dear Operations Supervisor:

I am the Plaintiff in Jackson vs. Booker, docket #10-5371. I am writing to remind you that all defendants have not been served in the case, and that I want to know why. I am especially curious about why the main defendant, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, has not been served when the mayor’s office is only two short blocks away from the marshal’s office.

I have not received any reason for a delay in carrying out the summonses, which I authorized on November 30, 2010 A.D. I did get notice that the summonses had been picked up by U.S. Marshals in mid-January – two months ago. I haven’t heard anything else about progress or a lack thereof in serving them. Currently it’s just me against the media giants while the remaining defendants rest in the shadows.

This lack of service threatens to jeopardize my strong and legitimate case against a group that has violated a work I labored years to create, publish, and distribute. I want to receive immediate written notice detailing the operations to serve all defendants thus far.

The splendid office of the U.S. Marshals at the MLK courthouse has a handsome poster of the movie with Tommie Lee Jones and Wesley Snipes. We know the defendants are not avoiding service by the same drastic evasive techniques portrayed in the film, so why haven’t they been properly summoned? Thanks for letting me know that all of the defendants in Jackson vs. Booker have been served or explaining why they haven’t been, right away.

Respectfully,

Everett Adam Jackson

Cc:

Judge Jose L. Linares

Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi

Demand for Appeal to Stop Cory Booker Crew’s Intellectual Property Theft

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Civil Action No. 10-05371 (JF)(MC)(JG)

EVERETT ADAM JACKSON, Plaintiff, vs. CORY A. BOOKER, LISA DURDEN, MARC BENJAMIN, MARC LEVIN, FOREST WHITAKER, EVAN SHAPIRO, SUNDANCE CHANNEL, ED CARROLL, RAINBOW MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, JAMES DOLAN, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants.

APPEAL OF DECISION TO DISMISS BY SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Everett Adam Jackson

Plaintiff, Pro Se

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT………………………………4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY………………………………………….5

ARGUMENT ……………………………………………….. 8

1. APPEAL ON “MATERIAL FACTS”………………….6

A. Moving party failed to show no genuine issue of material fact exists. …………………………………………………………………………9

B. Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did present specific evidence that a genuine issue of material facts exists, compelling a trial. ….10

C. Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact………………………………..11

D. “The court must consider all facts presented and the reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”…12

2. APPEAL ON “IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE TWO ELEMENTS…13

A. The District Judge erred in misapplying that “…it is rarely possible to prove copying through direct evidence , copying may be proved inferentially…………….14

3. IT IS CLEAR THAT DEFENDANTS HAD ACCESS TO THE BOOK. ……………………………………………………………15

4. “THERE ARE TWO CONJUNCTIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.”…………16

5. DISTRICT JUDGE WROTE THAT “THE COURT FINDS THAT THE NOVEL “BRICK CITY” (THE “NOVEL”) AND THE TV SERIES “BRICK CITY” (THE “SHOW”) ARE ONLY SIMILAR IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:…………..17

6. “DESPITE THESE SIMILARITIES, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF BOTH WORK PRODUCTS ARE DISTINCT”………………………….24

7. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT, AN ORDINARY OBSERVER WOULD DETECT THE DISPARITIES, RATHER THAN OVERLOOK THEM OR REGARD THEM AS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME…………………………………28

CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………30

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff’s Complaint was that “The above named defendants violated that copyright by adapting the particular manner of expression in that book, without the author’s permission, in their movie Brick City.”

The subject is spoken to in the U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101:

“A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.”

So the Brick City movie is a derivative of the Brick City book. Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Law covers “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.” Item 2 in that section states that “…subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: …(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work…”

Overall, it is entirely reasonable to act on the knowledge that a total of 250 documented similarities including 75 of the 113 pages showing similarities with the 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 of the movie content being attributable to the book. No case law is going to make those facts go away. The information was available by reasonable inference from the Substantial Similarities Lists. Plaintiff told no lies in his Court papers and his rights were violated. The Defense did lie and they have no right to do that in papers to the Court so they did not deserve a decision in their favor.

The Defendants created a derivative work without the Plaintiff’s permission. That’s a copyright violation according to the law. None of the cited case law deters consideration of the derivative nature of the show. That is why the case should continue.

A HISTORY

Plaintiff spent about six years writing and publishing the Brick City book. He went many places to promote and went through all kinds of weather over years, including churches, schools, jails, clubs, bars, meetings, performances, and Newark City Hall, to build recognition of Brick City. Plaintiff mailed his book to Lisa Durden, who became an associate producer of the derivative movie, and handed a copy of the book to Cory A. Booker, who went on to star in the reality series.

This was the root of the infringement, and to beat the suit the Defense rendered themselves not deserving of a favorable decision by law. Please Review the follow item taken from the Executive Summary filed by Plaintiff in the case (page numbers refer to pages in the Plaintiff Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ):

The Defense, in their Motion, did:
Misstate the main premise of Plaintiff’s claim (p5 in the Response)
Mislabel their derivative reality series as a documentary (p5)
Try to limit the Judge’s access to facts and testimony (p6)
Downplay, diminish, and disregard relevant data (p11)
Try to pull the wool over the Judge’s eyes about relevant chapters (p14)
Dishonestly offer eleven chapters of the motion picture series for review, when only the first five pertain to this case, wasting the court’s time (p14)
Try to disrespect Plaintiff’s work as scènes à faire (p4, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26…)
Claim that most of the movie is made up of “Political meetings, interviews, speeches, campaigns, ribbon-cuttings, ground breakings, and strategy sessions” with no specific time breakdown of where or how much. That’s a weakness (p31)
Say the mayorship of Newark is not mentioned in the book, being proved wrong by Plaintiff (p31)
Claim that the book “contains no references to gangs” when the complete opposite is proven abundantly true (p32)
Claim that “No politician makes a speech” being contradicted by page 102, paragraph 4 of the Brick City book, when Councilman Mizzetti makes a politically-motivated speech to Orleen Broadway at a public appearance (pp31-32)
Claim that no politician holds a meeting in the story, contradicted by page 52 and 53 of the Brick City book, where Councilman Mizzetti is having a meeting with his lawyer (p32)
Make the unequivocal statement that “the Documentary uses no specific expression…or dialogue” from the book, in the face of contradictory evidence (p32)
Draw deceitful conclusions (p32)
Use convoluted logic to lead the Judge down the path of incredulity (p40)
Claim the Brick City book does not feature a montage of interspersed images underscored by urban music, but the evidence again shows the opposite is true (pp45-46)

The Defense repeatedly lied in their Motion for Dismissal. The Defense’s attempt to show that no genuine issue on facts exists was not legitimate, because they have no right to give false information to the Court.

In the face of so many faults in their case, and with the reasonable inference be that given in the best light for the Plaintiff as it should be, the overwhelming number of similarities are ever more a beacon of truth to follow in continuance of this case.

ARGUMENT

DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN CITING RULE 59

Rule 59 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The Judge’s document said summary judgment is covered under Rule 59, but Rule 59 deals with the granting of new trials. The Judge misstated the Rule and signed his decision containing incorrect information about the rule.

DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THE DECISION ON MATERIAL FACTS

The moving party failed to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

The Defense can “show” their opinion by alleging and pleading in their legal document, but they failed to prove in a logical way that the differences were more than the similarities. Logic says that the 250+ similarities identified by Plaintiff are more than the tiny number of differences cited by the Defense and the District Judge combined.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(C)

Rule 56 says the Defense is entitled to a judgment, not that they are entitled to an affirmative judgment. The Court erred in granting summary judgment without the Defense having met the burden in showing logical proof. Therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to an affirmative judgment for dismissal.

Celotrex Corp. v. Catrett

In Celotex v Catrett the evidence was argued to be hearsay. That is not the case here. Plaintiff’s evidence would prevail in a trial unlike with Mrs. Catrett because the Brick City was pure to the sources.

Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did present specific evidence that a genuine issue of material facts exists, compelling a trial.

The facts presented by Plaintiff were so specific that they solidly established a genuine issue of facts. The evidence is provided in an extremely specific manner, including a 5-page list comparing specific pages of the book with specific minutes and seconds of the movies. The high quality, quantity, and frequency of the specifics that Plaintiff listed establish that the similarities are substantial.

The District Judge in error did not acknowledge the preponderance of specific material facts documented by the Plaintiff. The error not to even mention the dozens of page-by-page, minute-by-minute specific instances of copying, altering, revising, and elaboration is a compounded curiosity because the decision-maker also did not provide or require any explanation for how all these likenesses came to exist.

The substantial and clearly identified similarities could not exist by

chance. The “historical facts” that the District Judge believes in are actually staged, revised, altered, and elaborated-upon enactments of the Brick City text. The Defendants used the book as a script.

C. The non-moving party must offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact and may not simply rely on unsupported assertions, bare allegations, or speculation.”

Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did offer specific facts. The Plaintiff offered plenty of specific support for his assertions. His specifics had plenty of meat on the bone; bare allegations does not describe the glut of truth in his sentences, paragraphs, and 48 pages of Response to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff did not speculate but showed the Judge clear evidence of the Defendants having made a derivative work from the novel by E. Adam Jackson. Plaintiff did not speculate, he specified. Plaintiff’s case was clearly delineated.

Ridgewood BOE v N.E.

The Ridgewood BOE v N.E. wasn’t a copyright case. But it did involve evidence produced and reviewed by experts, not layman. Yet the District Judge cited the case in contradiction of the low standard District Judge deemed acceptable for the Brick City case: Ridgewood v. N.E. saw years of educational, psychological, and health expert assessments, while the Judge allowed that the Brick City Copyright Infringement case should just be judged by an imaginary layman.

“The court must consider all facts presented and the reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

The District Judge’s decision does not show consideration of Plaintiff’s main points of proof. Most significantly, the reasonable inference in the best light for the non-moving Plaintiff, dictated by the District Judge’s words in his decision, was not evident.

For the Motion for Dismissal Plaintiff was the non-moving party. The Defense was the moving party; it was the Defense’s Motion for Dismissal that the Judge ruled on. The District Judge did not show reasonable inference in the best light favorable to the non-moving Plaintiff, whose exceptional creativity was infringed on by intentional copyright violators. The District Judge erred in that he did not reasonably infer the weight of more than two hundred more similarities over differences. That means there should be a trial.

Pa. Coal Assn v Babbit

This indicates that reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party was not observed in a decision that should be overturned.

IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE TWO ELEMENTS “(1) OWNERSHIP OF A VALID COPYRIGHT; AND (2) COPYING OF CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE WORK THAT ARE ORIGINAL”

Feist v Rural

Plaintiff did indeed prove ownership of the original Brick City copyright, a fact conceded by the Defense. The Brick City book is the original Brick City copyrighted work, a preexisting work from which 66% of the pages were copied verbatim and with changes by the Defendants.

Plaintiff did indeed present strong and long evidence, including that the Defendant’s movie did lift dialogue from the original Brick City. There is no word limit under copyright law. Three words with an alteration at the end are plenty of similarity. Therefore the Defense did copy that element, where “I know the kid” became “I know the guy.” The Defense lied and denied about the use of dialogue, the evidence was presented, and the District Judge erred in not recognizing this infringement.

The copying of words is a legitimate copyright issue and there is no limit to the number of words to make a copyright violation. The District Judge did not mention this monstrous, red flag, look-at-me-judge-I’m-a-substantial-similarity. In an impartial Court of Justice this red flag should not be ignored.

A. The District Judge wrote that “…it is rarely possible to prove copying through direct evidence, copying may be proved inferentially by showing the defendant had access to the allegedly infringing (sic) copyrighted work and that the allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work

Roth Greeting v. United Card Co.

This is one of those rare cases when the Plaintiff in a copyright case can prove the copying through a smorgasbord of direct evidence. The Substantial Similarities Lists provide page-by-page, minute-by-second proof of what the copying is and where it occurs. A reviewer who takes the time to leaf through the book as indicated and read the itemized points and patiently use a DVD to fast forward through the movie – the reality of the infringement materializes. A law enforcement officer sometimes must look deeper than the ordinary public to detect violations. This is like the stolen car that has been painted. It might have even had the VIN scratched off. But it’s still the same car. When law enforcement looks at a possible violation good, sometimes just under the surface, they see the alterations that constitute infringement.

The Defendants admitted to having access and the substantial similarities were laid out so clearly that a reasonable reviewer would see it and say it.

Similar does not mean “exactly alike,” not in the dictionary and not in a copyright case. “Similar” means “sharing some qualities but not exactly identical.” If the Court is using the dictionary definition, “Substantial” means “considerable in amount, extent, value, or importance…consisting of or involving substance…large, extensive, sizeable, significant” – then what Plaintiff used to describe the infringements are accurate and necessitate a trial.

3. IT IS CLEAR THAT DEFENDANTS HAD ACCESS TO THE BOOK.

With every other necessary component of the case being covered – the proof of copyright, the admission of access – the sticking point is where the must “decide” as in make a conclusion, not as in “make a choice” because the judge legally does not have the option to choose according to which side they want to win.

The Defendants had access and violated that access by infringing. Plaintiff made a demand for a jury trial yet the Judge overlooked this demand to insert his opinion where the people’s decision should be. The Judge stepped in and used the rules to unfairly save the day for the Defendants. The District Judge did not given reasonable inference in the best light to the non-moving party, he did the opposite and contrarily came out with a decision that gave unreasonable deference to the moving party.

The similarities between the works are not coincidental, they are too numerous to be.

4. “THERE ARE TWO CONJUNCTIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.” “First, the fact-finder must decide whether there is sufficient similarity between the works at issue” in order to conclude that the alleged infringer ‘copied the work’…then decide… without the aid of expert testimony, whether a ‘lay observer’ would believe that the copying was of protectible aspects of the copyrighted work…The second consideration has also been described as determining whether ‘the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same.”

The District Judge was provided with evidence of substantial similarities. A lay observer in real life told the author that he should look at the movie. the lay observer said it in a way that indicated he thought the works were substantially similar.

5. DISTRICT JUDGE WROTE THAT “THE COURT FINDS THAT THE NOVEL “BRICK CITY” (THE “NOVEL”) AND THE TV SERIES “BRICK CITY” (THE “SHOW” ARE ONLY SIMILAR IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

Both the novel and the show have the same title, “Brick City.”
Both the novel and the show discuss the difficulties of urban life
On page 99 of the novel, Mr. Shell discusses the lack of facilities and little money given to students who attend inner city schools.¹

The District Judge’s decision cited a few instances where the works are more identical than similar. That’s an unfairly high standard that does not give reasonable inference in the best light to the Plaintiff. It’s a misuse of the requirement for similarity by substituting the definition of identical for similar. That is especially true when the Plaintiff’s Substantial Similarities Lists provides formatted, numbered, measured, cited evidence with at least 250 occasions of incidence that adds up to at least 2/5 of the Brick City derivative movie series – all facts that appeared in long form within the Substantial Similarities Lists of the Plaintiff Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment. Here again are the Substantial Similarities Lists as was presented in the Plaintiff’s Response:

Substantial Similarities List #1

{Start of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”} The first similarity is that the film has the same title as the plaintiff’s Brick City book, which the Defense admits having access to. The defendants could have safely stayed in same-title territory without violation of the copyright but they went on to adapt the particular form of expression resulting in the remaining frequent and consistent similarities listed as follows:
The location mentioned in the book is “could be a Newark…” p. 2; the film series is focused on Newark from the very first visual scenes in the intro and the Defense admits both books are about Newark
Executive producer Forest Whitaker locates the project in Newark in his introduction, particular to the expression of the Brick City book (0:19)
The book is particularly structured in five chapters; the film’s first series followed with five episodes
The Brick City anti-crime patrol organized and led by Jeep was portrayed in the film as Mayor Cory A. Booker and Police Director McCarthy leading the Newark police force against crime (86-88) (1:15…) (9-12:13) (14:25) (32:21-33:55)
Jeep and Liana, a young romantic couple of particular expression are two of the main characters, recast for the movie using Jayda and Creep (3,4,18-20,80-86,95-98,103-105) (6:31…) (12:34-13:49)
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, is similar to the film’s dialogue “I know the guy” after a similar crime in the movie (89) (10:04). Note the get-the-money-and-one-shot-is-fired format that raises and waves the red flag of infringement.
Liana, a unique character created by E. Adam Jackson, announces the pregnancy to her boyfriend Jeep; recast as Jayda, she does the same with her boyfriend (95) (13:13)
Liana announces pregnancy to her mother; Jayda tells the same to her mother (86) (13:27)
The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were consolidated in the movie in part by The Street Doctor (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (17:37-20:55)
The fathering issues that are specifically expressed in the book are the basis of the movie’s reminiscence of characters like Scottsboro and his mentor Mr. Abdullah, who were recast as the busload of boys on Father’s Day being mentored by the Street Doctor in the movie (26-28) (19:18-20:55)
The Brick City book describes with creative uniqueness the police helicopter as a dragonfly as the police film crime and videotape suspect’s actions; the movie transforms the same scenes for the movie (1,3) (22:23-25:15)
In the book, convict-turned-activist Rashid Hasan is on the scene after Casher smash-n-grabs a blue leather jacket; in the movie Rashid Hasan’s counterpart convict-turned-activist, The Street Doctor, is on the scene after a shooting (42-44) (29:54)
The Brick City book focuses on parenting: in the book Iris Vine’s mothering of daughter Liana Vine was a particular expression, just as Willamina mothers her one-of-a-kind son Jeep, Violet mothers her son Scottsboro, and Robert Burns fathers his son Scottsboro; this parenting focus was altered by the Father’s Day scene featuring The Street Doctor, by Creep being a stepfather and father, and by Cory Booker’s parents being repeatedly featured throughout the film including at a tribute speech, at home, in an interview, and on the radio (22-38,45,46,51-65,72,73,78,79,85,86,94-98) (8:27…) (13:52) (34:20-37:52)
The incident at 40:31 of the DVD in the project courtyard is like Casher’s holdup in the project lobby, considering the actions: the violator gets the drugs and the money and one gunshot is fired, in altered sequence but similar composition (90,91) (40:31-40:54)
In the book old street guy Rashid Hasan counsels young gang member Casher; in movie old street guy King Sau counsels young gang member Jayda (42,43) (41:21-43:00)
In the book a group of young men follow Jeep just before they sweep the projects; modified in the movie police confer on criminal behavior just before a sweep at the projects (86,87) (43:01)
The book’s pregnant unique character Liana vomits in toilet, as derivatively the movie’s pregnant Jayda does (p. 22) (43:51-44:54)
The book has a virtual barbershop scene; the movie has an alternate barbershop scene (p. 108) (44:54)
When Casher gets “baptized,” he is facing the law after falling into the canal and when Casher is in jail looking out the window at Jeep and Rashid Hasan along with the other bridge walkers, after he bragged all big and bad, is like Jayda’s fall when she turns herself into the law (93,105-107) (45:35-46:17…) {End of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”}
{Start of Episode 2, “The Struggle”} The book’s Casher got locked up and his loved ones show concern, this was altered to the young gangster female getting locked up (93,105-107) (3:01-4:10) (9:52) (18:31-20:43)
The book shows The Canal and the Canal Master making economic plans; the movie transformed it into the Port Newark waterfront and Newark economic plans (70-72) (4:11-6:17)
Property development and economic development issues involving Rashid Hasan from the book, and for that matter from the Rosebush Business Plan are particular expressions that preceded similarities between the Brick City Development Corporation whose logo is shown interposed with Deputy Mayor Stefan Pryor from the movie (41-43, 49, 50, 108) (5:28)
In the book Councilman Mizetti has a demolition scheme; the movie shows reminiscent scene of workers in Brick City demolishing buildings; Cory A. Booker helps demolish and speaks about development (50-51) (11:35-12:18) (22:11-24:05)
The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were recast in the movie in part by the mentoring program at Central High School (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (20:45) (26:23-26:39)
Brick City book features Brick City High School principal Shell; the movie recasts with Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (26:40…)
The book features the uniquely expressed character of Scottsboro, and the historical background of his name, as well as how his dream embodies The African-American Struggle Against Racism; while in the movie the demonstration by Imamu Amiri Baraka and the People’s Organization for Progress represents The Struggle by remembering the rebellion of 1967: both have court trial scenes, both have protest organizations that make a move to control their environment by patrolling the residential building and confronting criminals (46,56,74,75) (31:36-33:06)
Controversy about a male touching a female’s chest occurs in both, another instance of adapting particulars from the original Brick City by E. Adam Jackson into a derivative film work (21, 22, 54, 85, 86) (35:41-)
Jeep leads the anti-crime meeting and his fellows follow his heroic lead against crime, recast in the movie as Cory A. Booker’s leadership anti-crime pep talk with his police force; their ensuing anti-crime efforts continue the similarities (i.e. police helicopter at 46:43 & 47:13) (86-88) (43:12-45:29){End of Episode 2 “Struggle”}
{Start of Episode 3 “Central”} The copyrighted book chronicles the struggle of Mr. Shell, the uniquely expressed high school principal and the school itself struggling within the system; the subsequent movie recasts with Principal Ras Baraka and his school (9,10,98-100) (3:11-5:21) (9:40-10:33) (27:44-29:28) (31:56-33:20) (40:55) (44:21)
In the book, relationship-building is a prominent component that was adapted to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (5:24 -6:55) (11:47 – 14-54) (26:07 – 27:43) (29:37 – 31:55) (54:45)
The leadership of Jeep, the activism in the struggle of Scottsboro, the fatherlessness of Scottsboro, Jeep, and Tyrone; altered by Cory A. Booker adopting and adapting certain characteristics of those main characters: (8,9, 29-36, 46, 53, 55-58, 60-65, 72,73, 78, 79,80-84, 86-88, 91, 94, 97,109, 110) (15:07-15:33) (42:20 – 44:09)
Male mentoring in Brick City is a prominent component that was adapted from the book to the movie 25-28,30,31-34,42,43,46,47,50,60,74,87,89,108-110) (40:55 – 44:50) (46:15 – 46:50) (47:43 – 50:44)
Female romantic Liana shows organizational skills in the book; recast as Jayda in the movie (80-84,86-88, 104-105) (44:51 – 46:15) (46:51 – 47:42) {end of Episode 3 “Central”}
{Start of Episode 4 “Circus”} In the book, police take action at the projects with helicopters, the movie shows similar scene (1,2,3,4,93) (1:12 – 2:14) (helicopter 24:35)
Male-female relationship building is a component that was adapted from the book to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (6:11 – 7:01) (26:48 – 27:38)
In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys; the movie transforms the court trial for Jayda (75) (7:02 – 7:40) (13:23 – 14:12) (29:24 – 30:32) (43:34 – 44:16 this scene also furthers the “organizer” characteristic) (48:06 – 51:04)
The Brick City book humanizes the young gangster Casher, the motion picture humanizes young gangsters like Jiwe (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
Liana Vine, the unique female heroine of Brick City, has a heart to heart talk with her mother about the baby, about the baby’s father, and about plans for organizing (96-97) (24:50 – 25:45)
In the book Liana consulted with a sportswriter and a scout about her project, which was to manage the million dollar talents of her quarterbacking boyfriend Jeep Thomas, then he performs his talent as planned on the field/In the movie the young lady recast in the role, Jayda, consults with Cory A. Booker about her female mentoring project and then takes her project to the streets/ (80-82) (36:03 – 39:26)
{Start of Episode 5 “Red October”} In the book the Hustler goes from criminal to caring community member/ In the movie the producers use the Street Doctor in that role (48-50) (6:15 – 6:30)
In book Scottsboro, another unique character created by E. Adam Jackson, represents the struggle against racism/ In the movie Cory A. Booker assumes a posture of “We are freedom fighters” (74-77) (2:37)
In the book there are stylized court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/In the movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (4:04 – 4:36) (19:01) (39:47 – 40:23)
The young gangsters and thugs are humanized in both the book and movie (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
In the book, a football scene leads to Liana doing public relations promoting Jeep; in the movie a football scene leads to Jayda doing mentoring (80-82) (11:56 – 13:09)
In the book, Councilman Mizzetti meets with his lawyer; in the movie politicians have political meetings (51, 52) (11:00 – 11:54) (14:00 – 15:33)
In the book, there is the Brick City patrol, the aggressive anti-crime group founded by Jeep and his gang; they witnessed a drug robbery in which there is a shooting amid dissension between opposing gangs, modified by the movie (86-94) (30:50)
Book features high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (27:48 – 30:52) (33:04 – 36:00)
At 41:42 Police Director McCarthy says “if I were to write a book” perhaps stating the blameworthy awareness of those who recognized a great story and then violated its copyright, tipping us off by unconsciously revealing the deed (41:42)
The book ends off with a poem by Scottsboro Wood; the end of the film recasts and transforms that into a poem by Mayor Corey Booker (111) (BONUS SCENES)

