Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ralph W. Baker, Jr., Petitioner v. Ta-Nehisi P. Coates, et al.

Supreme Court briefMar 11, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

-683

No.

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

MAR 2 1 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

BAKER

Petitioner,

COATES, ET AL.

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To

The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Second Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Ralph W. Baker, Jr.

Pro Se

112 South Elliott Place

Brooklyn, NY 11217

(917) 697-8168

ralphbakerjr@msn. com

Dated: March 11, 2025

RECEIVEr

mar \ 1 ®5

1. '

sfflHSS*®

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals departed from

this Court’s decision that an author’s arrangement of

words is protectible:

The right thus secured by the copyright act is

not a right to the use of certain words, because

they are the common property of the human

race, and are as little susceptible of private

appropriation as air or sunlight; nor is it the

right to ideas alone, since in the absence of

means of communicating them they are of

value to no one but the author. But the right is

to that arrangement of words which the

author has selected to express his ideas. Or, as

Lord Mansfield describes it, ‘an incorporeal

right to print a set of intellectual ideas, or

modes of thinking, communicated in a set of

words or sentences, and modes of expression.

It is equally detached from the manuscript, or

any other physical existence whatsoever.’ 4

Burrows, 2396.

Holmes v. Hurst. 174 U.S. 82 (1899).

LIST OF PARTIES

Ta-Nehisi P. Coates, BCP Literary, Inc., The

Atlantic, Laurene Powell Jobs, David G. Bradley,

Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, Spiegel & Grau, Chris

Jackson, Nicole Counts, Victory Matsui, Kenyatta

Matthews, The Apollo, Maceo-Lyn, Kamilah Forbes,

Susan Kelechi Watson, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.,

Ms. Oprah Winfrey, The Walt Disney Company,

Apple, Inc., Plan B, MGM Studios, Ryan Coogler, Joe

Robert Cole, Roxane Gay, Yona Harvey, The Atlantic

Monthly Group LLC, Victoria Matsui,

Entertainment, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios

Inc., Spiegel & Grau LLC

Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question presented...............................................

List of Parties........................................................

Table of Authorities..............................................

Petition of a writ of certiorari...............................

Opinion orders below............................................

Jurisdiction............................................................

Constitutional and statutory provisions involved

Statement of the case............................................

Reasons for granting the petition..........................

II.

III.

The court of appeals’ decision conflicts with this

Court’s decision that an author’s arrangement

of words is protectible

The court of appeals’ decision conflicts with

other circuit courts...........................

This case could set legal precedence

Conclusion

Appendix A - Court of appeals summary order (Dec.

11, 2024)

App. 1.

Appendix B - District Court order (Sept. 23,

2023)

App. 7.

Appendix C - Analytical Dissection Of Arrangement

of Words

App. 18.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer,

970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992)

6, 18, 24, 28, 29

Arnstein v. Porter, 154.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946)....

Baker v. Coates, etal., l:22:cv-07986-JPO-SLC

Baker v. Hannah-Jones, No. 25-300

Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc.,

15, 21, 25, 28, 30, 33

683 F.2d at 624

Business Trends Analysts v. Freedonia Group,

14, 15, 19

887 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1989)

Craft v. Kobler, 667 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y1987).......9

Daly u. Palmer et al.,

Case No. 3,552...............

16, 20, 25, 28, 30

Emerson v. Davies et al.,

Case No. 4,436................

16, 20, 25, 28, 30

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

20, 24, 28, 29, 34

499 U.S. 340 (1991)...........

Folsom v. Marsh,

9 F. Cas. 342 (1841)..........

15, 20, 25, 28, 30

Hartfield v. Peterson,

91 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1937)

29, 30, 32, 39

11, 12,13, 14, 21, 28,

Holmes v. Hurst,

174 U.S. 82 (1899)............

i, 4, 9, 12, 34, 36

Jefferys v. Boosey,

4 H.L.C. 815, 867

4, 10, 26, 27, 36, 38

Joshua Meier Co. v. Albany Novelty Mfg. Co.,

15, 23, 24

236 F. 2d 144 (2d Cir. 1956)

Lahr v. Adell Chemical Co.,

300 F.2d 256 (1st Cir. 1962).

Midler v. Ford, 849 F.2d 460............

Millar v. Taylor, (1769) 4 Burr. 2303

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation,

45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930)......................... .

PAUL TREMBLAY, et al., v. OPENAI, INC., et al.,

Case Nos. 23-cv-03223-AMO 23-cv-03416-AMO...... 38

Salinger v. Random House,

Inc., 811 F.2d 90 _2d Cir. 1987

9,12,13,14, 26, 27

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries,

10,13,17,19

663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

Universal Pictures Co., Inc., v. Harold Lloyd Corp.,

21, 24

162 F.2d 354 (9* Cir. 1947)

U.S. v. Pierce,

785 F.3d 832, 841 (2d Cir. 2015)....6, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29

U.S. v. Stuckey,

253 F. App'x 468 (6th Cir. 2007)...6, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29

Wainwright v. Wall Street Transcript,

558 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1977)

20, 24, 28, 29

Whitehead v. CBS /Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1,

33, 34

11 (D.D.C. 2004)

White-Smith Music Co. v. Apollo Co.,

209 U.S. 1 (1908).................................

12, 21, 30, 36

Williams v. Crichton Knopf, Inc.,

84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996).................

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes

17U.S.C. § 505....

17 U.S.C. § 502....

17 U.S.C. § 503....

17 U.S.C. §504....

17 U.S.C. § 107....

17 U.S.C. § 103(a)

17 U.S.C. §106....

17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

2,15,20, 25, 28, 30

2, 32

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully seeks a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit.

OPINION AND ORDERS

The Second Circuit entered a summary order on

December 11, 2024. The District Court issued an

Opinion And Order Adopting Report And

Recommendation on September 27, 2023.

JURISDICTION

The Second Circuit entered a summary order on

December 11, 2024. The Court has jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND RULE

INVOLVED

The Copyright Act provides, in relevant part,

that:

[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the

exclusive rights to do and to authorize the following:

(1) to collect statutory damages in an

amount based upon Defendants’ willful

act of infringement, costs and

disbursements, including reasonable

attorney’s fees;

(2) to collect pre-judgment and post

judgement interest, to the fullest extent

available, and for the granting of such

other further and different relief as this

Court “deems just and proper;”

(3) to collect injunctive relief, profits and

actual damages or statutory damages;

(4) to collect damages for unfair use of

copyrighted work, which includes

determining the purpose and character

of the use, amount and substantiality of

the portion used, and the effect of the

use upon the potential market or value

of the copyrighted work;

(5) to protect against unlawful use of

and derivative works;

(6) to prepare derivative works based upon

the copyrighted work, to display the

perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(7) to protect literary works fixed in a

tangible medium of expression that can

be perceived, reproduced or

communicated, including Plaintiffs

language and arrangement of words;

(8) to distribute copies ... of the

copyrighted work to the public by sale

or other transfer of ownership, or by

rental, lease or lending . . .

17 U.S.C. §§ 502-505, §107, §103(a), §102(a), §106.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In September 2022 Ralph W. Baker, Jr.

(“Plaintiff’) filed a copyright infringement claim

against Ta-Nehisi Coates (“Coates” or “Defendant”)

and 24 others. Baker v. Coates, et al., l:22:cv-07986JPO-SLC. The Honorable Judge J. Paul Oetken of

the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York (the “District Court”) issued an

Opinion And Order Adopting Report And

Recommendation (“O&O”) that the case be dismissed

with prejudice. App. 8. On December 11, 2024 the

court of appeal’s summary order (the “Summary

Order”) affirmed the O&O. App. 1.

In August 2012 Plaintiff published Shock

Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn

Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead

(“Shock Exchange”). Library Journal reviewed Shock

Exchange in March 2013 - one of the only times an

independently-published book was reviewed by a

major book reviewer.1 That year, the National Book

Foundation asserted Shock Exchange did not qualify

for the National Book Awards because it was not

published by a major publishing house. In 2013

Plaintiff sent the book and the Library Journal

review to someone named “Ta-Nehisi Coates”

(“Coates” or “Defendant”) at The Atlantic Monthly

Group LLC (“The Atlantic” or “Defendant”). Coates

1 Library Journal, March 1, 2013, Page 79.

put his name on Shock Exchange and told people he

wrote it.

In September 2019 Plaintiff saw two words from

an excerpt of Coates’ slave novel, The Water Dancer

“(Water Dancer”) - “Virginia” and “tobacco” - and

knew immediately Coates had plagiarized Shock

Exchange. Plaintiff purchased a copy, and was in

disbelief. The main character, Hiram, was based on

Plaintiffs description of his life, and other characters

were based on Plaintiffs family. Coates paraphrased

numerous passages, copied the characters and the

story, and mimicked Plaintiffs dense, rhythmic prose

- “Shock Exchange rhythmic prose and tedious talk.”

Coates copied Plaintiffs language and arrangement

of words. Jefferys u. Boosey, 4 H.L.C. 815, 867,

Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899). Coates

intentionally and knowingly used portions of Shock

Exchange - an evil deception to make billions of

dollars for him and his co-defendants without

compensating the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff began a painstaking investigation into

Coates and his previous writings. Plaintiff discovered

Coates’ plunder began as early as 2014 with “The

Case for Reparations” (“2014 Essay”). The 2014

Essay, Water Dancer, Between the World and Me

(“Between”), “The Black Family In The Age Of Mass

Incarceration” (“2015 Essay”), We Were Eight Years

In Power (“Eight Years”), stage plays, T.V.

adaptations, the Captain America comics, the Black

Panther comics, and the Black Panther movie are

collectively, the “plagiarized works.”

In May 2022 Plaintiff sought a settlement with

Coates’ co-conspirators. Venable LLP (“Venable”)

tried to strong-arm the Plaintiff; its July 2022 letter

(“Venable Letter”) asserted Coates never read Shock

Exchange and was not aware of its existence before

Plaintiffs “unfounded claims,” asserted Coates had

working papers that proved independent creation,

and threatened a defamation suit.2 Plaintiff filed a

complaint (the “Complaint”) with the District Court

two months later. Venable shoved off, and Coates

switched up on his story. Davis Wright Tremaine

LLP’s (“Davis Wright”) submissions to the District

Court included a careful omission of any denial of

copying, and did not provide working papers or

assert independent creation. Plaintiff sought truth

and justice. Davis Wright, Loeb & Loeb LLP (“Loeb

& Loeb”) and Schulte Roth & Zabell LLP (“Schulte

Roth”), collectively, “litigation counsel,” sought legal

machinations to deny Plaintiff due process.

In an October 2019 interview, Coates intimated

Penguin Random House editors Chris Jackson

(“Defendant”), Victoria Matsui (“Defendant”) and

Nicole Counts (“Defendant”) wrote Water Dancer.3 In

Water Dancer Defendants confessed to (i) stealing

Plaintiffs identity and copying his “special

knowledge” (ii) copying Plaintiffs language and word

2 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 112.