Below is yet another list, this one detailing characters from the book that were altered, recast, and transformed for the movie.

Substantial Character Similarities, List #2

Character copy: in the book Councilman Mizzetti is a politician who plays a central role by doing the right thing; in the movie he became Mayor Cory A. Booker who plays the central role
Character copy: Councilman Mizzetti the politician also became Councilman Oscar James
Character copy: Liana and Jeep, the book’s couple who becomes pregnant as (cover, 3,4,18-20) Liana plans and organizes for the family’s future despite issues with her mother, (80-86,95-98) became in the movie the gang-related couple who gets pregnant but the young mother is a gang member who becomes an organizer of a girl’s mentoring group
Character copy: The book’s high school principal Mr. Shell became the movie’s principal Ras Baraka of Central High School (9,10,98-100)
Character copy: Rashid Hasan, a.k.a. The Hustler, is a former criminal who (34,35,42,43) transforms himself to be a pillar of the community; in the movie The Hustler/ Rashid Hasan became The Street Doctor and Brother Ali Muslim as well as Jiwe (40-50, 102-108); all three explain their transformation from criminal to communal behavior
Character copy: The property development activities of The Hustler became the property developers in the film series (41-43, 49, 50, 108)
Character copy: Tyrone Broadway, the book’s young karate fighter, became Michael Perez Central High School’s young boxer (3,34,78,101,108,109,46,47)
Character copy: The trials and transformations of the book’s young gang member Casher became the trials and transformations of the movie’s young gang member/ female romantic partner Jayda (3,4,5-17,39-43,88-93,105-107)
Character copy: The anti-gang, anti-crime activities led by Jeep and the boys become the anti-gang, anti-crime activities in the film led by Mayor Cory Booker, and Police Director McCarthy with community groups and individuals like Donna Jackson (86-88)
Character copy: Mr. Abdullah, the librarian who wears costumes including a doctor’s costume to help make his points for self-improvement, became The Street Doctor, who often wears a doctor’s costume around Newark (26-28, 87)
Character copy: Scottsboro, the fatherless young man whose name symbolizes the struggle against US racism, is the model for the movie’s group of fatherless youth being mentored by the school administrators, for Cory A. Booker and his parents relationship being explored, and for Cory A. Booker posing as the freedom fighter and poet (25, 27, 29-33, 55-65, 94, 111)
Character copy: The repeated police helicopter monitoring and dealing with crime in the book is mimicked by repeated police helicopter monitoring in the film (1,2,3,4,93)
Character copy: The parents Orleen and Ty Sr., Violet and Prof. Burns, became Corey Booker’s parents (72,73,78,79,94)

The similarities are there but the Judge erred in not acknowledging them.

6. “DESPITE THESE SIMILARITIES, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF BOTH WORK PRODUCTS ARE DISTINCT. The novel and the show are dissimilar in the following ways:

The novel is fictional; the show is a fact-based documentary.
The novel does not specify a setting and in fact states that “Brick City “could be a Newark, a New York, a Philly, Chicago, Baltimore…” The show is specifically about Newark, New Jersey.
The novel and the show have different focuses and each is told from a different perspective. The show focuses on the city of Newark’s efforts to stop criminal; activity from the local administration’s perspective. The book is a fictional story about five teenagers growing up in “Brick City.”

The novel does not discuss any attempts to reform “Brick City.” The show focuses on the city’s attempt to make Newark a model and example of urban transformation across the nation.

Regarding “Constituent Elements”: The Defendants chose their constituent elements based on what the original’s constituent elements were. The book had a couple (Liana and Jeep); the movie producers selected a couple, (Jada and Creep). The book had a high school principal (Mr. Shell); the movie had a high-school principal (Mr. Ras Baraka). The book had a heroic football player hero who admonished his force to stop the crime in Brick City (Jeep Thomas); the movie had a heroic charismatic football player hero who admonished his force to stop the crime in Brick City (Mayor Cory A. Booker). Those are some really alike constituent elements.

There are more: The book had a flamboyant mentor character who dressed in doctor costume (Mr. Abdullah), and an ex-con who transformed into a community activist, (The Hustler); the movie had a flamboyant mentor character who dressed in doctor costume and an ex-con who transformed into a community activist (The Street Doctor). The book had parents of main characters Scottsboro Wood (Violet Wood), Liana Vine (Iris Vine), Jeep Thomas (Willamina Thomas), Casher (Miss Ella Mae), and Tyrone Broadway (Orleen Broadway), the movie had parents of reality series star Mayor Cory A. Booker. Where are these distinctive elements? They are obliterated by the 200-something similarities that would not exist without infringement.

Regarding “The novel is fictional; the show is a fact-based documentary”: The Copyright Code says, “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” So the Copyright law shows the understanding that a work can be changed into other medium and still be a derivative work. That covers the distinction between the mediums but still makes Plaintiff’s claim of alteration intact. The mediums are distinct, but the constituent elements are substantially similar.

Regarding “The novel does not specify a setting and in fact states that “Brick City “could be a Newark, a New York, a Philly, Chicago, Baltimore…” The show is specifically about Newark, New Jersey”: Plaintiff said it could be all of those cities as in, it is those cities. The Defendants certainly thought the book was about Brick city Newark and they stated so numerous times in their Motion for Dismissal: on page 2 of their motion the Defense said the book was a coming-of-age-story about Newark, on page 8 of 30 Defense said “The Story is a coming of age story about five adolescents living in the Newark projects”, on the same page they wrote “The Story describes several consecutive days in the lives of five African-American high school classmates living in a Newark, New Jersey, housing project”, on page 9 of 30 they wrote, The reader is introduced to “Brick City,” the name of the Newark projects in which the main characters live”, on page 24 they said “Both works take place in Newark, New Jersey”, on the same page they said “Both works depict low-income high-rises, city pools, high school football games, church services, drug dealers, and other aspects of Newark’s urban backdrop.” The Defendants thought it was Newark in the book all the way through their Motion to Dismiss, why is the District Judge allowing them to escape their own words? Plaintiff has lived in Newark for about 20 years, and Newark was where plaintiff handed the book to the future mayor of Newark. For all intents and purposes, the setting is indeed Newark and the Defendants knew that. When Forest Whitaker says in his remarks that the Brick City concept can be meaningful for other cities, he is adapting the Brick city book yet again.

Dealing with the Judge’s statement that Plaintiff’s book does not discuss reforming Brick City, the District Judge could not have gotten it more wrong. The whole book is a reform device. The book was written and published to reform Brick City. Brick City by E. Adam Jackson is a model for reform: of young men and women in relationships, reform of poor parenting, reform of corrupt politicians, reform of a status quo church, reform of criminally acting young men, reform of father interactions with their sons, reform of the African-American woman, reform of the African-American man, reform of the African American athlete, reform of African-American neighborhoods, reform of ethnic interactions, reform of the concept of race…the book was the catalyst for a movement that included the Defendants picking up on the reform component of the book and making it into the reform movie based on the book.

7. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT, AN ORDINARY OBSERVER WOULD DETECT THE DISPARITIES, RATHER THAN OVERLOOK THEM OR REGARD THEM AS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.

As the fact-finder, this Court has determined that these works lack sufficient similarity to conclude that the alleged infringer “copied the work.” Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether these works are substantially similar and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

An ordinary observer would detect the both disparities and the parities. The ordinary person imagined by the Court happens to “behave” the opposite of the ordinary person who in real life did tell E. Adam Jackson it was his Brick City book in the Brick City movie. A former co-worker, the ordinary person had read the book and seen the series in real life. Not in a reality show. Not in a Judge’s mind. The ordinary man approached the author with arms open wide saying “Brick City! Congratulations, baby!” The District Judge erred in guessing about what a ordinary person would observe.

Allowing the reasonable inference to go to the non-movant Plaintiff, as the District Judge said was called for, the decision to dismiss should be overturned.

Plaintiff strongly presented specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact, compelling a trial. Plaintiff should be compensated for the theft and pilfering of his published, copyrighted work and Federal Court is the place to have that done by Justice.

A layman is not what is needed, but a person who has been specifically told specifically where to look for the specific similarities. If Plaintiff wanted an ordinary observer to judge this case he would have gone to a casual organization. Plaintiff came to court to be heard by a professionally trained observer, not a lay observer who had not experienced both works.

The District Judge echoed the Defense assertion that the reality series was fact-based. A staged scene becomes a fact as it is planned and executed. Calling something “factual” does not make it spontaneous reality. Statistically, the chances that the very many similar characters, actions, and the accompanying copied dialogue were not derived from the original work would be astronomical.

The Defendants called their derivative work a “hybrid” and the Judge showed no curiosity and gave no explanation of this term, which manifests the unique combination that their work was in incorporating the fiction of the original Brick City by E. Adam Jackson.

The statement that the series shows real-life history would suppose that the cameras just turned on and “poof!” the similarities just happened so closely to the book the author handed to Cory A. Booker and mailed to assistant producer Lisa Durden.

That’s how movies get made: real-life actors follow roles from a script, with some ad-libbing. Defendants should not be allowed to get away with their violation.

CONCLUSION

The Court should not leap from, “If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck…” to “Cory A. Booker et al did nothing wrong.” Because the logical solution to the old adage and the current case are both: it’s a big, fat, duck.= There is a genuine issue of fact as to the similarities between the works so the Brick City Copyright Infringement case should continue with a reversal of the District Judge’s decision.

Dated: August 28, 2011

Plaintiff pro se: EVERETT ADAM JACKSON

Response in Opposition to Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Cory Booker Crew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 10-05371 (JLL)(CCC)

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Everett Adam Jackson

Plaintiff, Pro Se

TABLE OF CONTENTS (ALL IN OPPOSITION)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT……………………………………………………………………………..3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………………………………9

A. The Story: Five Adolescents Coming of Age in Newark …………………………………9

B. The Documentary: A Non-Fictional Exposé on Urban Politics ………………………..14

ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………16

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT GENERALLY ……………………………………………………..16

II. APPLICABLE COPYRIGHT STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES……………………17

A. Copyright Protection Generally ……………………………………………………………………17

B. Determining Copyright Infringement ……………………………………………………………18

C. The Court Must Extract All Non-Protectable

Similarities Before Analyzing “Substantial Similarity.” ………………………………………22

D. Summary Judgment is Appropriate in

Clear-Cut Cases of Non-Infringement. ………………………………………………………………27

III. THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE STORY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………30

A. The Documentary Depicts Historical Facts Which

Took Place After Plaintiff Authored the Story ……………………………………………………..40

B. The Story Contains Numerous Unprotectable “Scenes A Faire.” ………………………..41

C. The Story Contains Many Unprotectable General Ideas …………………………………….42

D. The Differences Between the Works Overwhelm Any Similarities ……………………..46

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………47

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE INTRO, PAGE 6 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 1 HARD COPY

Plaintiff Everett Adam Jackson writes here in opposition to the motion of Defendants Cory A. Booker, Lisa Durden, Marc Benjamin, Marc Levin, Forest Whitaker, Evan Shapiro, Sundance Channel, Ed Carroll, Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, James Dolan, and Cablevision Systems Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”)for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s truthful and provable complaint.

In this response, Plaintiff will present facts exceeding the burdens of proof including beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and a preponderance of evidence. Plaintiff will also show that the Defendants’ motion relies on the power of suggestion, reverse psychology, slick talk, gratuitous interpretation, a claimed chumminess with The Court, and downright falsehoods.

To make sure that every single point of the Defendants’ motion is countered where necessary, and for the convenience of the reviewing Judge, Plaintiff has in his responses included the page number and section labels of the Defense motion. That is so that no issue to which there is opposition is left unaddressed. Plaintiff wants the Judge to have the information identified to easily locate the counterpoints.

Regarding the defense’s assertion of “manifestly indefensible”: it’s wishful thinking on their part because the legitimacy of Plaintiff’s claim is manifested by dozens of non-general similarities that could not have appeared in their motion picture unless they based it on Plaintiff’s book. The Defense grossly undercounted and undervalued the strong similarities between the works because they are defending the indefensible: intentional, aggressive, and unremorseful infringement of an existing copyright, amounting to what would be creative theft by a major entertainment group and a powerful politician; using a famous actor against an individual independent writer whose work was conspiratorially violated. That’s why the defense motion should be resoundingly denied. It is untenable and does not meet the burden of proof.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, PAGE 6 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 1 HARD COPY

The Judge will need to filter out the fiction from the facts in assessing the arguments in this case, especially since the Defense immediately issues fallacies for The Court to consider. There is also an intrinsic test that would accompany any extrinsic evaluation.

It’s a fact that the Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson is an original work of fiction. It’s also a fact that it is the first Brick City title ever copyrighted in the U.S. Library of Congress. The book is not an idea. No Brick City book about Newark existed before Plaintiff’s book. Its expression at the time of copyrighting was trailblazing and unique. The footprint of the book’s five chapters is seen throughout the first five episodes of the motion picture series. It is those five episodes that are relevant here.

What the Defense wants to label as“scenes a faire” are part of a never-before-seen narrative of particular expression that appears again in the derivative version released twenty years later by the Defendants. The Defense would love to have the guts ripped out of the original vehicle to get away with their violation. For the Defense, the less evidence the better.

If the Defense really believes that scenes they want to filter from the book are scènes à faire and therefore common to a genre, where is the list of books with the same scènes à faire? The Defense offers not even one example. That’s because there are none.

The Brick City book represents a genre less accurately described as “a coming-of-age story” and more accurately as Brick City Community Consciousness-Raising Literature. The movie is provably a “hybrid genre-buster” that went beyond the simple description of “documentary.” So this is new territory, set in motion by the unique, particular, and original Brick City book and followed in the footsteps by the Brick City motion picture.

By separating the self-serving propositions of the defense from what is really on the page and in the movie, the Judge and will see substantial similarities between the works that far outweigh and outnumber any general similarities, scènes à faire, or differences claimed by the Defense. The Judge will see that the particular form of expression in the original copyrighted Brick City book text by E. Adam Jackson was adapted, transformed, and elaborated on for the Brick City motion picture series, making the Cablevision/Rainbow/Sundance piece a classic derivative work. As a derivative work it is an infringement, using the definition provided by the Defense.

The reviewing Judge will see that in desperation, and perhaps for other reasons to be discussed later in this document, the defense commits transgressions: deliberately mixing up the parts of the works, mis-assigning parts of one to the other. Ostensibly, this was done to confuse The Court, which is also wasting the Court’s time. These willful misinterpretations are countered and corrected in this document by the Plaintiff and a request for sanctions to penalize the wastefulness will be lodged in this document.

This case is complex and completely tenable for the Plaintiff, contrary to the Defense assertion. It’s complicated because of the sophisticated methods employed by adept and experienced filmmakers with a Yale lawyer as their star, attempting to cover up the violation for their own financial gain and awarded acclaim. Why do they think they can get away with that?

Unraveling the complex Web of deception the defense has presented is necessary until we get to the simple part: the similarities are too numerous and rooted in the unique particular form of expression found in the original Brick City, to be coincidental. The Judge’s comparison will be quite simple after the true facts have been presented.