3 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 120.

choice, (iii) forging documents and (iv) seeking to

destroy the Plaintiff and all of Virginia.4 There is a

direct nexus between the confession and the

Complaint. The Second Circuit ruled rap lyrics may

be properly admitted at trial “where they are

relevant and their probative value is not

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice.” U.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832, 841 (2d Cir.

2015). The confession establishes the element of a

crime, and proves motive and intent, “You can

certainly not say when somebody writes about killing

snitches, that it doesn't make the fact that they may

have killed a snitch more probable . . ." U.S. v.

Stuckey, 253 F. App'x 468 (6th Cir. 2007).

Pursuant to Water Dancer, Coates copied the

essence and structure of Shock Exchange,

representing comprehensive non-literal similarity.

Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir.

1992). Examples below are explained in the

“comprehensive non-literal similarity test” provided

to the District Court.5 Plaintiff alleged Coates copied

the characters, the setting, the story, the plot, the

pacing and major themes from Shock Exchange. To

prove copying that an ordinary lay observer would

discern, courts usually recognize substantial

similarities in “the total concept and feel, theme,

characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting.”

Williams u. Crichton Knopf, Inc., 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.

1996). Plaintiffs characters are well-developed and

original. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation,

45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). Hiram, Water Dancer’s

only well-developed character, is based on a

4 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit: A.

5 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 150.

description of Plaintiffs life from Shock Exchange.6

Both characters remember everything, but cannot

remember something important to them. Hiram

cannot remember his mother being sold when he was

age nine; Plaintiff cannot remember being scalded by

hot grease at age two. Both are small for their ages.

Hiram is gifted and of “high quality,” while Plaintiff

is gifted and talented. Both are well-read and have

huge vocabularies. This is not a scene-a-faire. It was

illegal for slaves to read or write, or learn to read or

write. The master tells Hiram stories. Grandma tells

Plaintiff stories. Hiram and Plaintiff are gifted

storytellers and have photographic memories. Per

Water Dancer, Conduction (teleportation) requires

strong memory and storytelling ability - major

themes from Shock Exchange. These are not scenesa-faire. Otherwise, all slaves would have

photographic memories and all slaves would have

Conduction ability. Moreover, Water Dancer does not

clearly explain why some characters - Hiram and

Harriett Tubman - have the power of Conduction

and others do not.

Hiram and Plaintiff both live a fragile existence.

Hiram lives on a failing tobacco plantation. The slave

master asks Hiram to “save” and “protect” Maynard

(master’s son) in case something happens to the

master. This mirrors how Suzie (Plaintiffs mother)

asks family members to look out for her children in

case something happens to her. The master warns,

“trouble coming.” Plaintiff grows up in tobacco

country Virginia when tobacco is no longer king. Life

in Farmville has a “fragility to it" and Plaintiffs

survival depends on Suzie’s longevity. Prince Edward

6 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 150.

County is a dying community for blacks. Lack of jobs

or education causes black flight. Both characters

leave Virginia and move up north; Hiram moves to

Philadelphia, and Plaintiff moves to New York. Both

miss home, and return. It is not a scene-a-faire for a

slave to return to the cruelties of slavery. Frederick

Douglass - who Coates says Water Dancer is inspired

by - was a fugitive for nine years until British

friends purchased his freedom.7 The Fugitive Slave

Act of 1793 was enacted “to seize and return

escapees to their owners” and imposed penalties for

aiding fugitives.8 If fugitives returned voluntarily the

Fugitive Slave Act would have been unnecessary.

Both characters attend a parade (“Parade scene”).

Slavery was a cruel institution. It is not a scene-afaire for a slave to attend a parade. Both play a twoman trick on visitors, which involves calling out

letters (“H-O-R-S-E scene”). It was illegal for slaves

to read or write or know the alphabet. A slave calling

out letters in front of white folks and other slaves is

not a scene-a-faire. Coates paraphrases passages

from Shock Exchange and attributes them to various

characters - the slave master, Thena, Hawkins, “my

daddy” — in Water Dancer. For instance, the slave

master asks Hiram to “save” and “protect” Maynard

(master’s son) in case something happens to the

master. This mirrors how Suzie (Plaintiffs mother)

asks family members to look out for her children in

case something happens to her. It is not a scene-afaire for the master to ask a slave - with no freedom

or resources - to save and protect his son. The slave

7 “Frederick Douglass, Refugee,” David W. Blight, The Atlantic,

February 7,2017.

8 https://www.historv.com/topics/black-historv/fugitive-slaveacts .

master says, “My father never loved me” and “my

daddy’s only concern was station.” This mimic’s

Plaintiffs expression that My Daddy was never

around and was always working, and “I always had

the impression that My Daddy could not have cared

less about us ...” Coates also copies Plaintiffs word

choice - “my daddy.”

Water Dancer has similar names for the

characters. “Lydia” in Water Dancer is similar to

“Lydia Peale” in Shock Exchange. “Phinny” in Water

Dancer is similar to “Coach Finney” in Shock

Exchange “Parnel Johns” in Water Dancer is similar

to “Barbara Johns” and “Vernon Johns” in Shock

Exchange. For the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff has

never heard of a Black person named “Johns” outside

of Prince Edward County. “Aunt Emma” and “Uncle

John” in Water Dancer linguistically sound like

“Aunt Anna” and “Uncle Jesse” in Shock Exchange.

“Helen” and “Georgie” in Water Dancer are similar to

“Aunt Ellen” and “Uncle George,” respectively, from

Shock Exchange.