The defense wants “a basic review of the two works” because if they can keep the review peripheral they might get away with their sophisticated infringement. But Plaintiff, knowing his book well and having analyzed the corporate derivative of his work, has been able to specifically isolate the strong similarities between the two. He does so in a way that clearly points out that copyrighted elements of the book are rife in the movie. There is only one way that happened: defendants used the book to make their movie. Unless we are to believe that practically all of Plaintiff’s book is just one big ol’ scène à faire, which it is of course not, the Judge will see that a copyright infringement has occurred here and Plaintiff is due relief.

Plaintiff’s entire book was copyrighted in 1990, before any other work with Brick City in their title was copyrighted. Every bit of the book was protected by copyright. The Defendants changed and altered the particularly expressed, copyright-protected elements of Plaintiff’s book and transformed them into something that may not have been copyrightable by the time they got through with it. But whatever ways they changed those parts, the parts in question started out as part of Plaintiff’s unique and original expression. They ended up as whatever the Defendants came up with for their derivative version.

It’s no surprise that the Defense misstated the main premise of Plaintiff’s claim. First of all, Plaintiff at no time stated or inferred that the derivative work is “a documentary.” So why does the defense think they can offer this complete untruth to The Court?

Secondly, the derivative work is in fact not a documentary. Don’t just take Plaintiff’s word for it. Take it from a person who made the movie. Read the words of Executive Producer/Director Marc Benjamin along with the words of Andy Dehnart, a journalist who writes at a Website called Reality Blurred by Andy Dehnart, available at http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/sundance_channel/2009_Sep_21_brick_city_debut

Reality Blurred by Andy Dehnart is a Website that specializes in reviews of reality series. Not documentaries. Reality Blurred by Andy Dehnart has a tagline: “10 years of babysitting TV’s bastard child with reality TV news, reviews, and analysis.

Documentaries and reality series are separate genres. Andy Dehnart is a journalist who wrote an article about the Brick City movie, in which he interviewed the Executive Producer/Directors, Defendant Marc Benjamin and Defendant Marc Levin. The text of Andy Dehnart’s article is pasted below. The journalist wrote that the moviemakers said their Brick City motion picture was not a documentary. They said they “wanted to invent a hybrid genre-buster”.” According to Andy Dehnart, Defendant Marc Benjamin himself indicated that the term “documentary” did not describe the Brick City motion picture. The article text is pasted below.

Sundance’s compelling “genre-buster” Brick City debuts tonight, follows Newark residents

by Andy Dehnart / September 21, 2009, 10:14 AM

The best new reality series of the fall, Brick City, debuts tonight on Sundance Channel at 10 p.m. ET, airing one episode every night all week long, and the whole series is currently available On Demand on most cable systems. The series follows the city of Newark, New Jersey, and four key residents who are dealing with crime and trying to revive their community: the mayor, Cory Booker, the police chief, and a Crip and a Blood who happen to be in a relationship and act as youth mentors.

Critics will try to call it a documentary, but producer/directors Mark Benjamin and Marc Levin told me earlier this summer that Brick City was planned to be a series from the start. Mark Benjamin said they wanted to “invent a hybrid genre-buster” and create a “new way of presenting reality. … We don’t have interviews, we don’t have a narrator, we don’t have a locked-off camera, we don’t have lights to make you think you’re watching a video live show. It does feel cinematic because of the style we shot in,” he said.

I’ll have a full review later this week, but stick with it: The series pulls you in more after it sets up its characters and progresses, and there are a lot of shocking and surprising moments, from fights to a chance meeting that carries a lot of emotional weight.

(End of Andy Dehnart article)

So, the Judge should believe the Defendants when they spoke freely in promoting their motion picture before they knew they were getting sued, and should not believe the Defense lawyers trying to protect their high-powered clients from a multi-million dollar lawsuit because the Defendants violated U.S. Copyright Law. The Judge should rely on the words of Andy Dehnart, too because he is an expert in the genre and he is an independent authority.

Dehnart recorded the free speaking of the moviemakers as they rattled off that they didn’t have the interviews, didn’t have the narrator, didn’t have this and that…what they did have was the Brick City book to provide guidance where they needed it.

The Defense team’s brazen misstatement of Plaintiff’s main premise is just the first of Defense’s self-serving re-definitions of reality that will be clearly identified and thoroughly opposed in this document.

More accurately stated, Plaintiff’s main premise is that the defendants consciously and surreptitiously used the Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson as the foundation for their derivative film work, after E. Adam Jackson handed the book to Cory A. Booker outside of Penn Station. After E. Adam Jackson repeatedly mailed the book to Lisa Durden. They then made a reality series out of Plaintiff’s book, not a documentary. There is no other logical explanation for the vast amount of strong similarities between the two works other than the Defendants had the book and purposefully used its copyrighted text for their film work.

Every bit of the Brick City book was protected for decades before the Defendants did their video version. Every page of the book was protected. Every character. Every word. The defendants even used some of the words from the book and changed them for the movie during a similar scene, to be detailed later.

The Brick City book, in its entirety, was copyrighted in a particular form of expression that was recast, altered, transformed, and therefore infringed upon by high-powered, experienced Defendants who should have known better. As evidenced by their very attempt to defend the violation, the Defense attempts to steal a story from a hard-working artist who reached out for recognition and got robbed. The Defendants used protected, not just protectable material from Plaintiff’s book. There was nothing abstract about E. Adam Jackson handing his book to Defendant Cory A. Booker. Nor was there an abstract mailing of the book to Associate Producer Defendant Lisa Durden. Those distributions were as real as the plethora of strong similarities an in-depth examination of the works reveals.

“No undiscovered facts or witness testimony can affect this, and, consequently, there could not be a more suitable case for disposition by summary judgment.”

Actually, undiscovered facts and witness testimony can indeed affect this case by shedding more light on the shadows hidden behind the Defense team’s misstatement of facts in the first paragraph of their Preliminary Statement. Nobody knows what undiscovered facts may tell – because they’re unknown. It’s illogical for Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre to offer that premise: that there is nothing to be learned from what The Judge does not already know. The fact is, we don’t know anything until we know something. And we know that the Defense has already offered an untruth and an illogical conclusion while challenging the Plaintiff to put up or shut up. Plaintiff has “put up” in opposition to the Preliminary Statement and there is more to come.

The most suitable outcome for this case would be a quick settlement after the Judge denies the motion because of the overwhelmingly strong similarities between the original and the derivative; because the book was likely changed to make the movie, and that the Plaintiff’s rights were wronged. The next most suitable outcome is for the Court to go through the jury process and award Plaintiff his full Demand, in triplicate after finding that the Defendants deliberately committed this copyright infringement from the start and tried to cover it up with lies.

The motion to dismiss should be denied because the Defense has miserably failed to meet the burden of proof.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, PAGE 7 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 2 HARD COPY

U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8

Congress created copyright law as a Constitutional right to protect writers like E. Adam Jackson: independent creators of progressive knowledge besieged by powerful interests attempting usurpation. Copyright law protects Plaintiff’s work for a time still in effect since its registration back in 1990. Plaintiff’s right to his own work is exclusive, and without his permission no corporate concern, powerful politician, or famous actor has a right to go into Plaintiff’s work and have at it any way or any time they want.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)

Brick City by E. Adam Jackson was copyrighted and published as a tangible work, not an abstract idea, concept, principle, or discovery.

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,

499 U.S. 340 (1991)

The Brick City book text is fiction. The book was protected under U.S. Copyright Law.

17 U.S.C. § 106

17 U.S.C. § 501(a)

The Defendants are infringers, by the very definition they included there in their brief: “Copyright owners are afforded the exclusive rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106, including the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. Anyone who violates any of these exclusive rights is an infringer. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a.)”

The copyright owner of the original Brick City never gave any permission for the Defendants to create a derivative work, which the vast amount of strong similarities between the two proves they did, beyond a reasonable doubt with a preponderance of evidence that is clear and convincing.

Only E. Adam Jackson had the exclusive right to allow or deny anyone else to prepare a derivative work from his Brick City book. However, the Defendants took it upon themselves and never contacted E. Adam Jackson to get his permission or refusal to use his work. They decided to steal and strip Plaintiff’s work in a creativity jacking, changing the wheels and the color but it remains the same make and model; it’s still the same car no matter how the chop shop tries to pass it off as another vehicle.

The defendants jacked Plaintiff’s literary vehicle and were joyriding around in it until Plaintiff put the law on them. Why do they think they can get away with that? The Defendants named there on the second page are infringers who benefited from the violation of the original Brick City: “Defendants Benjamin, Levin, Durden, and Whitaker produce, defendants Benjamin and Levin direct, defendant Sundance Channel broadcasts, and Mayor Booker appears in, Brick City, an Emmy Award-winning documentary series set in Newark, New Jersey…”

After that the Defense tells about another part of the movie that was transformed to meet the reality needs of the moviemakers. The highlighting of positive traits in Cory A. Booker in the movie were inspired by the uniquely strong personality and leadership of Jeep Thomas. The distinct urban development action expressed through the particular character of The Hustler was also transformed into the similarly identifiable traits of Cory A. Booker.

²The Defense then footnotes about the remaining Defendants, namely James Dolan of Cablevision, Ed Carroll of Rainbow Media, and Evan Shapiro of Sundance, stating that those corporate heads should not be included in the lawsuit. But those corporate Defendants are as culpable as the others: they were the ultimate empowering force of the movie that was based on the Brick City book. The network heads all were part of the profit making that ensued from the infringement. They all have on their Websites how much of a success their Brick City derivative was and the role they played in it.

Evan Shapiro’s bio on the company Website said, “In this role, Shapiro oversees the strategic and creative direction for IFC and Sundance Channel, including original programming, content acquisition, marketing and sales. He also serves as executive producer on a number of originals, including the Peabody Award-winning mini-series /Brick City/ for Sundance Channel…” Evan Shapiro belongs on the list of Defendants.

Ed Carroll’s bio on the company Website said, “Harnessing Rainbow Media’s resources, Mr. Carroll has strategically positioned Sundance Channel for continued growth both domestically and abroad. The network continues to receive critical acclaim and awards for its engaging selection of films, documentaries and original programs, including /Spectacle: Elvis Costello With…/ and /Brick City/.” So Ed Carroll’s name belongs on the list of Defendants.

On the Cablevision website James Dolan’s bio says, “Mr. Dolan also oversees Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, a programming pioneer that reaches hundreds of millions of consumers through some of the country’s most watched and recognized cable networks, including AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel and WE tv.” James Dolan’s oversight of the companies the made the derivative movie finalizes that all of the Defendants named do belong in the lawsuit. Please see the corporate biographies included with this package.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO PAGE 8 OF 30, ELECTRONIC, PAGE 3 HARD COPY

The mockumentary’s footage of Mayor Cory A. Booker and high school principal Ras Baraka are brilliant recasts of the book’s Councilman Mizetti, Jeep Thomas, and high school principal Mr. Shell. Brilliant yes, but recasts nonetheless; therefore they are part of a derivative work. For this and other reasons, the Defense motion for dismissal should be emphatically denied.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO A. THE STORY: FIVE ADOLESCENTS COMING OF AGE IN NEWARK

The Brick City mockumentary shows residents of Newark, including some who were clearly chosen for their similarity to characters in the book. This is one of the ways the book had to be used in the production of the derivative movie.

Another way the Defendants used the book was by using the positive personality traits of Jeep Thomas and altering that foundation with a showcasing of positive aspects related to Cory A. Booker. The Defendants recast characters from the book into Cory A. Booker and others. The moviemakers incorporated unique qualities and actions from original Brick City lead character Jeep with the leadership of Cory A. Booker. The copyrighted book was transformed, recast, and altered into a motion picture series.

The book is more than a coming-of-age-story; it was a genre-buster before the movie. The story Brick City is also about a place, an environment with particularly expressed characters and occurrences. The adolescent characters listed by the Defendants were particularly expressed by E. Adam Jackson in his book; each is altered in their own way within the derivative movie. Still, the similarities are strong and protected by copyright law because of the unique expression in the book.

The way each character was changed is described in this section. Those characters were recast, transformed, and altered, from Scottsboro Wood’s poetry to Cory A. Booker’s poetry; from Tyrone Broadway’s fatherlessness to Cory A. Booker’s father; from talented gangster Casher to talented gangster Jiwe; from the female lead romantic character Liana to her counterpart Jayda; from Jeep and his football background and anti-crime leadership to Cory A. Booker’s same; from Jeep’s true love for his lady to Creep’s similar characteristic.

Then, in sticking to the Defendant’s list: the teen pregnancy was transformed for the movie. The football scenes were altered to fit Cory A. Booker, as was the similar shooting scene that was changed. The arrests and the parenting components were other similarities that appeared first in the book and then in the movie. The amount of similarities crush anything picked out by the Defense.

Amazing that all of these coincidental occurrences the Defendants would want to label as “scenes a faire” happen to appear in both works. Of all the scenes that could appear in their work, all of these similar scenes happen to be in both. But not only those characters and other parts were taken from the book – many more will be well detailed in Part III of this document.

The similarities between the two works are striking and overpower the differences. The similarities are due to the movie being a derivative of the book. The subject is spoken to in the U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101:

The Defendants created a derivative work without the Plaintiff’s permission. That’s a copyright violation according to the law. That is why the Defense motion to dismiss the claim should be denied.

By violating the copyright the Defendants did not violate any trademark laws. The Plaintiff purposely took the risk of not trademarking the phrase, “Brick City” so that it would remain open to anyone who chose to use it. That is the current status of the phrase. Those popular two words are in the public domain. However, the particular form of expression in E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City was never open for unapproved usage. Infringing on that unique expression is why the Defendants are in court.

³Please note that the phrase “Brick City” did not become a famous nickname for Newark until after the copyright registration and publication of Plaintiff’s book. Brick City is a community movement, consciously started by E. Adam Jackson as part of his written business plan. Plaintiff cannot allow anyone to hijack the movement by infringing on his creative expression — no matter how rich and powerful they are.

At the moment any of them decided to use the book for their movie, that’s when the violation occurred. That’s when they start owing compensation to E. Adam Jackson. The instant and every ensuing time they decided to show it some distorted way in the movie, or decided how it would be different on the screen from the book, they committed yet another violation. The multiple nature of the times they had to return to the book for guidance should be a factor in the calculation of relief after the Defense motion for dismissal is rightly denied.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 9 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 4 HARD COPY

The interweaving of stories is a particular form of expression in the book that found its way into the movie. The five-chapter format used in Plaintiff’s book was straight copied as the movie used five initial episodes. The third person perspective used in the book was changed in the movie. The use of subtitles in the book for breaks in the narrative was altered in the motion picture series. There is little else in the movie beyond what was copied, transformed, altered, and recast from the book.

The Defense of course describes selective events in the breakdown of the book’s major events. They describe that the narrative “reveals the characters’ inner thoughts, dreams, and memories, and often describes past events at length.” Those things are also revealed through dialogue. The Defense seeks to differentiate as much as possible so they focus on the narration, which is not the only venue of description or revelation in the book.

The book does not specify the year, however it is an indisputable fact that everything in the book was in place well before the year the Defendants used the book as the basis of their project. That’s the main relevant issue of age or era concerning these works.

CHAPTER 1:

The Defense limits the name Brick City to the projects, as if Brick City was not then expanded to mean the high school as well as the entire city as part of the national urban landscape. All of which was transformed, altered, changed, and recast as the Defendants wished, without plaintiff’s consent, in violation of his Constitutional rights.

The high school, the boxing arena, the police helicopter, and the actions as well as attributes of the five main characters and the unique others are all components that the Defendants included in their derivative work. The book was used to guide the production to the point that they could let the cameras elaborate upon the particulars protected by copyright in the Brick City book. The book is the basis of the movie.

CHAPTER 2

Jeep Thomas’ description by the Defense shows his heroic leadership qualities that were recast as Mayor Cory A. Booker’s leadership.

The defense’s inclusion of the school principal signals their use of this character in producing a motion picture in which a school principal is one of the main persona in their Brick City work. There is a huge amount of the Book that went into the making of the movie, another reason why the Defense motion should be thrown out.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 10 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 5 HARD COPY

The character of Casher informed the Defendant’s use of gangs and more gangs in their movie. They altered what was offered to the community in the book to provide a significant portion of their movie production.

Regarding The Garden of Eden: for some reason the Defense leaves out that this is the section that emphasizes the love between Liana and Jeep – two of the main characters transformed for the movie, where they became Jayda and Creep. The Defense would want to de-emphasize those characters because they contribute to the load of similarities that prove the book was the basis for the movie.

And in The Glass Library, the “library staff” who mentors Scottsboro includes Mr. Abdullah, who gives advice while dressed in outlandish costumes. For example, he wears a doctor’s costume much like the mentor in the movie that was recast in his likeness – the Street Doctor. Somehow the Defense left Mr. Abdullah out. They have ignored some of the key characters that were the foundation for the very direction and production of the derivative film.

Regarding Scott’s After-Church Scene: what the Defense describes as “an affinity for language” is actually a defensive downplaying of the fact that Scottsboro is a rap-style poet who performs rap music in the scene with his deejaying cousin Tyrone Broadway. This defies the Defense assertion that there was no music in the book. Yes, they altered the musical segments too, with other rappers. Not only should the Defense motion be denied, the relief sought by Plaintiff should be multiplied for the vast influences the book lent to the movie.

The Defense again ignored a key element in their attempt to downplay the strong similarities: not only Scottsboro, but also his cousin Tyrone is missing his father. The Defense only mentions Scott’s missing parent. The preponderance of parental issues in the book got transformed into scenes about Cory A. Booker’s parents. The similarities keep building and we are still at the tip of the similarity iceberg.

The Defense downplays yet another of the characters that were recast when they leave out that the ex-con karate teacher, known as The Hustler, is also a mentor whose role was played in the movie by Street Doctor and by the mentors at Central High School.

The downplayed characters trend continues with the Defense’s relation of The Blue Leather Jacket subtitle. After Casher steals the jacket The Hustler counsels him. The Defense apparently hopes the Judge is too busy to notice.

CHAPTER 3

In Puzzle Pieces we see the substitute teacher giving advice to a young man, as does The Hustler. There is a lot of material from the book that ended up altered in one form or another in the movie. Here the Defense mentions Councilman Mizzetti, the politician who was transformed into politicians into the movie.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 11 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 6 HARD COPY

The Mother’s Cry, as the subtitle would suggest, is full of parenting coverage. The Defendants transformed, altered, and recast the parenting material into multiple scenes with Cory A. Booker’s parents as well as Cory A. Booker himself giving parenting advice to a young father.

The Preaching, Purse-Snatching, and Dreams Over the Canal section features a reverend preaching about relief of weariness; in the movie it transforms to a reverend preaching about Cory A. Booker. There is a carrying on of the particular expressions about parenting employed by E. Adam Jackson that found its way into the Brick City reality series.

CHAPTER 4

Under the subtitle Patient is the Spider, the treatment of African-American history is a major event in the book. It’s another key item that is left out of the Defendant’s list of major events. The Defendants played mix-and-match with the original Brick City text and made it their own movie without approval of the author – in violation of U.S. Copyright Law. The poetic talents of Scottsboro Wood found their way into a recasting where the poet became Cory A. Booker. Tyrone Broadway’s connection to his father became the connection between Cory A. Booker and his father.

Jeep’s football heroics became the football background of Cory A. Booker.

The announcement of the pregnant Liana to her mother in the book was recast as Jayda announcing to her mom in the movie. Virtually every major event listed by the Defense bears the mark of infringement.

The heroic creation of a Brick City crime patrol by Jeep was transformed, altered, and recast into Mayor Cory A. Booker and Police Director McCarthy leading the Newark Police Department to combat crime. Plaintiff has only just begun to detail the specific strong similarities between the Brick City book and the obviously derivative motion picture series.

The Brick City crime patrol clearly influenced the Defendants to get ideas for their movie. The drug robbery by Casher is altered and transformed into a similar drug robbery in the movie where there is a single shot fired and other unmistakable similarities. The literal fall of Casher in the arms of the law is similar to Jayda’s fall from freedom into the correctional system.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 12 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 7 HARD COPY

When Scottsboro meets his father for the first time, it represents another parenting scene among those the Defendants changed for their movie. Parenting is a dominant expression throughout the book and the numerous scenes of Cory A. Booker’s parents represent alterations of what the Defendant saw in the book.