Coates carefully imitates Shock Exchange’s

“Parade scene,” “H-O-R-S-E scene” and “Lake

Geneva scene.” Coates copies the sequence of events

from each scene, representing a “close paraphrase”: “.

. . where the accused passage draws unprotected

history from the protected work, the fact that the

narration of events is structured in the same order

although by different words and expression has been

found to justify a conclusion of‘close paraphrase’ and

infringement...” Craft v. Kobler, 667 F. Supp. 120

(S.D.N.Y1987), Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811

F.2d 90 _2d Cir. 1987. Coates also copied the

arrangement of words. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 86,

Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H.L.C. 815, 86. In copying the

sequence of events, and the order of words from

emotionally-charged scenes, Coates attempts to

convey the same emotions and sensations with the

reader as those conveyed in Shock Exchange.

Hiram narrates the Parade scene. Slavery was a

cruel institution. It is not a scene-a-faire for a slave

to attend a parade. Water Dancer only describes how

the women march, mirroring Shock Exchange. Water

Dancer describes women in the first families of

Virginia as having a “dance in how they moved” and

as “swanning their necks and swaying their hips,” a

la a burlesque routine. This is not a scene-a-faire.

One would expect women of the first families to be

demure in public. Hiram admires white women,

while they sway their hips. This is not a scene-afaire. Society wanted to keep Black males away from

white women. Per the 2015 Essay, “’We will not

submit to [the Black man] gratifying his lust on our

wives and daughters without lynching him,’ Tillman

said.”9 Water Dancer mentions Virginia, Starfall and

Elm interchangeably as if they are the same place.

This mirrors how Plaintiff mentions Virginia,

Farmville, and Prince Edward County

interchangeably. This is an anomaly of Shock

Exchange. The only way one can explain the

similitude is through copying. Steinberg v. Columbia

Pictures Industries, 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y.

1987). Defendants confessed to a “gift of mimicry.”10

The parade in Elm County swells with participation

from northerners and outsiders, mirroring Plaintiffs

9 Ta-Nehisi Coates, We Were Eight Years In Power, pages 245246.

10 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit: A.

description of how Farmville swells with visitors

from other towns. Slave holders were wary of

northerners spreading anti-slavery messages and

abolitionist material. Northerners participating in a

parade in Elm is not a scene-a-faire. Annika

Neklason’s “Conspiracy Theories That Fueled The

Civil War” explains slaveholders’ paranoia of

northerners.11 Coates copies Plaintiffs arrangement

of words. There is a substantial similarity between

the top five repeated words, and the next four mostrepeated words between the works. Plaintiff

examined (i) the top five repeated words, (ii) total

number of times they were repeated (“total

occurrence”) and (iii) total occurrence divided by top

five words (“density”). Plaintiff repeated these steps

for the “next four most-repeated words” as well.

These measures how Coates copied the pattern and

structure, and density of Plaintiffs language.

An “analytical dissection of the arrangement of

words” between Shock Exchange and the plagiarized

works was provided on page 26 of Plaintiffs reply

brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”).12 App. 18. Coates

copied 138 percent of Plaintiffs arrangement (total

occurrence) pursuant to the top five repeated words,

and 120 percent of Plaintiffs arrangement for the

next four most-repeated words. App. 18.

Defendant(s) copied a substantial portion of

Plaintiffs literary composition, which was illegal,

“The defendant here could not copy any substantial

part of the arrangement or expression of Hartfield’s

11 “The Conspiracy Theories That Fueled The Civil War,”

Annika Nelason, The Atlantic, May 29, 2020.

12 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

combination and, because we think there is good

reason to believe that he did, we agree with the

conclusion of the court below.” Hartfield v. Peterson,

91 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1937). The threshold for

“substantial part” in Hartfield is 21 per cent.

Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 1000-1001. Defendants only

have to copy the order of words in an author’s

literary composition to run afoul of copyright

infringement:

This court has substantially decided that the

subject of property in a copyrighted musical

composition is the order of the notes in the

author's composition, by adopting in Holmes v.

Hurst, 174 U.S. 86, Mr. Justice Erie's definition of

the subject of property in a book or literary

composition as being ‘the order of the words in the

author's composition.’ And the same thing must

also be true as to the notes of a musical

composition. The only thing that has to be copied

to constitute a copy of the copyright property is

the order in which the notes were set down.

White-Smith Music Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1

(1908).

Coates copies the H-O-R-S-E scene and describes

it as a “trick” - mirroring Shock Exchange’s “twoman ruse.” Coates copies the sequence of events from

the H-O-R-S-E scene, representing a close

paraphrase. Salinger, 811 F.2d at 98. Coates copies

148 percent and 114 percent of the Plaintiffs

arrangement pursuant to the top five repeated

words, and the next four most-repeated words,

respectively.13 App. 18. Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 100013 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

1001. Both Hiram and Plaintiff play the ruse on

unsuspecting guests, illustrating their impish

nature. Hiram calls out letters as he performs the

ruse. H-O-R-S-E in Shock Exchange Plaintiff to call

out letters as he makes shots. In the H-O-R-S-E

scene Plaintiffs cousins also call out shots; Hiram

calls out letters in a similar fashion. This is not a

scene-a-faire. It was illegal for a slave to read or

write, to learn to read or write or know alphabets. A

slave would have been whipped or sold away. The

only way one can explain the similitude is through

copying. Steinberg, 663 F. Supp. at 713. The concept

of slaves outthinking white folks is not a scene-afaire. Per historian Neely Fuller, a “thinking slave”

was put in his place:

That thinking slave is a dangerous slave . . .That

slave begins to think and begins to look over the

master’s shoulder and see what the master’s

reading. T see the master always reading books,

so I’m going and read those same books that the

master is reading and I’m going to find out what

the master knows.’ Now, when the master

recognizes that this slave is doing that, he gives

him a good whipping and puts him back in line or

he sells him down the river.14

Coates copies the order of events from Shock

Exchange’s Lake Geneva scene.15 Salinger, 811 F.2d

at 98. Pursuant to the top five repeated words and

the next four most-repeated words, Coates copies 68

percent and 77 percent, respectively, of Plaintiffs

14 “Neely Fuller Jr - A Thinking Slave Is A Dangerous Slave,”

YouTube, April 21, 2018.

15 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket 150.

arrangement.16 App. 18. Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 10001001. Shock Exchange describes how Grandpa did

not sell liquor to those he did not know, wary that

they would expose his bootlegging. Coates copies the

sequence of events from the “Bootlegging Scene,”

representing a close paraphrase.17 Salinger, 811 F.2d

at 98. Coates asserts it was “a dangerous place” for a

slave to inquire about other people’s affairs; this is

not a scene-a-faire. Slaves were rewarded for it.

Under the Virginia doctrine of meritorious

manumission, a slave could win his freedom by

squealing on slave revolts. Of the over 200 slave

revolts tracked by Dr. Claud Anderson from 1710 to

1860, a Black person squealed in every one of them.18

Coates copies the arrangement of words from the

“Switch scene” - arguably Shock Exchange’s most

emotionally-charged scene. Coates and his co

conspirators run the “Switch Arrangement” through

a continuous loop for Water Dancer. Coates copies 79

percent and 87 percent of Plaintiffs arrangement

pursuant to the top five repeated words, and the next

four most-repeated words, respectively.19 App. 18.

Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 1000-1001.

Defendant portrays Harriet Tubman teleporting

through history, and saving slaves through magic

rather than guile and courage. The portrayal is

pejorative, and a crude effort to create the

appearance of dissimilarity, which in itself is

evidence of copying. Business Trends Analysts v.

16 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

17 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket 150.

18 “Meritorious Manumission Act - Dr. Claud Anderson,”

YouTube, December 9, 2020.

19 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

Freedonia Group, 887 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1989).

Defendant copied the most important parts of Shock

Exchange with the goal of superseding it. Folsom v.

Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (1841). Pursuant to 17 U.S.

Code § 107, factors considered in determining fair

use of a work include the purpose and character of

the use, amount and substantiality of the portion

used, and the effect of the use on upon the potential

market or value of the copyrighted work.

According to Gayle King of CBS, the uniqueness

of Water Dancer is the characters and individual

stories: “I feel this is one of the few books Ta-Nehisi

that really touches on the humanity and the emotion

of slavery. In most cases it’s painted with a

monolithic brush. We don’t normally have individual

stories.”20 Coates copied the characters, the plot and

the stories from Shock Exchange, representing

infringement. Copyright infringement could “occur

by reason of a substantial similarity that involves

only a small portion of each work.” Burroughs v.

Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d 610 n. 14 (2d

Cir. 1982). Defendants do not attempt to deny

plagiarism. Defendants’ careful omission of any

denial that copying took place strongly suggests that

there was copying, and provides additional support

for the inference of which naturally follows the

substantial similarities between Shock Exchange,

Water Dancer, and the plagiarized works. Joshua

Meier Co. v. Albany Novelty Mfg. Co., 236 F. 2d 144

(2d Cir. 1956). “The true test of whether there is

piracy or not, is to ascertain whether there is a

20 “How Monticello inspired Ta-Nehisi Coates’ debut novel ‘The

Water Dancer,’ YouTube, September 25, 2019. (Around the 1:30

mark).

servile or evasive imitation of the plaintiffs work, or

whether there is a bona fide original compilation,

made up from common materials, and common

sources, with resemblances which are merely

accidental, or result from the nature of the subject.”

Daly v. Palmer et al., Case No. 3,552, Emerson v.

Davies et al., Case No. 4,436.

Pursuant to the 2014 Essay, Coates copies

Plaintiffs expression pursuant to redlining, the

map(s) used to deny loans to creditworthy borrowers

and activists’ fight against redlining in Illinois.21

Coates recommends reparations based on

discriminatory housing policies that he claims denied

blacks “housing wealth.” In using housing wealth as

a market, Coates copies Plaintiffs expression

verbatim. Shock Exchange explains the U.S.

economy via housing starts and auto sales. Plaintiff

and the kids of the New York Shock Exchange

tracked autos, housing, and housing wealth each

summer. These metrics were derived from HampdenSydney Professor Ken Townsend’s “Townsend

Econometric Model,” including housing, autos,

consumer spending, interest rates, government

spending, taxes, et al. Plaintiffs unique expression

proved spot on as declines in the economy closelytracked declines in housing and housing wealth

leading up to the Financial Crisis of 2008.

Plaintiff describes how creditworthy blacks in

Illinois complained about being declined loans and

mortgages by banks. Coates describes how blacks in

Chicago, IL were denied FHA insurance. Plaintiff

21 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket 150, Complaint, Exhibit: E.

“N

describes how blacks in Illinois fought year-afteryear against discriminatory lending practices. Coates

repeats this sentiment. Plaintiff describes how banks

declined loans in “redlined” areas where only blacks

lived. Coates describes how regulators declined FHA

insurance where blacks lived; Coates copies

Plaintiffs unique expression of how only blacks lived

in the redlined areas, and a clear error. Whites lived

in the redlined areas also; per a June 2024 The Wall

Street Journal (WSJ) article, the majority of

residents who lived in redlined areas was white, and

the most negatively impacted by the FHA policy of

not providing mortgages to risky areas were white.22

Coates carefully imitates Plaintiffs errors and

anomalies; the similitude can only be explained

through copying. Steinberg, 663 F. Supp. at 713.