When Liana announces to Jeep that she is pregnant, she provides the basis for Jayda telling the same to Creep in the movie. With respect to Jayda’s pregnancy in real life, the way they handled it in the movie was reminiscent of the book’s particular form of expression.

Regarding Seashell and the Soybeans: The Brick City High School principal, Mr. Shell, was the literary foundation for the Central High School principal being in the movie. What other book in any genre has the particular form of expression as E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City? How could two works created in the same proximity have the same title and so many of the same major components? Only if someone copies the preexisting work or alters it in an attempt to get away with copyright infringement.

CHAPTER 5

In Stepping Into Tomorrow, Councilman Mizzetti’s appearance at the karate tournament in the book was altered into politicians appearing at community events in the movie. No other book has been shown to have such strong similarities with the Brick City movie. The similarities are not common because they do not exist elsewhere, as indicated by the Defense’s failure to list even one other book with such similarities.

The ongoing scenes about parenting in the book are what made the parenting scenes in the movie happen. There is little original in the movie that was not in the book.

Casher’s facing prison time is another item that happened to appear in another form within the motion picture series, in this case Jayda’s impending imprisonment. Unique expressions should not be considered scènes à faire when they are actually scenes that have been recast, altered, or transformed from a copyrighted work and when they appear in such proclivity.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO B. THE DOCUMENTARY: A NON-FICTIONAL EXPOSÉ ON URBAN POLITICS

Here again, the Defense uses the lofty term “documentary” to elevate the perception of their derivative work. The mockumentary Brick City, as clearly defined by the series’ director/executive producer Marc Benjamin, is a hybrid genre-buster. Again, that means it is not a strict documentary. It is a non-fiction motion picture based on a fictional book. It is truly a genre buster as far as Plaintiff is concerned because he does not know of any other instance where that fiction-to-reality series infringement has ever happened.

What the Defense dramatically describes as an Exposé on Urban Politics is essentially a Cory A. Booker promotional film based on the book by E. Adam Jackson.

When the Defense dishonestly mentions eleven chapters of the motion picture series, they are trying to pull the wool over the Judge’s eyes. It is crucial to make note that this lawsuit is about the five – repeat five, not eleven – episodes that were in effect at the time this suit was brought before The Court.

The Defendants are being sued for the first five episodes. Five episodes, just like the five-chapter Brick City book that was raped to get the Defendants what they desired. What they got was a Peabody Award, an Emmy Award, and millions of dollars in revenue. In violation of U.S. Copyright Law, the Defendants bypassed the author of the source for their movie. They are attempting to get away with their violation by denying it in U.S. Federal Court.

This lawsuit was entered on October 18, 2010 A.D. The second season of the Brick City motion picture series began on January 18, 2011. The Defendants are trying to mix up the picture by posturing to The Court that this case involves eleven episodes instead the true five. That is because they are trying to downplay the similarity of five chapters in the book with the derivative five film episodes they are being sued for.

The cameras followed Defendant Cory A. Booker as he was recast in the leadership position of Jeep Thomas as well as the politician role based on Councilman Mizzetti. When the film caught Cory A. Booker acting as Mayor, it elaborated on the foundation of the Brick City book used in the film. The transformation of Jeep and the Councilman included incidental behaviors by Mayor Cory A. Booker.

The same is true regarding the inclusion of Police Director Garry McCarthy, high school principal Ras Baraka, and the female lead Jayda. They represent transformation, altering, and recasting of the Brick City crime patrol led by Jeep and his gang, high school principal Mr. Shell, and female lead Liana Vine. It is not coincidental that the strong similarities exist between the two works.

⁴Attorney James Weinberger has provided copies of eleven episodes of the series. Plaintiff emphasizes that only the first five episodes of the motion picture series are material to this case. A CD containing the only five episodes that matter in this case accompanies this package, except the packages delivered to the Defendants — who already have enough copies ((INCLUDE CD IN ITEMS LIST)).

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 13 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 8 HARD COPY

We cannot take the Defense’s word that the scenes and dialogues are unscripted, especially when three words of the dialogue are exactly the same in the movie as in the book (see the super list of similarities starting on page 31). The Defendants had the Brick City book to guide their recasting of characters and actions. The movie could not have been produced without the book and show all those similarities. It would be incredible to believe that the dozens of similarities that exist between the two works were not produced through observation of the goings on in the book.

While some of the movie may be spontaneous, there are too many similarities for a reasonable person to believe that the similarities result from anything other than copyright infringement. The Defense has already made statements in their motion that are clearly not true or are obvious obfuscation. The Court therefore has no reason to give them benefit of the doubt as they lawyer up to cover up their infringement.

A sign of the infringement is the transformation of the book’s subtitles between sections into the movie’s “provocative quotation from the upcoming segment.” A significant portion of the book was used and changed for the movie.

According to the Defense, the main focus of their movie is the anti-crime posture of Mayor Cory A. Booker. This stance is a transformation of the Brick City crime patrol led by Jeep Thomas. Any real-life happenings in Newark city government shown in the movie are built upon the foundation of the Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson. If the moviemakers relied only on the “typical mayoral duties” of Cory A. Booker they would not have a five-part series, they would have a campaign commercial. The Defendants needed the story in the book to give form to their derivative.

The scenes of athleticism in the movie by Cory A. Booker transform the football prowess of Jeep in the book. Cory A. Booker was recast as the advisor of a young men in line with the mentors in the Brick City book. The parents of Cory A. Booker were recast from the roles of the mothers and fathers in the novel by E. Adam Jackson.

Police Director McCarthy is a transformation of the Brick City crime patrol members working with Jeep Thomas. The police director makes a couple of cryptic comments regarding literature and writing. The elaborative coverage of Garry McCarthy was part of the transformation. The police director and the mayor fighting crime were the same as Jeep, Scottsboro, and Tyrone patrolling and purging the projects.

Ras Baraka was recast as the high school principal necessary for the producers of the movie to follow the footprint of the original. The importance of Principal Shell to the book was transformed into the same level of importance with Principal Baraka. The more the Defense explains, the more evident the violation becomes.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 14 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 9 HARD COPY

Ras Baraka was the closest thing the Defendants could find to be a reality series version of Mr. Shell from the Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson. The Defendants had a great idea but they messed up in trying to bypass the author of their base material.

The appearance of Jayda in the movie was the transformation of Liana Vine, with the similarities including her organizational skills, her relationship with a boyfriend, and her pregnancy. Nowhere else does that particular expression and its derivative exist but in these two works.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO ARGUMENT

Summary judgment should be denied because the mockumentary violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and infringed on his work according to U.S. Copyright Law.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT GENERALLY

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

Denial of the Defense motion is appropriate because the Defense has failed to meet the burden of proof. They failed to show an absence of dispute to their claimed material facts: Their material facts lend more to the Plaintiff’s case then their own, showing evidence of the vast recasting, transformation, and alteration of the book into the movie; their “facts” are selective and attempt to diminish the Defendant’s culpability by omitting information that was changed from the original to create their derivative work; and they used incorrect terms to describe the book’s genre to pigeonhole the work into a generalized category that broadens the possibilities for them to claim scènes à faire

rather than acknowledge the unique and particular form of expression it was copyrighted as.

The Plaintiff’s dispute is most genuine. The Plaintiff has met the burden of proof showing that the Defendants created a derivative work and violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 15 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 10 HARD COPY

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

Clark v. Modern Grp. Ltd., 9 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 1993)

The essential element of Plaintiff’s claim is abundantly proven, that the Defendants violated his copyright and constitutional rights by creating a derivative work without permission, meaning that the Defense has failed to meet the burden. The Defendants made their faulty affirmation and it is sinking fast under the sheer weight of opposition provided thus far by the Plaintiff. More proof is to come in this document. By the end of this document the Defendants’ affirmative attempts will be sharing space with The Titanic.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)

The Plaintiff is putting up proof that is not metaphysical but is discernable, dimensional, and clearly documented. Plaintiff has given specific facts and will get even more specific in opposing Part III of Defendant’s motion – quite the opposite of shutting up. Their Defense is full of holes and Plaintiff has in every page of this document presented facts that obliterate the Defense’s shaky story.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Plaintiff is not just repeating the facts of his Claim, but in responding to Defense points the proof becomes a constant reminder. The evidence is shown throughout Plaintiff’s Response that the claim is legitimate and supported by more facts with more specificity than the Defense’s brittle motion. By the time the reviewer reads every page of the Response it will be obvious that Plaintiff’s assertions are correct.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)

Plaintiff has not used innuendo but has made his charges straightforward and outright: in making their motion picture, the Defendants participated in the copyright infringement of E. Adam Jackson’s book, Brick City. The remarkable number of strong similarities cannot all be diminished as scènes à faire. The similarities provide clear evidence that the only way they exist is because the Defendants picked the book apart and used major parts of it to produce their movie. No innuendo there.

Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000)

Plaintiff is putting up on every page of his Response in Opposition. He provides an argument in every paragraph, offers overwhelming evidence in support of his Claim, and points out falsities and illogic in the Defense motion with a tsunami of truth and sensibility. It is the Defense and their Clients who will be shutting their mouths and opening their minds and wallets before this case is over.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

Plaintiff respects the Defendants right to move for summary judgment. Too bad they did not respect Plaintiff’s rights, because when the motion is justly and quickly denied as a matter of law, it’s going to get expensive for the infringers.

II. PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE PROFFER OF APPLICABLE COPYRIGHT STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES

U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8

Congress created copyright protection to keep the powerful from controlling the creativity of the independent. The Defendants bucked that protective firewall and must pay the price. E. Adam Jackson is the owner of the original Brick City copyright and the contents of that work were used as the basis for the Defendant’s motion picture series. The law provides for relief of copyright violation including a triplicate award to discourage the powerful plaintiffs and like companies from conducting such corrupt business practices in the future.

The progress of knowledge that came with the publication of Brick City by E. Adam Jackson inspired a whole city and its entrepreneurs, artists, gang members, politicians, students, educators…Brick City became a movement that the Defendants wanted in on. They were welcome to join in with the progression of Brick City knowledge but they were never welcome to use the original particular expressions of E. Adam Jackson, which the Defendants did.

There is no limit relevant to this case except for that the Defendants violated the limit of what they could use from Plaintiff’s book. If they had stopped at the title and just created an original work, thereby legally expanding the Brick City Movement, Plaintiff would have been happy. But violation of the legal limits made Plaintiff have to rely on the law since the Defendants apparently want to do dirty business.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)

The Defendants had Plaintiff’s book in a tangible, copyrighted form. They had a published, copyrighted book with a colorful paperback cover, not the sterile pages they included in their motion package.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 16 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 11 HARD COPY

17 U.S.C. § 102(b)

The Defendants had the Brick City book, complete with a particular form of unique expression. They had more than ideas, concepts, plans, and abstract non-copyrightables. They had a real, registered book in their hands and they ripped it off.

17 U.S.C. § 501(a)

The Defense discovered the book by E. Adam Jackson and decided to violate Plaintiff’s rights when they did not respect the principle of fair play. The Defendants now respond to legal challenge with defensive dodges rather than immediate rectification. The Defendants had a published, copyrighted book that was as real as a book can get: not an abstract concept, principle or discovery.

Again, the definition of what an infringer is confirms that indeed the Defendants are infringers.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO B. DETERMINING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,

499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc.,

930 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1991)

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.,

797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986)

No further definition of “infringement” is necessary beyond that found in sections 101 and 106 of the U.S. Copyright Law. From Chapter 1, section 101:

Got ‘em! No case law needs to re-interpret what it says in plain language: the Defendants’ Brick City motion picture version is a derivative of E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City book. Rising above the din and misdirection of the Defense team is the truth and the simplicity of this section of the Copyright Law. The truth is the book’s copyrighted unique and particular expression was transformed, recast, and altered when the Defendants modified their way to another version of Plaintiff’s work.

Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Law covers “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.” Item 2 in that section states that “…subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: …(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work…

Stick a fork in ‘em! The Defense is done like their definite violation of an artist’s rights is done according to the U.S. Constitution. The Defendants created an unauthorized derivative work. This case is about a copyright violation that happened, according to the law. The copyright law “determines the elements,” not a case law grab-for-straws to build a bridge away from the truth. A robust denial of the Defense motion is warranted because of the large preponderance of strong similarities that could only have resulted from infringement.

Proof of copyright infringement is shown throughout this document. Every paragraph the Defendants have offered to the Court has been exposed for weakness against their position. The Defendants admit that E. Adam Jackson owns a valid copyright. A copy of the certificate is enclosed with this package.

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002)

Plaintiff E. Adam Jackson owns the original copyright for anything Brick City. That is without question. The second element that the Defense states is that Plaintiff must prove the copying of constituent parts of his book that are original. That is simple to do because of the nature of the original copyright under this particular genre.

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1232 (3d Cir. 1986)

There was no other book about Newark with the same elements before E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City. The connections between the two are too strong in their similarity to be a coincidence. Every page of this document refutes the Defense’s desperate reasoning and provides the true perspective: that the unique, never-before-seen, original text of particular expression contained within the book shows up altered, transformed, or recast in their movie. The proof is in the pudding. There is no way on earth that both works could be so similar unless the defendants produced their movie with the book as their basis. Any assertion to the contrary is a lie: a well-dressed, highly credentialed, powerfully influential lie. The truth is that the Defendants created a derivative work.

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 562 (3d Cir. 2002)

The Defendants offer no other work in literature that contains similar constituent parts that would make scènes à faire of anything in Brick City. They offer not a single one. The major parts of E. Adam Jackson’s book appear so frequently and in such close proportion in a changed form throughout the first five episodes of the motion picture that it is proof of “copying.” A reasonable person would conclude that the book was used because of the sheer volume of similarities that could only be passed on from the preexisting work.

Such an avalanche of similarity exists that the old, well-used scènes à faire defense is illegitimate. The particular form of expression copyrighted by E. Adam Jackson was protected by copyright and the Defendants violated it. That is actionable. In fact the magnitude of the infringement dictates that action be taken to facilitate compensation that E. Adam Jackson deserves. The compensation should be at a level commensurate to the financial rewards reaped by the Defendants from their reliance on Plaintiff’s work and the efforts they have made to get away with it.

Warner Bros. v. ABC, Inc., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983)

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 566

All of the parts and sub-parts entered by the Defense in this section have been vigorously and completely blown out of the water by the truth and law that the Plaintiff offers. The Defense motion is false and faulty and should be denied as a matter of law.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 17 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 12 HARD COPY

Warner Bros. v. ABC, Inc., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983)

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 566

When The Court compares the two works a strong similarity will be seen. The stolen car repainted, reaccessorized, and remodeled still involves a violation of the law. The sophisticated revisions on the original form would constitute attempts to hinder future litigation. The difference between the works results from alteration, transformation, recasting, and the elaboration provided by the cameras on the subjects chosen and put into place because of their proximity to the original Brick City story. Without the elements of the book the motion picture version would be entirely different.

Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001)

Substantial similarity will be further established in opposition to Defendant’s Section III, with the inclusion of two very detailed lists of similarities.

Castle Rock Entm’t v. Carol Pu150 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 1998)

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 562

The amount of material used from the book is quantitative as well as qualitative, more than enough to convince a jury that the infringement occurred. They basically copied practically the whole book when page numbers are considered.

Often in the Judge’s review of the super list, which starts on page 35, it can be seen that an infringed item from one page of the book amounts to one minute of its altered state in the movie. If the component is covered on two pages from the book, there are two minutes it appears in the movie. This phenomenon occurs consistently, in an uncanny coordination of copying, alteration, recasting, and transformation. This is further evidence of infringement.

Castle Rock Entm’t v. Carol Pu150 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1998)

Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures590 F. Supp. 2d 625, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

All of the infringed material was changed from the original copyrighted form in which it was protected; none of it was scènes à faire because it was the original Brick City Community-Raising Literature genre. The Defendants misappropriated unique material set in a particular form of expression that does not exist in any other work of this genre. If there are any, the Defense certainly did not point out a single one.

Plaintiff points out that there is a Brick City book and a Brick City movie, and they bear strong similarities. There is only one way that happened. No Deux Ex Machina will save the Defense on this one. There is nothing trivial about the substantial amount of material documented in the Plaintiff’s lists of similarities. The copying that becomes distorted but recognizable parts from the book amounts to a clear-cut and classic case of infringement. The amount of copying is not de minimus; it is voluminous.

Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904 (3d Cir. 1975)

The Court should impose the maximum legal consequences on Defendants who have such a large part of the public stake, those who are top business concerns and a top civil servant. There is corruption in the admission of access accompanying a denial of substantial usage. That’s a dodge employed by huge corporate concerns seeking to take the creativity of independent authors without compensation and should be seen for what it is. The clearly unethical behavior of the Defendants as a whole should be a factor in the consideration of denying Defense’s motion and progressing to the next stage of this case.

Warner Bros. v. ABC, Inc.720 F.2d 231

Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 909 (3d Cir. 1975)

Some of the differences between the works are merely modifications… elaborations on the alterations, transformations, and recasts employed by the moviemakers. The Defense points out ((SPECIFY AMOUNT)) differences. The Plaintiff lists more than 60. There is no way a much smaller amount of differences should outweigh dozens more similarities that clearly are changes from the preexisting work. The differences do not exceed the similarities, which are substantial.

The infringed portions are taken from major events and characters from Plaintiff’s work. If all the similar parts of the book and movie were stricken out, there would be no book and there would be no movie, because there would be too little material to do either.

4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03[B][1][a] (2011)

Hofmann v. Pressman Toy Corp., 790 F. Supp. 498 (D.N.J. 1990)

Any differences between the works do not count for more than the similarities. The differences do not exceed the similarities in volume or frequency. Hardly any scenes in the derivative work are devoid of the footprint initiated by the preexisting work. The similarities are striking, substantial, and not attributable to any other reason but conscious, conspiratorial copying.

⁵The Defendants admit having access to the book. They had more than access, they had the Brick City book in their hands years before they started their motion picture derivative. E. Adam Jackson personally handed a copy of the novel to Cory A. Booker at Newark Penn Station. E. Adam Jackson mailed the book (and more) repeatedly to Associate Producer Lisa Durden.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 18 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 13 HARD COPY

4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03[B][1][a] (2011)

Hofmann v. Pressman Toy Corp., 790 F. Supp. 498 (D.N.J. 1990)

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO C. THE COURT MUST EXTRACT ALL NONPROTECTABLE SIMILARITIES BEFORE ANALYZING “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.”

Dam Things From Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 562 (3d Cir. 2002)

Key Publ’ns, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publ’g Enters., 945 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991)

To insist that The Court extract unprotectable elements is to presuppose there are any. The Brick City book was not only the first brick City entity registered in the U.S. Library of Congress, it was the first of its genre. The particular form of expression was unique. For the Defense to intimate that any material from the book is scènes à faire they should be required to show proof by listing some of the titles, text, and copyright information that would identify literature with legitimate likenesses to the particular expression of E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City.

Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986)

The zero list of like literature the Defense has offered so far shows that there is only one book that can claim the unique original features that ended up in the derivative Brick City movie. That book is E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City and 1.) justifies the claim, and 2.) completely negates the motion to dismiss.

In evaluating the substantial similarities that are easily identifiable when pointed out, The Federal Court’s decision for action should also consider the violation of Constitutional rights inherent in such an onslaught of transformation, recasting, and alteration. The material modifications conducted by the Defendants call for action of the most severe order because the hollowness of their case represents a waste of the court’s time. Their lack of cooperation with the truth constitutes a brazen attempt to bypass the law, ignore the Constitution of the United States of America, and fool The Court.

Copyright law protects the elements of the original Brick City book that were used in the movie. The particular expressions were so unique that the Defendants cannot rightly hope for a complete trivialization of Plaintiff’s work into some singular, massive scène à faire where nothing has legitimate protection. That would be absurd.

The portions that were included in the movie, no matter how changed they were, included major themes, primary characters, and some of the secondary ones. They are all unique in U.S. American literature. If that is not true, let the Defendants meet the burden of proof that such similarities exist between their movie and any other literature in our nation’s history. Plaintiff was an English major and Young Adult Librarian and knows of no other book that can make such a fitting case on this derivative copycat of a movie.

McCormick v. Fugerson, No. Civ. A. 94-3944, 1995 WL 580339 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 1995)

Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1994)

The works are so much alike that — when scrutinized in depth — an ordinary, reasonable adult would conclude that a copyright infringement took place. They would have a good idea that it was premeditated, sophisticated, substantial, valuable, and actionable.

An ordinary, reasonable adult would see that both plots involve a primary heroic leader whose unique and forceful personality encourages a policing force under his command to stop crime in the community. A jury of regular people with good sense would see the similar themes of urban renewal and achieving success over any obstacle through organization, good parenting, and self-improvement. A human individual with a good head on their shoulders would discern the three consecutive words of dialogue that are used verbatim and then changed on the fourth word in a scene similar to the book. A common everyday Joe with thinking skills would recognize optimistic moods in each work that permeate the darkness of urban reality in the setting of Newark. A normal citizen who can figure things out would understand the similar pacing and sequence of events set off by the particular five-chapter/five-episode manner of movement. A humble person with mother wit would “get it” that similarities in the segment introductions, where subtitles were used in the book and quotes were used in the movie — however altered — are violations of copyright law. The same is true for the uncanny similarities between the vast array of characters in the fiction work whose counterparts appear in the reality series. A jury of people from the U.S.A. will know what’s going on when they hear the arguments and see the evidence.

Tristar Prods., Inc. v. SAS Grp., Inc., No. Civ. A. 08-6263 (PGS), 2009 WL 3296112 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2009)

The similarities are not random; they are regular and recognizable as established in the particular expression that is Brick City by E. Adam Jackson.

Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010)

The Defense would like to set up a situation in which the likenesses between the works are diminished to a coincidental perspective that ignores the greater volume of similarities as compared to differences. The substantial similarities are the proof in the pudding and the footprints in the sand.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 19 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 14 HARD COPY

The Defense confuses the issue when they offer McCormick v. Fugerson on page 18 of 30, insisting that the Judge delineate themes between the works and then turning around on the next page and offering that the Judge should not rely on themes because they’re unprotectable. That’s contradictory. What makes the Defense think they can get away with that?

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Plaintiff is not complaining about ideas, facts or aesthetics in this case; the Complaint is clearly about the Defendant’s deriving their modification from the particular manner of expression in his book – the original expression, the unique expression.

Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954)

Facts are not the issue, beyond the distorted facts offered up by the Defense on page 8 of 30; the Brick City original was a work of fiction. Nor is the topic of the book or movie part of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Defendants are in Federal Court for basing their movie on particular major portions of the copyrighted, preexisting work and for failing to respect the author’s Constitutional rights.

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986)

The Walker vs. Time-Life case is known for the corporate-friendly decision including the finding about the uncopyrightability of a police story in the Bronx 41^st precinct. That Fort Apache thing was a general idea, not a particular form of expression like Brick City, which has no predecessor. The only known derivative work to appear afterward was the Defendant’s Brick City.

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1236 (3d Cir. 1986)

Unique characters and particular expressions from the Brick City book that have no other strong similarities anywhere in the culture as they do with the Brick City movie are not scènes à faire. They are the roots of the derivative work that exist only in these two works.

Id.; MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown Info., Inc., 375 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004)

We are not talking about incidents, characters, or settings that would happen anywhere at anytime. At issue are specific characters doing never-before-seen things in a particular manner, incidents and dialogue that originally happened in E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City, and settings that only the two works share.

Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980)

It is the author’s creativity that was infringed upon to the tune of dozens of documented incidents. The sheer volume and scope of similarities cannot be swept under the scènes à faire rug.

Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1236 (3d Cir. 1986)

Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1980)

Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

The elements of the Brick City book that appear in one form or another in the movie are not standard. They were unique to the book until the Defendants based their version on those protected particular elements. The literary devices that are used in many works cannot be said to include the interwoven stories, the five-chapter set up, and the subtitles between each segment. Where else can those literary devices be found except in the Brick City book and movie? It’s easy to say with imagination that they exist elsewhere but the burden of proof should be showing where they do exist.

Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001)

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Crane v. Poetic Prods. Ltd., 593 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

The Defendants have not alleged that any materials in Brick City by E. Adam Jackson came from any pre-existing works or borrowed from another author.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 20 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 15 HARD COPY

H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (1976)

Among the dozens of substantial similarities that exist between the works, there is no alleged similarity between the original Brick City and any preexisting works. The unique particular expression in the poet Scottsboro Wood character is material to the case. It was that particularly expressed character’s poetical particulars that were altered and recast as the poet Cory A. Booker in the Defendants’ sophisticated switching of elements. It has not been alleged by either side that both works bear substantial similarity to any work preexisting the book and the movie. That is consistent with the point made about the 1976 Copyright Act, which would say that the unique characteristics of Scottsboro Wood were covered by copyright protection. The particular form of expression used to make up Scottsboro Wood was transformed to build the Cory A. Booker persona in the motion picture.

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986)

Because the truth is not in their corner, the Defense resorts to reaching out for any distraction to defend the indefensible. For example: The Walker case was found to have scenes common to any south Bronx 41^st precinct police story. But in the Brick City Copyright Infringement Case there is more than just a location similarity and a single vein of other likeness.

In Brick City by E. Adam Jackson there is also the particular expression of the heroics of Jeep and his courageous policing leadership in Brick City. There is the unique character that Mr. Shell presents in the Brick City genre, which then appears post-publication, post-registration as Principal Ras Baraka in the Brick City movie. The particular character that Liana brings to the Brick City table has no literary sister; only Jayda from the Brick City derivative was recast as Liana. The unique characteristics of Tyrone and his father situation as well as his solid following of Jeep were recast as Cory A. Booker’s father and the support of the Newark Police to Jeep’s leadership. The particular form of expression that is Casher made the humanistic qualities of that character attractive and convenient for the moviemakers to recast as Jiwe and Jayda. The unique creativity that went into the relationship of the young couple was the foundation for the couple’s inclusion and actions within the Brick City genre.

The very words that came from the mouth of Angelo Bruno in the book were used by a persona in the movie, miraculously just before a similar scene that happens in the book and then happens in the movie right after the guy says the same three words. More details can be found on page 30, item #7 of this document. When such a major red flag is taken in the context of the Brick City pair of works in question, it screams out the copying that the Defendants resorted to and now try to cover up in this case. The particularity of expression in E. Adam Jackson’s Brick City was the only possible source for the substantial similarities.

There were other police stories about the south Bronx. There was only one Brick City in the culture that showed what Plaintiff’s book did until the Defendant’s work was released. That is one big difference between the Fort Apache case and the Brick City case. Brick City by E. Adam Jackson was not one of a long line. It was the original Brick City copyright in the culture of the U.S.A.

The lists of similarities that are documented in Part III of this Opposition to the Motion for Dismissal are substantially full of unique expressions that have similarity to the movie. They are particular forms of creativity that were imagined and fulfilled by E. Adam Jackson. The Defendants had access to the book and altered portions of major, protected expressions. The Defendants would have had to resort to their own devices if they had not actively used the book as a guidance tool for their derivative production. There is no just method used in any case that can render every similarity as unprotected from the whims of powerful political and entertainment people. As abundantly shown in the lists presented by Plaintiff in response to Part III, the similarities in Brick City are much greater in volume and weight than cited in Fort Apache.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 21 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 16 HARD COPY

The big historical event that is depicted in the original Brick City is the Scottsboro Boys. All information used in the book about that case is in the public domain. The mockumentary does not depict anything about the Scottsboro Boys, only about the unique character that is Scottsboro Wood. The Defendants are not being held to the copyright laws for the historical standards in the Scottsboro Boys.

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006)

The Defendants are being sued in part because the personality traits of main characters are substantially similar. Jeep’s personality traits are emphasized in the persona attributed to Cory A. Booker: optimism, passion, and leadership. The personality traits of Liana are seen in Jayda: organization, love for her boyfriend. The personality traits of Mr. Shell are seen in Ras Baraka: caring, forceful, problem solving. The personality traits of Casher are seen in Jiwe: a gentle side under a tough exterior, a talented star caught up in the gang life.

The plot of events in the Brick City book is not common to any other artwork. They are particularly and uniquely expressed. The book is fiction, and is more fantastic than realistic. It is the motion picture that is a reality series and bends the fiction work to the ends of the Defendants.

The Defendants undercounted the similarities and diminished the specificity of the book’s characters. A genuine review of the works shows a myriad of substantial similarities that are no chance occurrences. They are the result of the book being a foundation for the motion picture. Regardless of the coinciding eras of the Fort Apache works, the difference in decades between the book and the movie is of no consequence. The book is a true original that lends strong images to the world of literature. The Defense was able to pick through the original Brick City and adapt it to their needs in what just happened to be 2007, not unlike “The Manchurian Candidate” was made in Frank Sinatra’s era and in Denzel Washington’s; the way “Popeye” was a cartoon decades before Robin Williams starred in it, and the way that “The Cat in the Hat” was a book made years and years before Mike Myers made us laugh in the movie. The different decades didn’t make a difference to the moviemakers because they wanted the story and they took it.

The differences between the works sometimes amount to the modifications the Defendants made to the elements of the original Brick City. The alterations and transformations do not lessen the legitimacy of the Claim but in fact strengthen it because the very act of changing defines the derivative nature of the movie according to U.S. Copyright Law. They changed the basics as much as they wanted to, but the violations are still clear.

The substantial similarities are still easily identifiable in the movie, especially when pointed out. In the Funky Films case, only a handful of similarities were identified. In the Brick City case dozens of similarities get listed in relation to the unique creativity of the book’s author.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 22 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 17 HARD COPY

The multitude of substantial similarities cannot be totally dismissed under the Defense tool of “it doesn’t matter what the Plaintiff Claims, we will not respect it.” With such a long list of similarities between the works, especially when such a broad array of characters is recast in the derivative work, the infringement is illuminated. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. Where there’re dozens of similarities of the quality they are in this case, there is infringement.

The statement, “whatever similarities there were existed only at “a very high level of generality”” could also be said of a mirror image. Between the Brick City works the frequency and consistency of the similarities go way beyond generalities. Dismissal of the Complaint of this case is not appropriate because the similarities are not general. In the Brick City case the similarities are based on unique expression, they are vast, and they are specific to these two works, not a bevy of books or movies.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO D. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN CLEARCUT CASES OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010)

The examples shown by the Defense only demonstrate decisions made in cases that do not involve the unique, genre-busting originality of this case. Walker did not copyright the first police story about the South Bronx. Funky Films did not write the first screenplay about a funeral home. But E. Adam Jackson did register the first Brick City copyright and there was no other that fit the infringement claim until the motion picture made by all of the Defendants. Dismissal of the Claim should be denied because the copyright law protects against the unauthorized making of derivative works, which is definitely what the Defendants did.

The Defense wants to have a Judge decide this case instead of the citizens who Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre excludes from the historical functions of the Court. Based on the newsletter that was on the counter in the Federal Clerk’s office, Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre mentions camaraderie with The Court that doesn’t include the Common Folk.

While in the Clerk’s office at the District Court, Plaintiff picked up a newsletter from the District Court Historical Society, of which Leda Dunne Wettre is the President (see paragraph 7 of the Nunc Pro Tunc Newsletter submitted with this package).

The lead lawyer for the Defense in New Jersey has published about the friendship and trust her organization creates with the Court, outside of the courtroom. That’s a powerful position that could be designed to make the Judge more likely to help the friendly and familiar face.

The Plaintiff would be the one left out of the opportunities that Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre presides over. The Plaintiff is not asking for a loan, a favor, or welfare but demanding relief for the copyright infringement committed by the attorney’s Clients.

Attorney Leda Dunn Wettre and the Defendants behind her are in a world where regular citizens don’t get a mention, the proletariat is ignored, the masses are made invisible, and the citizens who our government belongs to are left out. Throughout the motion to dismiss this case, the Defense has employed falsehoods, denial, slick talk, dubious conclusion, and other wastes of time. They are top lawyers for influential people.

However, no corporate concern should be too powerful, no political juggernaut should hold sway over, no level of outside camaraderie should be advertising about camaraderie on the Clerk’s counter when they are doing business in the Court. When such a clear set of circumstances shows a black-and-white interpretation favoring the Plaintiff, the gray areas that a very able Defense may use to cloud the atmosphere could be put into play by big time people trying to avoid spending the big time money that could factor in. Plaintiff has confidence in the Court and that is why the case is there.

Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre cultivated the camaraderie by having her face on in view of The Public and Court employees in a beneficial, friend-making manner. Defense Counsel put themselves in the Courthouse in an exclusive way. Judging from the numerous holes in their case, the glaring weak spots, and the misstatements they brought before the Court, the Defense thinks they’re tight with The Judiciary at the Dr. Martin Luther King Courthouse. The Defense obviously comes to The Bench with a chummy reliance that they can substitute supposition for substance.

The Defense submitted false information as if they have a special kind of clout. They profess to have an exclusive camaraderie with The Court. They behave as if they can do what they want. The Court must filter through the infiltration of power brokering and insider influence shown by the in-house pamphleteering of any attorney defending violators of Plaintiff’s rights. The Judge should dismiss the Defense motion as a matter of copyright law and justice.

The Defendants don’t trust a Jury of The People and have requested that the Judge ignore their weak claims and false statements to protect infringers who bypassed the rights of the original Brick City author. This case calls for a Jury of U.S. citizens to interpret their laws and set their penalties for the infringement according to our U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff has demanded a Jury Trial and that is the direction this case should head in because of the incredible number of substantial similarities in protected elements. While the Judge is not precluded from making the decision, the Plaintiff maintains that under these circumstances it would be the people of the United States who should decide this if fair settlement cannot be reached. We should not give big corporations and powerful people the instant out that some have enjoyed in copyright cases.

This is a historic time in our country, Brick City is a historic movement, and this is a historic case. It should be in the hands of a Jury. A Jury of regular, reasonable people would see the substantial similarities when the case is shown. After both sides presented their cases the jury would find for the Plaintiff. A jury properly instructed would look at the evidence and act on the truth as they see it according to the burden of proof. The knowledge that this is a reality has the Defense desperate for an injustice that should not happen because their Clients violated the constitutional copyright law. Defense should not be allowed to invade the Court with their negative notions to allow or even influence a violation of our most fundamental laws.

Pino v. Viacom, Inc.,

No. Civ. 07-3313 (AET), 2008 WL 704386 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2008)

R&B, Inc. v. Needa Parts Mfg., Inc.,

418 F. Supp. 2d 684 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

Daley v. Granada US Prods.,

No. Civ. A. 02-2629 (CRW), 2003 WL 21294986 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2003)

Coston v. Prod. Movers,

No. Civ. A. 89-4865 (TNO), 1990 WL 56516 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 1990)

Any frequent granting of summary motions by the Third Circuit Court does not denote any rate compared to denials. A normal reasonable adult would understand that sometimes the dismissal is appropriate, sometimes it is not. The Brick City Copyright Infringement Lawsuit is a case where dismissal is not appropriate in a Court of Justice.

The substantial similarities and the circumstances that surround this case would move the Jury to find fault with the Defendants; the Jury would penalize the Defendants, the verdict rendered would stay with the Defendants until the end of time or until the Court no longer preserves its decisions. A Jury trial would be a fitting conclusion to this process unless the Defense decides to do the right thing after the motion to dismiss is rightfully denied.

A review of the book and the mockumentary does reveal a plethora of substantial similarities that could only exist as the result of an massive copyright infringement by the Defendants. Influential politicians, experienced filmmakers, ambitious top executives sometimes lose control of their ethical minds and that is what happened in this case. The Defendants in this case tried to overuse their power and deserve a legal spanking. Then we can all go about our business, wiser and better all around for the experience.

The motion picture series altered a significant portion of the Brick City book, an amount of unmistakable likeness that a Jury of Plaintiff’s peers would find convincing for the Plaintiff. Any prior cases that found in favor of accused infringers are worthless here. The Defendants in this case infringed and they left evidence. No matter what the end result of their recasting, transformations, and alterations, they are culpable and must be held accountable.

A reasonable Jury would find unanimously for the Plaintiff and summary judgment should be summarily denied. The Defendants are entitled to the reputation that will accompany their big time bullying behavior if they choose to continue fronting beyond the inevitable denial of their motion to dismiss. The Defense has chosen to throw a lot of material against the wall to see what sticks. Plaintiff believes what will stick is the recognition of the immense amount and importance of the similarities.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 23 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 18 HARD COPY

PLAINTIFF OPPPOSITION TO III. THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE STORY.

A reasonable person would not just observe; they would review. A reasonable reviewer would definitely find that the works are substantially similar. To reason means to think logically and rationally. A reasonable person would know that they cannot judge a book or a movie or a copyright case by its cover. A reasonable person knows that all kinds of people steal whether rich or poor, powerful or powerless. A reasonable person will be able to look into the case, not just look at it, and they will see the derivative nature of the movie. That is the difference between an observation and a review.

An observation is more cursory, which would suit the Defense. A review would involve more evaluation, analysis, and examination. So a reasonable person would find that the claim is justified because they could see that infringement occurred in this case.

A reasonable person would also quickly understand why the Defense insists on calling their derivative motion picture series a “Documentary” after published information quoted the director/executive producer emphatically saying it was not a documentary. Have any of the Defendants published an exception to that information? Bring on the reasonable Jury and let’s see what their take on this case is. Plaintiff does not believe that the Defense will be able to fool a reasonable Jury for long.

The mockumentary reality series depicts Mayor Cory A. Booker recast from the dynamic leadership of Jeep. The real-life community members were largely recast from other characters from the book: the young couple, the school principal, the convict turned community activist, the young gangster. The book was clearly used as the basis for the movie. What the Defense lists as “differences” are elaborations on the infringed material. That’s why Defendant Marc Benjamin said they were creating a “hybrid genre buster” because the hybrid part meant they mixed Plaintiff’s book with whatever else they were doing. Note that Benjamin does not explain in the article what he means by “hybrid genre buster.”

Changing the particular expression of E. Adam Jackson does not render it unprotected any more than does stealing a red Astro van and painting it pink make it unprotected. Just scratching the surface of the vehicle would reveal the modification, just as scratching the surface of this case reveals the infringement.

If the Defense is confident that a reasonable Jury would see things their way, why don’t they withdraw their motion for dismissal and let the Jury get a good look at both arguments? They won’t do that because they want to see if the great relationship Attorney Leda Dunne Wettre believes she has forged with the Court pays off in a dismissal despite the dismal showing of the Defense.

What does Plaintiff mean by “dismal”? A reasonable review of this page reveals certain weaknesses in the Defense case to where they resort to outright falsities to make their case.

The mockumentary portrays Cory A. Booker as facing challenges to reduce crime. That policing posture is a recasting of Jeep Thomas’ crime reduction leadership in the book, complete with football stories and an inspiring speech for the policing force to rid the neighborhood of crime. That is not a scène à faire. That is a unique expression copyright-protected decades before the Defendants made their movie. There is no other character as uniquely expressed as this character Jeep, created by E. Adam Jackson and altered by the Defendants to create their derivative work.

The scènes à faire defense is a shot in the dark. The definition of a derivative work is real, embodied within U.S. Copyright Law. A reasonable reviewer will see not only this simple fact, but also the upcoming preponderance of strong similarities to be seen in Plaintiff’s lists should have the Defendants starting to reach for their wallets before the Judge even issues the decision. The disparity of similarities over differences is not even close.

The Defense says that most of the movie is made up of “Political

meetings, interviews, speeches, campaigns, ribbon-cuttings, ground breakings, and strategy sessions.” Yet they offer no specific time breakdown of where or how much. That’s a weakness. Especially because it’s untrue.