Per WSJ, Coates’ argument that housing policies

denied blacks housing wealth during Jim Crow is

also dubious. Research shows that in the postwar

period (1940 tol980) homeownership rates grew

faster for blacks than it did for whites: “If

homeownership builds wealth, this was a period of

extraordinary gains for Black people.”23 Coates’ “case

for reparations” in the 2014 Essay is a whole hoax. In

a September 2024 New York Magazine article, The

Atlantic Editor Scott Stossel confessed that after

asking Coates how reparations would work in

practice, “. . . he [Coates] shrewdly, was like, ‘Well,

I’m not going to get into that.’”24 The fact pattern

22 “The Trouble With Reparations for Redlining,” Jason L. Riley,

The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2024.

23 “The Trouble With Reparations for Redlining,” Jason L. Riley,

The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2024.

24 “The Return Of Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ryu Spaeth, New York

Magazine, September 24, 2024.

suggests Coates copied the essence and structure of

Shock Exchange, and made the rest up as he went

along. Arica, 970 F.2d at 1073.

In his June 2014 article, “Home Is Where The

Hatred Is,” Coates implies he focused on redlining in

Chicago because Chicago was one of three cities

mentioned in Isabel Wilkerson’s, The Warmth of

Other Suns (“Warmth”), and Arnold Hirsch’s Making

Of the Second Ghetto inspired him to become pro

reparations.25 However, in his January 2013 review

of Warmth, Coates listed eight observations from the

book, none of which included redlining or

reparations.26 His February 2013 article featuring

Arnold Hirsch’s book also omitted any mention of

redlining or reparations.27 The fact pattern suggest

Coates made up these sources and expected the

public to take his word for it. Shock Exchange

describes how Virginia Governor Harry Byrd closed

public schools to undermine the Brown v. Board of

Education decision. During the 2005-2006 school

year Virginia established the Brown v. Board of

Education scholarship fund for individuals

negatively impacted by the lockout; according to

Julian Bond, “it would become the first Civil Rightsera reparations in U.S. history.”28 Prince Edward

County was one of five jurisdictions that received

reparations. During a 2017 interview at Harvard,

25 “Home Is Where the Hatred Is,” Ta-Nehisi Coates, The

Atlantic, June 26, 2016.

26 “The American Case Against The Black Middle Class,” TaNehisi Coates, The Atlantic, January 22, 2013.

27 “Terrorism Is Politics By Any Other Means,” Ta-Nehisi

Coates, The Atlantic, February 25, 2013.

28 “Virginia is proof that reparations for slavery can work,” Ken

Woodley, The Washington Post, July 19, 2019.

Coates was asked about institutions with obligations

for slavery. He pivoted to reparations for the school

lockout in Virginia: “Certainly so, and I think they

may have begun to do something about this ... if you

think about what happened in Virginia with mass

resistance, wherein you had people responding to

Brown v. the Board by effectively shutting down the

public school system.”29 Coates excluded reparations

to Virginia students from the 2014 Essay - a crude

effort to create the appearance of dissimilarity and

thus, evidence of copying. Business Trends Analysts

v. Freedonia Group, 887 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1989).

Shock Exchange references how John Randolph

gave land to former slaves in Prince Edward County,

VA which is an error. It was Richard Randolph John’s older brother - who gave land to his former

slaves in Prince Edward County, and not John. The

2014 Essay also references how John Randolph gave

land to his former slaves. Coates carefully imitates

Plaintiffs errors and anomalies; the similitude can

only be explained through copying. Steinberg, 663 F.

Supp. at 713. The 2014 Essay also has Plaintiffs

name - “BAKER” - on the cover. This is actual

copying, and something an ordinary lay observer

would discern. Arnstein v. Porter, 154.2d 464 (2d Cir.

1946).

The 2014 Essay is substantially similar to Shock

Exchange as explained in the comprehensive non

literal similarity test.30 The facts Plaintiff chooses to

describe his material and how he marshals the facts

29 “Ta-Nehisi Coates Speaks at ‘Harvard Universities And

Slavery Conference,’ YouTube, May 17, 2017. (Around the 42

minute mark).

30 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 150.

are part of his creativity. Coates uses the same facts

and marshals the facts in the same manner. “What

is protected is the manner of expression, the author’s

analysis or interpretation of events, the way he

structures his material and marshals the facts, his

choice of words, and the emphasis he gives to

particular developments. Thus, the essence of

infringement lies not in taking a general theme or in

coverage of the reports as event, but in appropriating

the ‘particular expression through similarities of

treatment, details, scenes, and characterization.’”

Wainwright v. Wall Street Transcript, 558 F.2d 91

(2d Cir. 1977).

The 2014 Essay is a servile and evasive imitation

of Shock Exchange. Daly v. Palmer et al., Case No.

3,552, Emerson v. Davies et al., Case No. 4,436. The

narrative is unoriginal, crafted to supersede Shock

Exchange and represents unfair use. Folsom v.

Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (1841), 17 U.S. Code § 107. The

selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts in

Shock Exchange are original and creative. Feist

PubVns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340

(1991). Defendants confessed to copying Plaintiffs

“special knowledge.” U.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d at 841,

U.S. v. Stuckey, 253 F. App'x at 482.