The rock that caused the political ripples of the Brick City movie was the Brick City book. It was the book’s Brick City patrol that inspired the police department’s appearance in the movie and provided guidance for what would be seen as crime investigations and police meetings.

It was the book that provided the basis for the inclusion of a high school principal with the strong and unique character that is Mr. Shell. Again, not a scène à faire. The gang members were a ripple effect from Casher and his associates; the community member known as Street Doctor was clearly recast to alter the character of The Hustler’s never-before-seen characteristics that were seen again in Brick City when the Defendants tried to get away with creating an unauthorized reality series from Plaintiff’s book.

That none of the principal characters are high school students is because the original characters were altered. Adult Cory A. Booker echoed high school student Jeep’s power of influence, his enthusiastic willingness to step up when others laid back, and his leadership against crime. The parental situations of all the teenagers in the book were recast as the parents of Cory A. Booker. Liana and Jeep were recast as Jayda and Creep. The ages of the characters may have been changed but the genders, ethnicity, and actions remain substantially similar. The Defendants got their storyline from the book and then let the camera elaborate.

The mayorship of Brick City is indeed mentioned in the book. A city councilman with mayoral aspirations is one of the characters that was transformed. Councilman Mizzetti, a political figure from the book who it says on page 51 of the book is about to run for mayor, is a character that saw alteration in the movie exposure given to Mayor Cory A. Booker. The Defendants used the policing force initiated and operated in the book by Jeep Thomas’ group to recast the police director and his group in the movie.

Whatever Cory A. Booker and the rest of the Defendants were doing while E. Adam Jackson was creating and promoting his book and the Brick City Movement, none of them was doing Brick City. All of them including the Defense lawyers were doing something else until the hard work of E. Adam Jackson came across their plate and appeared as a cash cow to be manipulated for their own reasons.

Page 23 of 30 gets even more interesting. Because again the Defense resorts to lying to convince the Judge to grant their motion. Specifically, the statement

“No politician makes a speech” is contradicted by page 102, paragraph 4 of the Brick City book, when Councilman Mizzetti makes a politically-motivated speech to Orleen Broadway at a public appearance: “Well, it means a whole lot to me too, Mrs. Broadway…Indeed, we are all celebrating today.” That is literally a speech by a politician.

Specifically again, the Defense states that no politician holds a meeting in the book. Please see page 52 and 53 of the Brick City book, where Councilman Mizzetti is holding a meeting with his lawyer. Why does the Defense think they can say anything to the Court whether true or false and get away with it?

Why does the Defense submit to the Court that the book “contains no references to gangs”? All a reasonable reviewer needs to do is read the book’s page 2, paragraph 1 to see that the book specifically refers to “the Hallway Boys, the group of young dope sellers who hung out in the lobby of the 740 building and were the main group of people the law was looking at on this fine fall day.” On page 11 the book discusses the ten teenage boys who sold and delivered drugs for D.D. the Dope Dealer. On page 19 The Hallway Boys are huddling around the building entrance. On page 77 in the last paragraph, the book refers to the gang that Jeep and his boys were going to start. On page 87, paragraphs 5 and 7, the book refers to the gang of Jeep, Ty, and Scottsboro. On page 88 in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 the crime-fighting gang confronts the dope-selling gang. On pages 90-91 the book refers to Casher’s robbery of the drug gang. On page 105, paragraph 3, the gang’s drug-selling spot is out of business. So there are at least eight (8) references to gangs in the original Brick City book.

This constitutes a complete and utter contradiction of what the Defense would have the Court believe. Yet the Defense lawyers, trying to cover up the infringement by the Defendants, actually state in black-and-white, to the Court, that the book “contains no references to gangs.” The complete opposite is true. What is the reason that the Defense feels this waste of the Court’s time is acceptable?

How can the Defense make the unequivocal statement that “the Documentary uses no specific expression…or dialogue” in the face of evidence as follows: On page 89, paragraph 4, the book expresses the dialogue “I know the kid” just before a drug robbery, as ten minutes and four seconds into the first episode of the derivative movie, the phrase is altered to “I know the guy” during a scene in which one is reminiscent of the other. The only way humanly possible for this circumstance to exist is if the derivative work was based on the preexisting work.

So it only follows that the conclusion the Defense reaches after using this false information is deceitful. Their statement that “any similarities between the works are non-protectable and de minimus” cannot be true when their argument is so monumentally untrue.

The Defense says there are only six similarities between the book and the mockumentary. The Plaintiff counted at least 63. There are way more similarities than differences and many more than the Defense wants to acknowledge. Because money and reputations are on the line, the Defense wants to hold the line on similarities.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 24 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 19 HARD COPY

The list of similarities offered by the Defense is diminished. The Defense’s purpose is obviously to reduce the particular form of expression copyrighted in Brick City by E. Adam Jackson, into one big scène à faire.

1. The first item on their list is opposed like this: the book is not just about Newark as we know it. It brings Brick City and all the urban centers like it into a brand new atmosphere. The unique expression of E. Adam Jackson is specific about his Brick City creation. There was no other form of Brick City Newark expression like his in any genre.

The Brick City moviemakers altered the particular form of Brick City expression. There is not a generality about the expression itself; the creativity of E. Adam Jackson stands alone as the original Brick City. The work of E. Adam Jackson was protected by copyright. The citizens in the book are struggling against governmental neglect, racism, and lack of control over their own lives, and these were modified.

E. Adam Jackson put his characters in control of their environment. The Defendants transformed this into their derivative work – in an altered state, a transformed form, with a recast content.

2. The Defendants did not just copy a generic “African-American unmarried female character or subject who learns that she is pregnant and that her boyfriend is happy for the news.” When they discovered Liana Vine in the Brick City book, they saw a beautiful, smart, loving, managerial, gracious, dedicated, and specifically delineated character with her own name, thoughts, feelings, and situation. Liana Vine was recast into Jayda. Liana’s leadership and organizational skills were altered into the persona of Jayda. The inclusion of Jayda and her boyfriend Creep was a conscious decision of the moviemakers to have a romantic couple in the Brick City derivative work as there is in the preexisting book. They simply transformed the couple to their convenience, but the basis for their decision was the original, particular, unique expression that is the Brick City book.

3. The high school principal in the book, Mr. Shell, was another unique character. Where else in the literature does such a character exist? Nowhere, except in the derivative work of the Defendants, where another African-American male with forceful-yet-gentle, urban educational administrative characteristics exists in the unique atmosphere of Brick City. The character of Mr. Shell was recast as Ras Baraka, principal of Newark Central High School.

4. The African-American male ex-convict who became a community activist, The Hustler, was unique in the Brick City book. The Hustler is a particularly expressed character that was transformed to fit the agenda of the moviemakers. The Hustler was recast as the Street Doctor in the movie. The Defendants used a character from the book that was fully developed: physically, emotionally, and behaviorally. Without the Hustler in the book there would be no Street Doctor in the movie. Street Doctor did not cast himself or film himself in the movie, the producers did.

5. The low-rise projects in the book were particularly expressed as being part of Brick City, they were not some generic projects. In the book there were specific residents who lived there and actions that occurred. No city pools exist in the real or virtual world where the Italian boys and Casher swam together, except in Brick City by E. Adam Jackson. That unique form of expression is what the Defendants discovered in accessing the original work, and any transformation, alteration, or recasting they did is infringement.

Jeep Thomas plays in only one fictional football game for Brick City High school. That is a particular form of expression that separates it from every other high school football game. The Defendants had no right to change this image, because that act alone makes them culpable and is grounds for denial of their motion.

The church services the Defendants noticed in the book were presided over by one Reverend Tucker. Rev. Tucker is a unique character created by E. Adam Jackson. He and his church and parishioners do not exist in any other work. Rev. Tucker and his church provided another image for the Defendants to include in their work. Unethically, they are trying to use the preexisting work as they wish, without the permission of the author.

In Brick City, author E. Adam Jackson created specific drug dealers: Casher, The Hallway Boys, D.D., and The Hustler. These were specific and particular expressions that were unique when the Defendants found them. Every single alteration made to these characters, no matter how slight, constitutes an infringement.

6. The interweaving of the stories within the book informed the similar style used in the movie. This is a transparent fact. The abovementioned similarities admitted to by the Defense have been manipulated to seem less then they really are. That is the Defense lawyer’s job, to cover up the violation of their clients. They provided cover in this instance by relying on distortion and diversion.

For example, the similarities listed by the Defense are incomplete to obscure the true substantial similarities. The similarities are substantial using the terms as accurate anywhere in the U.S.A., not just in courts of law, which essentially means, “a whole lot alike.”

In addition, when the Defense postures that the first five elements they listed are facts, they are trying to fool the Judge. That is clear when a reasonable person reviews the information given: the first five elements are facts within the motion picture, not in the fiction work. They are not protectable, for the Defense. The Plaintiff’s book has its own particular expressions, which although copyrighted ended up transformed in the Defendants’ work. The Defense is getting sued in this case, not the Plaintiff. Therefore the non-protectability of those “facts” is a moot point because they would have no bearing on the protectability of the original work. The Defense is playing a sophisticated game of sucker with a Federal judge here, as if the Judge won’t know the difference. Why does the defense think they can pull off such a trick?

Then, the Defense submits that the elements are similar at a general level. That is only because the Defense generalized them and bunched dozens of similarities into one nondescript item. The similarities continue character after character, scene after scene, and however the similarities have been changed does not matter. They were based on the original, unique creative expression of E. Adam Jackson, which could not be scènes à faire.

The Defense, conveniently for them, listed only a measly six similarities. That coming from prominent law groups representing such highly respected luminaries might fool a careless, rushed, or unthinking person into thinking it’s true. However, a reviewer with the time to be reasonable would see that the six items listed by the Defense are dwarfed by the Plaintiff’s lists, as follow:

These two lists contain the substantial quality and quantity of similarities between the

book and the movie. Plaintiff’s lists are specific, precise, and complete, telling what page in the book coincides with what point in the movie. The Judge can turn to the page in the book and fast forward to the place in the movie as listed. In the Plaintiff’s lists, the following format is used: “(Page #)” denotes the book page number while “(##:##)” designates the approximate minute and second of the movie. Please note that the time listed may not be the same time every time in every DVD machine. Please also note that numerous times when an infringement occurs from one page of the book, it appears in about one minute of the movie. When the infringement is taken from two pages, there is often about two minutes of the movie that corresponds, and so on.

Substantial Similarities List #1

{Start of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”} The first similarity is that the film has the same title as the plaintiff’s Brick City book, which the Defense admits having access to. The defendants could have safely stayed in same-title territory without violation of the copyright but they went on to adapt the particular form of expression resulting in the remaining frequent and consistent similarities listed as follows:
The location mentioned in the book is “could be a Newark…” p. 2; the film series is focused on Newark from the very first visual scenes in the intro and the Defense admits both books are about Newark
Executive producer Forest Whitaker locates the project in Newark in his introduction, particular to the expression of the Brick City book (0:19)
The book is particularly structured in five chapters; the film’s first series followed with five episodes
The Brick City anti-crime patrol organized and led by Jeep was portrayed in the film as Mayor Cory A. Booker and Police Director McCarthy leading the Newark police force against crime (86-88) (1:15…) (9-12:13) (14:25) (32:21-33:55)
Jeep and Liana, a young romantic couple of particular expression are two of the main characters, recast for the movie using Jayda and Creep (3,4,18-20,80-86,95-98,103-105) (6:31…) (12:34-13:49)
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, is similar to the film’s dialogue “I know the guy” after a similar crime in the movie (89) (10:04). Note the get-the-money-and-one-shot-is-fired format that raises and waves the red flag of infringement.
Liana, a unique character created by E. Adam Jackson, announces the pregnancy to her boyfriend Jeep; recast as Jayda, she does the same with her boyfriend (95) (13:13)
Liana announces pregnancy to her mother; Jayda tells the same to her mother (86) (13:27)
The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were consolidated in the movie in part by The Street Doctor (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (17:37-20:55)
The fathering issues that are specifically expressed in the book are the basis of the movie’s reminiscence of characters like Scottsboro and his mentor Mr. Abdullah, who were recast as the busload of boys on Father’s Day being mentored by the Street Doctor in the movie (26-28) (19:18-20:55)
The Brick City book describes with creative uniqueness the police helicopter as a dragonfly as the police film crime and videotape suspect’s actions; the movie transforms the same scenes for the movie (1,3) (22:23-25:15)
In the book, convict-turned-activist Rashid Hasan is on the scene after Casher smash-n-grabs a blue leather jacket; in the movie Rashid Hasan’s counterpart convict-turned-activist, The Street Doctor, is on the scene after a shooting (42-44) (29:54)
The Brick City book focuses on parenting: in the book Iris Vine’s mothering of daughter Liana Vine was a particular expression, just as Willamina mothers her one-of-a-kind son Jeep, Violet mothers her son Scottsboro, and Robert Burns fathers his son Scottsboro; this parenting focus was altered by the Father’s Day scene featuring The Street Doctor, by Creep being a stepfather and father, and by Cory Booker’s parents being repeatedly featured throughout the film including at a tribute speech, at home, in an interview, and on the radio (22-38,45,46,51-65,72,73,78,79,85,86,94-98) (8:27…) (13:52) (34:20-37:52)
The incident at 40:31 of the DVD in the project courtyard is like Casher’s holdup in the project lobby, considering the actions: the violator gets the drugs and the money and one gunshot is fired, in altered sequence but similar composition (90,91) (40:31-40:54)
In the book old street guy Rashid Hasan counsels young gang member Casher; in movie old street guy King Sau counsels young gang member Jayda (42,43) (41:21-43:00)
In the book a group of young men follow Jeep just before they sweep the projects; modified in the movie police confer on criminal behavior just before a sweep at the projects (86,87) (43:01)
The book’s pregnant unique character Liana vomits in toilet, as derivatively the movie’s pregnant Jayda does (p. 22) (43:51-44:54)
The book has a virtual barbershop scene; the movie has an alternate barbershop scene (p. 108) (44:54)
When Casher gets “baptized,” he is facing the law after falling into the canal and when Casher is in jail looking out the window at Jeep and Rashid Hasan along with the other bridge walkers, after he bragged all big and bad, is like Jayda’s fall when she turns herself into the law (93,105-107) (45:35-46:17…) {End of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”}
{Start of Episode 2, “The Struggle”} The book’s Casher got locked up and his loved ones show concern, this was altered to the young gangster female getting locked up (93,105-107) (3:01-4:10) (9:52) (18:31-20:43)
The book shows The Canal and the Canal Master making economic plans; the movie transformed it into the Port Newark waterfront and Newark economic plans (70-72) (4:11-6:17)
Property development and economic development issues involving Rashid Hasan from the book, and for that matter from the Rosebush Business Plan are particular expressions that preceded similarities between the Brick City Development Corporation whose logo is shown interposed with Deputy Mayor Stefan Pryor from the movie (41-43, 49, 50, 108) (5:28)
In the book Councilman Mizetti has a demolition scheme; the movie shows reminiscent scene of workers in Brick City demolishing buildings; Cory A. Booker helps demolish and speaks about development (50-51) (11:35-12:18) (22:11-24:05)
The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were recast in the movie in part by the mentoring program at Central High School (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,26-28,87) (20:45) (26:23-26:39)
Brick City book features Brick City High School principal Shell; the movie recasts with Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (26:40…)
The book features the uniquely expressed character of Scottsboro, and the historical background of his name, as well as how his dream embodies The African-American Struggle Against Racism; while in the movie the demonstration by Imamu Amiri Baraka and the People’s Organization for Progress represents The Struggle by remembering the rebellion of 1967: both have court trial scenes, both have protest organizations that make a move to control their environment by patrolling the residential building and confronting criminals (46,56,74,75) (31:36-33:06)
Controversy about a male touching a female’s chest occurs in both, another instance of adapting particulars from the original Brick City by E. Adam Jackson into a derivative film work (21, 22, 54, 85, 86) (35:41-)
Jeep leads the anti-crime meeting and his fellows follow his heroic lead against crime, recast in the movie as Cory A. Booker’s leadership anti-crime pep talk with his police force; their ensuing anti-crime efforts continue the similarities (i.e. police helicopter at 46:43 & 47:13) (86-88) (43:12-45:29){End of Episode 2 “Struggle”}
{Start of Episode 3 “Central”} The copyrighted book chronicles the struggle of Mr. Shell, the uniquely expressed high school principal and the school itself struggling within the system; the subsequent movie recasts with Principal Ras Baraka and his school (9,10,98-100) (3:11-5:21) (9:40-10:33) (27:44-29:28) (31:56-33:20) (40:55) (44:21)
In the book, relationship-building is a prominent component that was adapted to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (5:24 -6:55) (11:47 – 14-54) (26:07 – 27:43) (29:37 – 31:55) (54:45)
The leadership of Jeep, the activism in the struggle of Scottsboro, the fatherlessness of Scottsboro, Jeep, and Tyrone; altered by Cory A. Booker adopting and adapting certain characteristics of those main characters: (8,9, 29-36, 46, 53, 55-58, 60-65, 72,73, 78, 79,80-84, 86-88, 91, 94, 97,109, 110) (15:07-15:33) (42:20 – 44:09)
Male mentoring in Brick City is a prominent component that was adapted from the book to the movie 25-28,30,31-34,42,43,46,47,50,60,74,87,89,108-110) (40:55 – 44:50) (46:15 – 46:50) (47:43 – 50:44)
Female romantic Liana shows organizational skills in the book; recast as Jayda in the movie (80-84,86-88, 104-105) (44:51 – 46:15) (46:51 – 47:42) {end of Episode 3 “Central”}
{Start of Episode 4 “Circus”} In the book, police take action at the projects with helicopters, the movie shows similar scene (1,2,3,4,93) (1:12 – 2:14) (helicopter 24:35)
Male-female relationship building is a component that was adapted from the book to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (6:11 – 7:01) (26:48 – 27:38)
In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys; the movie transforms the court trial for Jayda (75) (7:02 – 7:40) (13:23 – 14:12) (29:24 – 30:32) (43:34 – 44:16 this scene also furthers the “organizer” characteristic) (48:06 – 51:04)
The Brick City book humanizes the young gangster Casher, the motion picture humanizes young gangsters like Jiwe (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
Liana Vine, the unique female heroine of Brick City, has a heart to heart talk with her mother about the baby, about the baby’s father, and about plans for organizing (96-97) (24:50 – 25:45)
In the book Liana consulted with a sportswriter and a scout about her project, which was to manage the million dollar talents of her quarterbacking boyfriend Jeep Thomas, then he performs his talent as planned on the field/In the movie the young lady recast in the role, Jayda, consults with Cory A. Booker about her female mentoring project and then takes her project to the streets/ (80-82) (36:03 – 39:26)
{Start of Episode 5 “Red October”} In the book the Hustler goes from criminal to caring community member/ In the movie the producers use the Street Doctor in that role (48-50) (6:15 – 6:30)
In book Scottsboro, another unique character created by E. Adam Jackson, represents the struggle against racism/ In the movie Cory A. Booker assumes a posture of “We are freedom fighters” (74-77) (2:37)
In the book there are stylized court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/In the movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (4:04 – 4:36) (19:01) (39:47 – 40:23)
The young gangsters and thugs are humanized in both the book and movie (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
In the book, a football scene leads to Liana doing public relations promoting Jeep; in the movie a football scene leads to Jayda doing mentoring (80-82) (11:56 – 13:09)
In the book, Councilman Mizzetti meets with his lawyer; in the movie politicians have political meetings (51, 52) (11:00 – 11:54) (14:00 – 15:33)
In the book, there is the Brick City patrol, the aggressive anti-crime group founded by Jeep and his gang; they witnessed a drug robbery in which there is a shooting amid dissension between opposing gangs, modified by the movie (86-94) (30:50)
Book features high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (27:48 – 30:52) (33:04 – 36:00)
At 41:42 Police Director McCarthy says “if I were to write a book” perhaps stating the blameworthy awareness of those who recognized a great story and then violated its copyright, tipping us off by unconsciously revealing the deed (41:42)
The book ends off with a poem by Scottsboro Wood; the end of the film recasts and transforms that into a poem by Mayor Corey Booker (111) (BONUS SCENES)

Below is yet another list, this one detailing characters from the book that were altered, recast, and transformed for the movie.