Coates adds narrative on slavery, Jim Crow and

the holocaust to mask the piracy. There is no nexus

between redlining in Illinois and the horrors of

slavery or the holocaust, or the racial terrorism

blacks faced during Jim Crow. Per Coates,

reparations is based on the 34-year period from 1934

(when FHA was started) to 1968 when the Civil

Rights Act - which prohibited housing discrimination

- was signed. Defendant’s thousands of words

pursuant to slavery, Jim Crow, and the holocaust are

colorable alterations to mask the piracy. Universal

Pictures Co., Inc., v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d

354 (9th Cir. 1947). Copyright infringement could

“occur by reason of a substantial similarity that

involves only a small portion of each work.”

Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d at

624.

Coates copies Plaintiffs language and

arrangement of words. Pursuant to the “Redlining

Arrangement” Defendant copies 74 percent of the top

five repeated words, and 89 percent of the next four

most-repeated words.31 App. 18. This represents a

substantial portion of Plaintiffs arrangement.

Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 1000-1001. Defendant only has

to copy Plaintiffs order of words to run afoul of

infringement. White-Smith Music, 209 U.S. at 3.

Coates plagiarized the 2015 Essay as explained in

the comprehensive non-literal similarity test, and

Exhibit D of the Complaint.32 Plaintiff triangulates

around various metrics - U.S. incarceration rates

and their growth over time, U.S. incarceration rate

relative to that of the rest of the world, Black male

incarceration rate compared to that of white males,

and non-violent criminals as a percentage of the U.S.

prison population - to determine “mass

incarceration” materializes by 2011. Plaintiffs

unique expression proves the U.S. incarceration rate

is divorced from violent crime. Coates carefully

imitates Plaintiff expression, step-by-step. Coates (i)

describes the growth of incarceration rates over time,

31 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

32 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket 150. Complaint, Exhibit: D.

(ii) compares the U.S. incarceration rate to that of

the rest of the world, (iii) compares the incarceration

rate of Black males to that of white males, and (iv)

determines the incarceration rate is divorced from

crime.

Plaintiff asserts the incarceration rate reflects the

additional cost of being black in America, which

Coates repeats. Plaintiff describes the incarceration

rate as a function of admissions and length of stay,

which Coates repeats. Plaintiff asserts the growth in

the incarceration rate is due to the rapid growth in

length of stay, which Coates repeats. Plaintiff asserts

longer prison sentences for Black males have

ravaged the black family. Coates repeats this and

cites Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Plaintiff asserts that

instead of reducing the level of violent crime, the war

on drugs resulted in frequent number of arrests for

non-violent offenders. Coates asserts imprisonment

rates rose faster than violent crime. Plaintiff

describes how mandatory drug sentencing is driving

up imprisonment. Coates repeats this sentiment and

cites economist Derek Neal (University of Chicago).

Plaintiff asserts if you are black in America, odds are

you are going to the pen (penitentiary). Coates

repeats this sentiment and cites Devah Pager

(Harvard). Plaintiff describes unemployment

statistics by race and gender to quantify the cost of

being black in America. Coates repeats this

sentiment. Plaintiff describes how the decline in the

U.S. manufacturing base negatively impacted

employment rates for Black males, relative to other

groups. Coates repeats the sentiment. Plaintiff

implies the unemployment rate is understated

because it omits adults no longer looking for work.

Plaintiff recalculates the jobless rate by including

those no longer looking for work (employment-topopulation ratio). Coates implies the unemployment

rate is understated because it omits the incarcerated.

Coates quotes the jobless rate, including the

incarcerated, and cites Bruce Western (Harvard).

Defendant inverts words to avoid verbatim

copying. Plaintiff asserts additional criminalization

will never reduce drug trafficking; Coates asserts

additional criminalization will not reduce crime, and

cites Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington.

Plaintiff compares incarceration rates of Black males

of 4,797 per 100,000 residents to white males of 708

per 100,000 residents (2011 data). Coates cites the

2012 incarcerate rate for Black males of 4,000 per

100,000 residents during a 2015 interview with Seth

Meyers.33 In the essay Coates describes the

incarceration for black males in percentage terms:

"... the language is the same except for the inversion

of certain words or the substitution of one word for

another. This is a crude effort to give the appearance

of dissimilarity is itself evidence of copying.” Joshua

Meier Co., 236 F.2d at 147.

Coates purposely misleads the reader that mass

incarceration coincided with Senator Daniel Patrick

Moynihan’s 1965 report on the Negro Family (the

“Moynihan Report”). Coates divulges the

incarceration rate rose from the mid-1970s to mid1980s. The rise coincided with a spike in crime;

Coates obfuscates this fact. There is no nexus

between the Moynihan Report and mass

incarceration. In a June 2013 article Coates said he

33 “Ta-Nehisi Coates on America’s Incarceration Problem - Late

Night With Seth Meyers,” YouTube, November 10, 2015

(Around the 15 second mark).

did not get “the hubbub over the Moynihan Report.”34

Kaye S. Hymowitz fellow at the Manhattan Institute,

echoed this sentiment, and called everything written

by Coates “suspect forever.”35 Defendant’s

implication that the 2015 Essay was inspired by

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a crude effort to give

the appearance of dissimilarity and evidence of

copying.” Joshua Meier Co., 236 F.2d at 147. Coates

copies the essence and structure of Shock Exchange

and makes the rest up as he goes along. Arica, 970

F.2d at 1073.