Substantial Character Similarities, List #2

Character copy: in the book Councilman Mizzetti is a politician who plays a central role by doing the right thing; in the movie he became Mayor Cory A. Booker who plays the central role
Character copy: Councilman Mizzetti the politician also became Councilman Oscar James
Character copy: Liana and Jeep, the book’s couple who becomes pregnant as (cover, 3,4,18-20) Liana plans and organizes for the family’s future despite issues with her mother, (80-86,95-98) became in the movie the gang-related couple who gets pregnant but the young mother is a gang member who becomes an organizer of a girl’s mentoring group
Character copy: The book’s high school principal Mr. Shell became the movie’s principal Ras Baraka of Central High School (9,10,98-100)
Character copy: Rashid Hasan, a.k.a. The Hustler, is a former criminal who (34,35,42,43) transforms himself to be a pillar of the community; in the movie The Hustler/ Rashid Hasan became The Street Doctor and Brother Ali Muslim as well as Jiwe (40-50, 102-108); all three explain their transformation from criminal to communal behavior
Character copy: The property development activities of The Hustler became the property developers in the film series (41-43, 49, 50, 108)
Character copy: Tyrone Broadway, the book’s young karate fighter, became Michael Perez Central High School’s young boxer (3,34,78,101,108,109,46,47)
Character copy: The trials and transformations of the book’s young gang member Casher became the trials and transformations of the movie’s young gang member/ female romantic partner Jayda (3,4,5-17,39-43,88-93,105-107)
Character copy: The anti-gang, anti-crime activities led by Jeep and the boys become the anti-gang, anti-crime activities in the film led by Mayor Cory Booker, and Police Director McCarthy with community groups and individuals like Donna Jackson (86-88)
Character copy: Mr. Abdullah, the librarian who wears costumes including a doctor’s costume to help make his points for self-improvement, became The Street Doctor, who often wears a doctor’s costume around Newark (26-28, 87)
Character copy: Scottsboro, the fatherless young man whose name symbolizes the struggle against US racism, is the model for the movie’s group of fatherless youth being mentored by the school administrators, for Cory A. Booker and his parents relationship being explored, and for Cory A. Booker posing as the freedom fighter and poet (25, 27, 29-33, 55-65, 94, 111)
Character copy: The repeated police helicopter monitoring and dealing with crime in the book is mimicked by repeated police helicopter monitoring in the film (1,2,3,4,93)
Character copy: The parents Orleen and Ty Sr., Violet and Prof. Burns, became Corey Booker’s parents (72,73,78,79,94)

The above lists record a substantial number of similarities with substantial similarity between the works. A significant portion of each work contains infringed material. The similarities crush the differences. The Defendants had the right to use the title Brick City, but did not have the right to infringe on the particular form of expression created by E. Adam Jackson.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO A. THE DOCUMENTARY DEPICTS HISTORICAL FACTS WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER PLAINTIFF AUTHORED THE STORY

The dozens of elements of the original Brick City that were infringed upon have passed the test of time when such high-placed infringers see fit to base their high-level movie on it. There is nothing problematic with the Claim; the Defendants used a fictional story in a genre-busting way to mix fiction with fact. The preexisting Brick City book is a proud testimony to the enduring narrative.

The true historical events that occur in the movie are elaborations that were in addition to the use of the book to guide the selection of persona, pacing, and plot. The framework for the reality series was provided by the particular form of expression created by E. Adam Jackson in his Brick City book. The images and information that were recast, transformed, and altered — in whatever ways they ended up changed — originally belonged to the author of the original: E. Adam Jackson.

The Defense then resorts to using convoluted logic to lead the Judge down the path of incredulity. A sensible, rational review of the facts leads to the deduction that the book was heavily used in the production of the motion picture, that the similarities between the two are substantial, that infringement occurred, and that the Plaintiff’s rights were violated. Logically and by law, the motion should be denied.

⁶ The use of the title Brick City is about the only thing the Defendants have done right regarding E. Adam Jackson and the Brick City Movement.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 25 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 20 HARD COPY

Again, the Defense illogically brings facts to the table when it is the Defendants who are being sued for infringement on a fictional work. None of the facts about the people depicted in the movie have anything to do with the Claim. The particular form of writing and the unique creative expression in the Brick City book was the first copyrighted in the genre; it is separate and apart from the transformed, recast, altered substitutions the Defendants put in to replace the characters from the book.

Every single one of the people and places from the movie listed there by the Defendants – the citizens of Brick City, Principal Baraka, Jayda, the reformed ex-convicts – all found themselves in the movie, with undeniable substantial similarity to Plaintiff’s preexisting work.

Because of the overwhelming total of substantial similarities, the Judge should consider them all. The Defense is trying to hoodwink the Judge into ignoring the glaring evidence that points in favor of the Plaintiff. The defense resorts to denial, misdirection, and distortion to blind The Decision.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO B. THE “STORY” CONTAINS NUMEROUS UNPROTECTABLE “SCENES A FAIRE”

The drunk in the Brick City book is one of the few characters that were not used by the Defendants. The original work did not have any prostitutes, vermin, or derelict cars. However, to diminish the unique expression that is known as Liana Vine to a mere “unwed mother” … to put down the particular form of The Hustler as a nondescript “reformed ex-con”… to denigrate the creative construction that is Mr. Shell as an obscure overwhelmed principal is to disrespect the intellectual properties of E. Adam Jackson, the author of the book that the Defendants obviously could not do without in making their movie. For this deceptive and discourteous behavior the triple award should be in place after the motion to dismiss is denied.

It is a case of denial when the Defendants refuse to acknowledge the gross manipulation of E. Adam Jackson’s unique creativity. Even in the face of obvious evidence, the Defense would rather put false information before the Court than admit the truth – E. Adam Jackson labored for years to put a positive book before the community. E. Adam Jackson sold his book in stores, in churches and on the street, in the cold of winter and the heat of summer. He mailed and handed his book to many people he thought would help him – only to have the Defendants take advantage of his creativity and ambition. The similarities between the book and the movie are substantial in quantity and quality. The likenesses are distorted in the details but distinct in the discovery. The motion to dismiss should be denied in the face of the evidence and in accordance with the copyright laws regarding derivative works.

To add insult to injury, the Defense continues to violate the rights of E. Adam Jackson when they give an example of his creativity and then incredibly attempt to distort their way out of culpability. The Defendants copied the work of E. Adam Jackson not so much in the sense of exactness, but very much in the sense of reproducing the author’s work fraudulently. Not only that, but they transformed, recast, and altered their way through Plaintiff’s unique and particular creative expression to create a derivative work without permission. In the face of strong evidence proving the Plaintiff’s Claim, how come the Defense feels they have a chance to get by with weak information submitted to a U.S. Federal Court?

How can the Defense relegate the uniquely detailed Liana Vine to a blurry mass of commonness? That is what they have done there and it’s totally wrong. Even using the distorted view they have disrespectfully offered: where else can any character like Liana be found anywhere in any book? Liana is a unique creation by E. Adam Jackson and Jayda was used to recast the character for the movie. That Liana was copyrighted as a particular form of expression is not affected by any modifications found with Jayda or any of the other recasts. The Defendants infringed on protected, unique, copyrighted elements of the original Brick City and a reasonable jury would tell it so as soon as they got a chance.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 26 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 21 HARD COPY

The Defense should not be allowed to hide behind the elaborations that would result from a sophisticated infringement. Brick City High School principal Mr. Shell was a dominant enough character for the Defendants to include him in their recasting. Mr. Shell was not generic, he was a formed character who stands out among all other literary treatments of principals. No other school principal known to the Plaintiff is similar to Mr. Shell. Plaintiff could only control the appearances of Mr. Shell in the Brick City book; he could not control how many times Principal Ras Baraka was inserted into their derivative work. However, the respected Ras Baraka is another of the persona in the movie that was chosen to be in the movie based on the characters in the book.

What the Defense is passing off as differences are in reality elaborations and other modifications, which are covered in the U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101:

“A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,

such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.”

The Defense is trying to dwarf the immense amount of similarities by calling them scènes à faire. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, there are no other books that work the way through their story with characters similar to the original Brick City and no movies either – except the movie derived from the original, created by the Defendants.

There has been no evidence provided by the Defense that any other book carries the same elements as the Brick City book. When considered with the false statements and illogical reasoning offered by the Defense, the motion should be denied because the Defense has sorely failed to meet the burden of proof.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO C. THE STORY CONTAINS MANY UNPROTECTABLE GENERAL IDEAS.

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.,784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986)

If there are non-protectable ideas in the original Brick City, the defense has not identified any. Instead, the defense has tried to render the preexisting work’s key, unique creative expressions as general, run-of-the-mill stuff that can be found all over any bookshelf. Yet the defense has not mentioned any other places in literature that prove their case. The Defense feels they can just say something and make it true for the Court to take at face value, as if well-respected citizenry cannot be corrupt. There is clearly something wrong with the bizarre assertions of the Defense. The Defense has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Not only does the derivative movie have similar setting and central characters with the book, it has substantial, striking similarities. The movie is a derivative work that could not share so many similarities unless there was infringement. The Defendants are skilled and sophisticated in attempting to cover it up, but their elaborate blanket of deception is like trying to hide an elephant under a bed sheet.

The Brick City book is too original, too genuine, too particular, and too uniquely creative for the Defense to hide their violation using the same reasoning that deterred Walker in his suit against Time Warner.

Logical reasoning would help a Jury to know that the setting of the original is not only Newark, but Newark in its most fantastic manifestation ever: Brick City. Only in the copyrighted creativity of E. Adam Jackson has Newark been immortalized as a stylized, particularized, unique, doesn’t exist elsewhere, never existed anywhere before, creative interpretation of which numerous elements were treated by the Defendants. It’s not simply some scènes à faire. It is a monument that was new when it was registered in the Library of Congress. The Brick City book inspired the Defendants to make a movie out of the book and they got slick about it by skirting the law, violating the law, and trying to defend it. The motion should be denied.

The comparison of “adolescents” in the book with “community members” is a Defense team mind game attempting to create a rhetorical polemic. They do not indicate where in the book or in the movie they are referring. The reviewer is supposed to be fooled. The adolescence of the characters was not the element needed by the Defendants. However, they ran roughshod over the many parts of the book they very obviously used and then tried to lose. Mind games by the Defense do not meet the burden of proof.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 27 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 22 HARD COPY

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.,784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986)

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006)

Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985

The Defense wants to play the substantial similarity game, and now that we have played, they lost big time. It’s a fact that the similarities listed by the Plaintiff sorely outweigh the puny, hollow list tossed out by the Defense. But not only in their chosen arena does the Defense fail to meet the burden of proof, they also match the perfect description of creating a derivative work, according to Copyright Law. The substantially similar and derivative motion picture series came about through infringement, that is clear when viewed under both Plaintiff and Defense standards of proof, and the author is entitled to extensive relief.

The similarities are not just abstract. They are substantial in weight and breadth. The similarities are there in presence, gender, ethnicity, skill set, and setting, when examined at any level. Creation is the highest level of thinking and that is what E. Adam Jackson did. The Defendants used their thinking skills to pluck the plentiful parts of the Brick City original and cross the ethical line. The similarities are concrete because taken together, they compose a more solid mass.

The Walker and Funky Films citations only speak to a cursory accounting of similarities. That goes for any of the citations included by the defense. In the Brick City case, Plaintiff has provided a detailed superlist far exceeding anything cited in those cases or in the Defense motion. The motion must be denied for its failure to meet the burden of proof.

McCormick v. Fugerson, No. Civ. A. 94-3944, 1995 WL 580339 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 1995)

The handful of similarities mentioned in McCormick pales in comparison to the 60ish counted in the Brick City case.

4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03[A][1] (2011)

Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980)

Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

Copyright protects against the unauthorized creation of a derivative work. The original copyrighted Brick City work was used without the author’s permission.

The Brick City Defendants did not just borrow abstract ideas. They lifted dialogue as well as an immense portion of the Brick City book and used it without authorization or compensation. It’s true that copyright cannot protect from unauthorized borrowing. A law is an abstract that cannot physically restrain an infringer’s hand or thinking process. If a powerful entity decides to go after an independent author’s creativity, the law is there to prevent. But if the law is broken, then the law is there to prosecute according to a process.

Borrowing is also a process. To “borrow” means “to get temporary possession or use of something belonging to somebody else, usually after asking permission.” To “borrow” also means “to copy something from somebody else’s work, especially a work of art of some kind.” So according to the citation provided by the Defense, the Defendants did borrow and now they owe. The Defense Team’s motion should be denied because now they are proving the burden of Plaintiff’s case!

Gibson v. CBS, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 583 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)

Standard literary devices may not be copyrightable, but innovative literary devices may be, even trademarked or patented. The standard literary devices citation of the Defense could be accompanied with examples of any standard literary devices in this case that exist anywhere else to prove their point, but they do not.

Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1989)

The question should have been not whether using a symbolic egg as a literary device is an idea, but whether or not it is a unique idea. There is no indication at hand that uniqueness was brought up in that case. In the Brick City case there are more similarities between the works than in every case the Defense has listed, combined. That includes the sparse evidence the Defense has dressed up and paraded for the Court’s review. In the cases cited by Defense, the findings were such that narrative style alone may not denote substantial similarity, or standard literary devices may not be copyrightable, but in Brick City we have copyrighted, protected elements that were used en masse.

Pino v. Viacom, Inc., No. Civ. 07-3313 (AET), 2008 WL 704386 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2008)

Whether or not the Defendants mirrored the exact arrangement of events, the transformation, recasting, and alteration of the original obviously occurred. The Defendants flipped the script around a bit but they created a derivative work without the author’s permission. Despite their denials of responsibility for this situation, the Defense motion should be denied as a matter of law.

Plaintiff’s argument for substantial similarity is submitted above in the two lists. They are far from narrow. When placed over the Defense case, Plaintiff’s lists of similarities completely cover it.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 28 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 23 HARD COPY

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 349 (1991)

There is nothing thin about Plaintiff’s case. The Defense case is thin on facts and defendable actions by their esteemed Clients.

The Defendants violated a work for which E. Adam Jackson owns the copyright (See “Copy of Copyright Certificate” accompanying this document). The Defendants were not completing an uncopyrighted work, they were creating an unauthorized derivative reality series version of a copyrighted work. The plots are similar when the elaborations of the film are accounted for, all the way down the Cory A. Booker’s doing a poem at the end, just like Scott did in the book.

The mockumentary shows copying because the Defense excuses it in the Hoehling citation provided on page 27 0f 30 of their Motion, talking about some “borrowing.” So it’s easy to show copying when the Defendants pretty much point the finger at themselves.

The elaborations that came along with the creation of the derivative work do make their expressive element more elusive. However, the extremely powerful evidence available in this case chases down that elusiveness like on pages 82 and 83 of the Brick City book, when the ball carrier tries to elude Jeep Thomas and gets tackled and scored on.

This case is not about compilation per se. The Defendants did compile material from the Brick City book, a creative work of particular expression. Whatever the time period was when the Defendants did the infringement, it did occur. The decades old creative expression of E. Adam Jackson was still viable enough to provide the basis for so much of at least the reality series’ first five episodes.

The Brick City original work is a book. The Brick City derivative is a motion picture series. That is because the subsequent work transformed, recast, and altered the preexisting work. The differences cited by the Defense are elaborations.

The musical scenes in the movie are like those in the book. The interspersing montage of images underscored by music starts in Brick City with Scott’s snapping of his fingers on page 3. On page 23 Scott’s status as a “rapper” is disclosed, as we also hear the loud music coming from Ty’s stereo box, and the scenes roll on… as the music continues Scott recites a rhyme through page 24… on page 28 the music plays while the sun and the moon exchange places in the sky as Scotts raps to the beats of radio and nature. The music doesn’t stop until Ty hears the words of his mother. After Orleen has her say the music begins again, at the lower volume respectful to the wishes of the Mother. On page 55 the scene again has a song with it: the urban sound of Billie Holiday. This music accompanies the montage of images that takes Violet all the way to eighteen years ago and back. On page 57 Violet and Bobby dance fast and slow at a party, supplanting the Billie Holiday theme and thus putting music on top of music as the combination of images and sound go on for pages and pages.

On page 66 the gospel band is introduced and the music underscores the changing images presented. On the next page Miss Ella Mae helps her plants to grow with the music of her voice. The gospel music continues for pages. On page 76 Scottsboro starts rapping on a stage in his dream. Happy-sounding jazz sets the mood in the reunion scene on page 94. Pages 108 and 109 find Ty closing out the final chapter with thoughts of deejaying party music and on page 111 Scottsboro closes out the book with a poem telling how the music plays on.

The Brick City book is one massive montage of interspersed images underscored by urban music, from beginning to end. The Defense says it “does no such thing” but the evidence again shows the opposite is true. Does the Defense not know what they were looking at, or do they think the Judge does not know what the Judge is looking at? The music and the montages underscored in the movie were nice, but they still bear strong similarity to the original work and they constitute a derivative.

The poetic, descriptive subtitles of the book were transformed into quotes from individuals to chronicle the movement from one segment to another. That’s another item that lends to the substantial nature of the similarities. The copious use of the interweaving technique from the original copyrighted work again raises the red flag of infringement. The moviemakers used a whole lot of material from the original work and their lawyers are acting like it doesn’t mean anything.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 29 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 24 HARD COPY

4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03[B][2] (2011)

The vast preponderance of copyright-protected similar images should be a factor in determining the fact of infringement.

The fully developed, published work that was Brick City is more than an idea. The property status is not in dispute. The Brick City idea is open to everyone, but without permission, the particular form of expression protected in the E. Adam Jackson version is not. The Defendants exploited protected elements from the original Brick City and are trying to hide it.

A finding of infringement in this case is justified not only by similarity of format, theme, style, or setting. We would have to add in substantial, striking, shocking similarities in characters and dialogue as well as the derivative aspect.

For the Defense to deny the strength of Plaintiff’s case continues the delusional logic and wishful thinking displayed in the Defense’s desperate and dutiful motion. Every point of the Defense motion has been dealt with, dominated, destroyed, and dispatched.

The Defense admits there are similarities but they choose to minimize those likenesses to achieve their goal. The motion should be denied because the Defense again fails to meet the burden of proof.

PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO D. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE WORKS OVERWHELM ANY SIMILARITIES.

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986)

A review of the Defense list of differences shows they have listed many less than the Plaintiff has listed similarities. There is a huge amount of substantial similarities compared with every case the Defense has cited and to their own lists. That the Defense denies there are more similarities than differences is incredible.

Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d 610,624 (2d Cir. 1982)

Enough of the similarities between the works are not general; many are specific on numerous levels and they are pervasive. The similarities are easy to see because they completely cover the differences. The level of specificity as detailed by the Plaintiff exists with no other work. The Defense shows no evidence of other works that could claim such a likeness to their derivative movie. The level of specificity is just what would be expected in an infringement involving a derivative work and a major entertainment group.

Tristar Prods., Inc. v. SAS Grp., Inc., No. Civ. A. 08-6263 (PGS), 2009 WL 3296112 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2009)

Scrutinized from the angle of the author who created the original Brick City work, the similarities between the works are illuminated. The Defendants created “a hybrid genre buster” that transformed the Brick City book into a Brick City movie, complete with cover-up. There is even dialogue from the book that was vocalized in the movie, as previously noted in detail. The Defense claim of no common dialogue is another glaring example of the untruths handed to the Court by the Defense. What could be the reason Defense lawyers have the comfort level where they can deliver such completely inaccurate statements to the Court with no accountability? In addition, the similarities are not random, they are consistent and deliberate.

Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986)

A reasonable person would conclude that the Brick City Defendants did unlawfully misappropriate Plaintiff’s protected expression by taking material of substance and value. How valuable? If we made blank all of the material that is similar between the works, there would be no book and no movie.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENSE PAGE 30 OF 30 ELECTRONIC, PAGE 25 HARD COPY

For that reason and the multitude of others delineated in this document, the Defense motion must be denied as a matter of law.

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO CONCLUSION

In the Brick City case, a substantial number of similarities with substantial importance to both works are infringed elements protected by U.S. Copyright Law. Taken together, a reasonable juror would find the Defendants at fault and liable beyond a reasonable doubt, by the clear and convincing preponderance of evidence presented by the Plaintiff. The Defense failed to meet any burden of proof except for the Plaintiff. A reasonable juror would find Plaintiff to have a legitimate Claim and deserving of enormous relief. That’s because a reasonable juror would discern the deluge of substantial similarities as well as the Defense’s desperate designs to diminish them.

The huge number of similarities in Brick City is like grains of sand on a beach. There are footprints in the sand and only Plaintiff’s feet fit those prints. The smaller footprints seen inside are those of the Defendants. The Brick City Defendants created a derivative work without permission and so committed copyright infringement. For that reason, and for the massive amount of others documented here, the Defense motion should fail.

Dated: May 22, 2011

Plaintiff pro se: EVERETT ADAM JACKSON

Petition for Rehearing of the Lawsuit Against Cory Booker Crew

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Case Number 11-3400

District Case Number 10-05371

EVERETT ADAM JACKSON, Plaintiff, Appellant. vs. CORY A. BOOKER, LISA DURDEN, MARC BENJAMIN, MARC LEVIN, FOREST WHITAKER, EVAN SHAPIRO, SUNDANCE CHANNEL, ED CARROLL, RAINBOW MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, JAMES DOLAN, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants, Appellees.

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Plaintiff, Pro Se

PETITION FOR REHEARING

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 3^rd 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.

PAGE 1

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.

PER CURIUM

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

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.

PAGE 3

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.

PAGE 4

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.

PAGE 6

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: EVERETT ADAM JACKSON

Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for Action Against Cory Booker Crew

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

No. ((TBD))

EVERETT ADAM JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CORY A. BOOKER, LISA DURDEN, MARC BENJAMIN, MARC LEVIN, FOREST WHITAKER, EVAN SHAPIRO, SUNDANCE CHANNEL, ED CARROLL, RAINBOW MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, JAMES DOLAN, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Everett Adam Jackson

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

To be judged fairly, does the Brick City Copyright Infringement case require a thorough and documented examination of the evidence?
Does an item-by-item documented examination of the author’s Similarities Lists substantiate his citation of more than 250 similarities, involving 75 of the book’s 113 pages or 66% of the pages of the book having similarity to specified areas of the movie, including 93 character similarities, amounting to 2/5 of the movie content being attributable to the book?
Is the incorrect statement by the Appellate Court that E. Adam Jackson said his book was a “hybrid” work too far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings?

LIST OF PARTIES

Cory A. Booker

Lisa Durden

Marc Benjamin

Marc Levin

Forest Whitaker

Evan Shapiro

Sundance Channel

Ed Carroll

Rainbow Media Holdings LLC

James Dolan

Cablevision Systems Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF APPENDICES……………………5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………..6

OPINIONS BELOW…………………………………….7

JURISDICTION…………………………………………..8

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ……………………………………………………………………9

STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION….12

CONCLUSION……………………………………25

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appendix A…………..Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals

Appendix B…………..Order of the United States District Court

Appendix C…………..Decision of the United States Court of Appeals Sur Petition for Rehearing

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101……………….9

U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 106……………….9

OPINIONS BELOW

The Decision of the United States Court of Appeals appears at Appendix A to the petition and its status or place of publication is unknown to Petitioner.

The Decision of the United States District Court appears at Appendix B to the petition and is labeled “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”.

The Decision of the United States Court of Appeals Sur Petition for

Rehearing appears at Appendix C to the petition and its status or place of publication is unknown to Petitioner.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided on this case was February 16, 2012 A.D..

A timely Petition for Rehearing was denied by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on March 15, 2012 A.D., and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix C.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101:

U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 106, item 2:

“…subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: …(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work…”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Everett Adam Jackson, the Petitioner, spent about six years writing and publishing the Brick City book. Brick City was copyrighted in 1990 and released to the public in 1991. The author promoted in churches, schools, jails, clubs, bars, offices, meetings, and at Newark City Hall to build recognition of Brick City.

Everett Adam Jackson mailed his book to Lisa Durden, who became an associate producer of the derivative Brick City movie, and he handed a copy of the book to Cory A. Booker, who went on to star in the transformed reality series.

The Brick City reality series was released in 2009 A.D., with substantial similarities to the book. Everett Adam Jackson filed suit for copyright infringement in Federal District Court on October 18, 2010. By October 26, before Plaintiff had formally notified any of the Defendants, there were false stories appearing in nationwide media saying that the lawsuit was against Forest Whitaker involving a trademark issue. This case-related misinformation announced that the Booker political machine was already chugging up the tracks.

The District Court was prepared to proceed without the main Defendant being served a summons by the U.S. Marshal Service. On March 12, 2011 Everett Adam Jackson delivered a letter to the U.S. Marshal Service asking that Cory A. Booker be served or that an explanation be given why he was not, especially since the mayor’s office was right around the corner from the Marshals’. Shortly afterward, the mayor was finally served.

The Defense then moved for dismissal of the Complaint and the District Court obliged, without showing a through review of the evidence. The 3rd Circuit Appeals Court upheld that decision, also without documenting an item-by-item review of plainly documented evidence in the Similarities Lists. The Appellate Court then rejected a Petition for Rehearing, motivating a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court Clerk notified Petitioner that fee must be paid and petition submitted under Rule 33.1. Petitioner hereby makes good faith effort to submit subsequent petition along with required materials.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Petition should be granted because:

This case is important to the national public, and
The Appellate Court published an opinion which included a false statement, that Everett Adam Jackson had described his book as a “hybrid genre”, an untrue statement that signals the Appellate Court’s failure to distinguish between Reality and a reality series, and
The previous courts did not show any comprehensive review of the extensive, clearly laid-out evidence in the Similarities Lists, a failure that favored the Defense

Regarding Reason #1:

Citizens, students, teachers, and especially artists of the United States must witness whether or not the author of Brick City is protected by the law and not vulnerable to bold violation by an ambitious and powerful politician seeking to elevate his celebrity status at the original artist’s expense;
Citizen artists of the United States must witness through this case that we are protected by the law and not vulnerable to corporate raids on our unique creativity;
Cory A. Booker is a well-known politician whose carefully-crafted image of heroism and leadership must be put to a real-life, on-the-record character test before he gets his finger on the proverbial button;
The Supreme Court is fundamental to saving our nation’s reputation in this time when many citizens have serious questions about the U.S. government;
This case marks either agreement with, or departure from, the original aims of the Constitution writers: to protect creators from encroachment;
Artists, students, professors, entrepreneurs, and other citizens of the U.S. need to see justice in a case where a novelist used a manuscript, $1000, and energetic networking to spread his idea among the people and into the media and, when infringed upon, appropriately used the legal system and sheer determination to reap full rewards in defeating corporate violators and correcting a misbehaving mayor;
Because the Brick City Movement presents a grassroots solution to major U.S. problems such as racism, ignorance, and poverty;
The winning of not only the $21,325,828 demanded in this case but also the triplicate award that is justified by the intentional nature of the infringement will elevate the Petitioner’s family and community as well as fund positive changes in U.S. society to benefit us all

Regarding Reason #2:

Petitioner brings attention to the statement by the appellate court that E. Adam Jackson referred to his book as a “hybrid work.” Please see Appendix A, pages 2 and 3. Whoever wrote that misstatement for the appellate court was wrong. E. Adam Jackson never used the term “hybrid” to refer to the Brick City book. “Hybrid” is the term that one of the Defendants used to describe their derivative reality series, which was a mixture of fiction and reality. Petitioner hereby makes the claim that the appellate court decision was based on erroneous thinking.

Regarding Reason #3:

The preceding courts did not show a thorough, item-by-item examination of the Similarities Lists — a decision to ignore the evidence, which favored the Defense. The Similarities Lists prove the copyright infringement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The following format is used in the lists: “(Page #)” denotes the book page number; “(##:##)” designates the approximate minute and second of the movie.

{Start of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”} The first similarity is that the film has the same title as the plaintiff’s Brick City book, which the Defense admitted to having per the Complaint. The Defendants could have safely stayed in same-title territory without violation of the copyright but they went on to adapt the particular form of expression, resulting in the remaining strong similarities listed as follows:

The location mentioned in the book is “could be a Newark…” p. 2; the film series is focused on Newark from the very first visual scenes in the intro; the Defense admitted that the book was all about Newark numerous times in their papers submitted to the Court.
Executive Producer Forest Whitaker locates the project in Newark in his introduction, particular to the expression of the Brick City book (0:19)
The book is particularly structured in five chapters; the film followed with five episodes
The Brick City anti-crime patrol organized and led by Jeep was portrayed in the film as Cory A. Booker and Police Director McCarthy leading the Newark police force against crime (86-88) (1:15…) (9-12:13) (14:25) (32:21-33:55)
A romantic couple are two of the main characters, altered for the movie (3,4,18-20,80-86,95-98,103-105) (6:31…) (12:34-13:49)
The film’s line “I know the guy” after a crime at 10:04 is similar to the line in the book on p. 89 where Angelo Bruno says “I know the kid” as Casher contemplates the crime of robbing Angelo’s pizza parlor (89) (10:04)
A pregnancy announcement is made by the female romantic to the male romantic (95) (13:13)
A pregnancy announcement is made to the female romantic’s mother (86) (13:27)
The book’s mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were consolidated in the movie in part by The Street Doctor (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,87) (17:37-20:55)
Fathering issues are a focus in both, in which the movie is reminiscent of book characters like Scottsboro who is mentored by Mr. Abdullah; also in the movie they became the busload of boys on Father’s Day being mentored by the Street Doctor (26-28) (19:18-20:55)
Police filming crime and videotaping suspect’s actions (1,3) (22:23-25:15)
In the book criminal-turned-activist Rashid Hasan is on the scene after Casher smash-n-grabs a blue leather jacket; in the movie criminal-turned-activist The Street Doctor is on the scene after a shooting (42-44) (29:54)
The Brick City book focuses on parenting: in the book Iris Vine’s mothering of daughter Liana Vine was a particular expression, Willamina mothers her son Jeep, Violet mothers her son Scottsboro, Robert Burns fathers his son Scottsboro; this parenting focus was altered by the Father’s Day scene featuring The Street Doctor, by Creep being a stepfather and father, by Cory Booker’s parents being repeatedly featured throughout the film including at a tribute speech, at home, in an interview, and on the radio (22-38,45,46,51-65,72,73,78,79,85,86,94-98) (8:27…) (13:52) (34:20-37:52)
The incident at 40:31 of the DVD in the project courtyard is like Casher’s holdup in the project lobby, considering the actions: the violator gets the drugs and the money and one gunshot is fired, in altered sequence but similar composition (90,91) (40:31-40:54)
In the book old street guy Rashid Hasan counsels young gang member Casher; in movie old street guy King Sau counsels young gang member Jayda (42,43) (41:21-43:00)
In the book our group of young men follow Jeep just before a sweep at the projects; in the movie police confer on criminal behavior just before a sweep at the projects (86,87) (43:01)
The book’s Liana vomits in toilet, as derivatively the movie’s pregnant romantic female does (p. 22) (43:51-44:54)
The book has a virtual barbershop scene; the movie has a barbershop scene (p. 108) (44:54)
When Casher gets “baptized,” he is facing the law after falling into the canal and when Casher is in jail looking out the window at Jeep, Rashid Hasan, and the other bridge walkers after he bragged all big and bad is like Jayda’s fall when she turns herself into the law (93,105-107) (45:35-46:17…) {End of Episode 1, “Summer is Ours”}
{Start of Episode 2, “The Struggle”} The book’s Casher got locked up and loved ones show concern was altered to the female romantic getting locked up (93,105-107) (3:01-4:10) (9:52) (18:31-20:43)
Book shows The Canal and the Canal Master making economic plans/ Movie features Port Newark waterfront and Newark economic development plans (70-72) (4:11-6:17)
In the book Councilman Mizzetti has a demolition scheme; the movie shows reminiscent scene of workers in Brick City demolishing buildings; Cory A. Booker helps demolish and speaks about development (50-51) (11:35-12:18) (22:11-24:05)
The book’s male mentors, Rashid Hasan, Mr. Abdullah, and Mr. Allen were replaced in the movie in part by the male mentoring program at Central High School (26-28, 34,35,42,43,46-50,102,103,104,105,107,108,87) (20:45) (26:23-26:39)
Brick City book features Brick City high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (26:40…)
The book features Scottsboro, and the historical background of his name as well as how his dream embodies The African-American Struggle Against Racism/In the movie the demonstration by Imamu Amiri Baraka and the People’s Organization for Progress represents The Struggle by remembering the rebellion of 1967: both have court trial scenes, both have protest organizations that make a move to control their environment by patrolling the residential building and confronting criminals (46,56,74,75) (31:36-33:06)
Controversy about a male touching a female’s chest occurs in both, another instance of adapting particulars from the original Brick City by E. Adam Jackson into a derivative film work (21, 22, 54, 85, 86) (35:41-)
Jeep leading the anti-crime meeting and his fellows following his heroic lead against crime on p. 86-88 is elaborated by Cory A. Booker’s anti-crime pep talk with his police force, and their ensuing anti-crime efforts continue the similarities (i.e. police helicopter at 46:43 & 47:13) in Brick City (86-88) (43:12-45:29){End of Episode 2 “Struggle”}
{Start of Episode 3 “Central”} Both the copyrighted book and the subsequent movie chronicle the struggle of the high school principal and the high school itself struggling within the system (9,10,98-100) (3:11-5:21) (9:40-10:33) (27:44-29:28) (31:56-33:20) (40:55) (44:21)
Male/female relationship-building is a prominent component that was adapted from the book to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (5:24 -6:55) (11:47 – 14-54) (26:07 – 27:43) (29:37 – 31:55) (54:45)
Male mentoring in Brick City is a prominent component that was adapted from the book to the movie (25-28,30,31-34,42,43,46,47,50,60,74,87,89,108-110) (40:55 – 44:50) (46:15 – 46:50) (47:43 – 50:44)
Female romantic Liana shows organizational skills in the book; recast as Jayda in the movie (80-84,86-88, 104-105) (44:51 – 46:15) (46:51 – 47:42) {end of Episode 3 “Central”}
{Start of Episode 4 “Circus”} In the book, police take action at the projects with helicopters, the movie shows similar scene; (1,2,3,4,93) (1:12 – 2:14) (helicopter 24:35)
Male-female relationship building is a component that was adapted from the book to the movie (18-20, 55-59, 78, 79, 80-82, 95-98) (6:11 – 7:01) (26:48 – 27:38)
In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/in the movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (7:02 – 7:40) (13:23 – 14:12) (29:24 – 30:32) (43:34 – 44:16 this scene also furthers the “organizer” characteristic) (48:06 – 51:04)
Humanization of young gangsters and thugs occurs in both (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
Female romantic has heart to heart talk with mother about baby, baby’s father and about plans for organizing (96-97) (24:50 – 25:45)
In the book Liana consulted with a sportswriter and a scout about her project, which was to manage the million dollar talents of her quarterbacking boyfriend Jeep Thomas and then he performs his talent as planned on the field/In the movie female romantic organizer consults with Cory A. Booker about her female mentoring project and then takes her project to the streets (80-82) (36:03 – 39:26)
In the book there are court trials for The Scottsboro Boys/in the movie there is the court trial for Jayda (75) (4:04 – 4:36) (19:01) (39:47 – 40:23)
Humanization of young gangsters and thugs occurs in both (5-9, 11-17, 48-50, 88-93, 105-107) (9:02 – 9:50) (30:34 – 32:20) (35:28 – 43:32)
In the book, a football scene leads to Liana doing public relations to promote Jeep; in the movie a football scene leads to Jayda doing mentoring (public relations) (80-82) (11:56 – 13:09)
In the book, Councilman Mizzetti consults with his lawyer; in the movie politicians repeatedly consult in playing politics (51, 52) (11:00 – 11:54) (14:00 – 15:33)
In the book, there is the Brick City patrol, the aggressive anti-crime group founded by Jeep and his boys; they witnessed a drug robbery in which there is a shooting amid dissension between opposing gangs, altered by the movie (86-94) (30:50)
Book features high school principal Shell; movie shows Central High School principal Ras Baraka (9,10,98-100) (27:48 – 30:52) (33:04 – 36:00)
At 41:42 Police Director McCarthy says “if I were to write a book” perhaps stating the blameworthy awareness of those who recognized a great story and then violated its copyright, tipping us off by unconsciously revealing the deed (41:42)
The book ends off with a poem by Scottsboro Wood; the end of the film recasts and transforms that into a poem by Mayor Cory Booker (111) (BONUS SCENES)

Character Similarities

Character copy: in the book Councilman Mizzetti is a politician who plays a central role by doing the right thing; in the movie he became Mayor Cory A. Booker who plays the central role
Character copy: Councilman Mizzetti the politician also became Councilman Oscar James
Character copy: Liana and Jeep, the book’s couple who becomes pregnant as (cover, 3,4,18-20) Liana plans and organizes for family’s future despite issues with her mother, (80-86,95-98) this in the movie became the gang-related couple who gets pregnant but the young mother is a gang girl who becomes an organizer of a girl’s mentoring group
Character copy: The book’s high school principal Mr. Shell became the movie’s principal of Central High School (9,10,98-100)
Character copy: Rashid Hasan, a.k.a. The Hustler, is a former criminal who (34,35,42,43) transforms himself to be a pillar of the community; in the movie The Hustler/ Rashid Hasan became The Street Doctor and Brother Ali Muslim as well as Jiwe (40-50, 102-108); all three explain their transformation from criminal to communal behavior
Character copy: The property development activities of The Hustler became the property developers in the film series (41-43, 49, 50, 108)
Character copy: Tyrone Broadway, the book’s young karate fighter, became Michael Perez Central High School’s young boxer (3,34,78,101,108,109,46,47)
Character copy: The trials and transformations of the book’s young gang member Casher became the trials and transformations of the movie’s young gang member/ female romantic partner Jayda (3,4,5-17,39-43,88-93,105-107)
Character copy: The anti-gang, anti-crime activities led by Jeep and the boys become the anti-gang, anti-crime activities in the film led by Mayor Cory Booker, Police Director McCarthy and Cory Booker (86-88)
Character copy: Mr. Abdullah, the librarian who wears costumes including a doctor’s costume to help make his points for self-improvement, became The Street Doctor, who often wears a doctor’s costume (26-28, 87)
Character copy: Scottsboro, the fatherless young man whose name symbolizes the struggle against US racism, is the model for the movie’s group of fatherless youth being mentored by the school administrators, for Cory A. Booker and his parents relationship being explored, and for Cory A. Booker posing as the freedom fighter (25,27,29-33,55-65,94)
Character copy: The repeated police helicopter monitoring and dealing with crime in the book is mimicked by repeated police helicopter monitoring in the film (1,2,3,4,93)
Character copy: The parenting couples Orleen and Ty Sr. and Violet and Prof. Burns became Cory Booker’s parents (72,73,78,79,94)

That is the end of the Similarities Lists. Each page number listed represents a similarity. Any differences in the reality series beyond its substantial similarities with the book are classified as elaborations and modifications under the derivative work specifications in Chapter 1, section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

CONCLUSION

The documented similarities between the book and the first season of the reality series, when reviewed one-by-one, show that the District and Appellate Courts did not perform up to acceptable standards of justice.

There are hundreds of similarities between the works. The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Dated: October 20, 2012 A.D.

Respectfully submitted, EVERETT ADAM JACKSON Petitioner

Bottom Line

Cory Booker and his Copyright Violation Media Pirate Crew owe us a lot of money. That gang’s ripoff of E. Adam Jackson’s hard work puts into serious question Cory Booker’s qualifications for President of the United States.