Coates asserts mass incarceration is caused by

naked racism. It is well-known that Black activists

and Black politicians in the 1980s and 1990s pushed

for tougher drug sentencing, leading to mass

incarceration. Ava Duvernay’s 2016 documentary,

13th, echoed this sentiment.36 It included

commentary from politicians like Newt Gingrich and

Charles Rangel. Coates’ thousands of words on naked

racism, slavery and Jim Crow are colorable

alterations to mask the piracy. Universal Pictures

Co., Inc., 162 F.2d at 362.

Coates copies the same facts and marshals the

facts in the same manner as the Plaintiff.

Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 96. The selection,

coordination, and arrangement of facts in Shock

Exchange are original and creative. Feist Publ’ns,

Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. at 357.

Defendants confessed to copying Plaintiffs “special

34 “Revisiting The Moynihan Report,” Ta-Nehisi Coates, The

Atlantic, June 13, 2013.

35 “The Distorted World of Ta-Nehisi Coates,” Kaye S.

Hymowitz, The National Review, September 18, 2015.

36 13th, Ava Duvemay, YouTube, April 17, 2020.

knowledge.” U.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d at 841, U.S. v.

Stuckey, 253 F. App'x at 482. The 2015 Essay is a

servile and evasive imitation of Shock Exchange.

Daly v. Palmer et al., Case No. 3,552, Emerson v.

Davies et al., Case No. 4,436. The narrative is

unoriginal, crafted to supersede Shock Exchange and

represents unfair use. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342

(1841), 17 U.S. Code § 107. Copyright infringement

could “occur by reason of a substantial similarity

that involves only a small portion of each work.”

Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d at

624. Defendant copies Plaintiffs arrangement of

words. Pursuant to the “Mass Incarceration

Arrangement,” Defendant copies 72 percent of the

top five repeated words, and 76 percent of the next

four most-repeated words.37 App. 18.

Coates plagiarizes Between, as explained in the

comprehensive non-literal similarity test.38 Coates

paraphrases numerous descriptions of Plaintiffs life

and tries to convince the public its Coates’ life.

Coates confessed to stealing Plaintiffs identity, and

copying descriptions of Plaintiff’s life and making

them matters of Coates’ life.39 Defendant claims

when he got into trouble at school his mother made

him write about it, not as punishment but to help

him interrogate the subject. In Between Defendant

gives his son the same assignments. In Shock

Exchange My Daddy made Plaintiff read the WSJ

and learn about stocks. Plaintiff thought it was

torture, but later realized My Daddy was teaching

him to think for himself, and interrogate the subject.

37 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

38 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 150.

39 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit: A.

Plaintiff also made his son read the WSJ and learn

about the stock market with the kids of the New

York Shock Exchange. Defendant’s parents ruled

with the rod, but Defendant addresses his son

differently. Plaintiffs mother ruled with the rod, but

Plaintiff addresses his son differently. Plaintiff talks

to his son instead of beating him. Coates copies

Plaintiffs word choice - “the rod.” Per Jefferys, “Not

only are the words chosen by a superior mind

peculiar to itself, but in ordinary life no two

descriptions of the same fact will be in the same

words ...” Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H.L.C. 815, at 869.

Defendant(s) confess to learning Plaintiff s word

choice.40 U.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d at 841, U.S. v.

Stuckey, 253 F. App'x at 482.

Defendant imagines Malcolm "... bound in his

cell, studying the books, trading his human eyes,”

which refers to Malcolm X developing astigmatism

from reading books in his dimly-lit prison cell.

Plaintiff imagines lindy hopping with “Malcolm

Little” - Malcolm X’s name before he converted to

Islam. Both scenes are from The Autobiography of

Malcolm X by Alex Haley. Defendant never mentions

“Malcolm X” directly, but waits for the reader to

catch on, carefully imitating Plaintiffs expression.

Here, defendant copies the vividness and accuracy of

description. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811

F.2d at 96. Defendant claims as a kid, everybody he

knew was Black. In Shock Exchange, when Plaintiff

was a kid just about everybody he knew was Black.

Defendant copies Plaintiffs word choice. Defendant’s

references to “the fear” of the police are attempts to

create dissimilarity. Coates lives in a doorman

40 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit: A.

building in DUMBO, Brooklyn. The “fear” of police is

contrived. Coates describes an unceasing

interrogation of stories told to him by the schools,

and queries his parents. Plaintiff describes an

unceasing interrogation of stories from Sunday

School, and queries his teachers and Grandma.

Defendant’s doubt about finding “any satisfactory

answers” copies Plaintiffs word choice - “No answer

was satisfactory.” Here, Defendant copies Plaintiffs

word choice and the sequence of events, representing

a close paraphrase. Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H.L.C. 815,

at 869, Salinger, 811 F.2d at 98.

Coates claims mothers belted the girls, but could

not save them from drug dealers. Plaintiffs mother

beat him with a belt, then Grandma would try to

save him from Suzie. Coates also copies Plaintiffs

word choice - “belt” and “save.” Coates claims he

read books, took notes, learned new vocabulary, and

invented sentences. Plaintiff asserts he read books

with advanced vocabulary assigned by Mrs. Peale;

Plaintiff used a thesaurus, increasing his vocabulary,

and incorporated it into his writing. Coates also

copies Plaintiffs word choice - “vocabulary.”

Defendant describes how his mother taught him to

read at age four. This copies Plaintiffs expression

that he could read as well as kids four years older

than him, i.e. Plaintiff was on a sixth-grade reading

level in second grade. Coates claims his mother

taught him how to write and organize sentences “as a

means of interrogation,” an attempt at dissimilarity

and repurposed from when he says “she was teaching

me to ruthlessly interrogate the subject...” Coates

asserts, “I devoured the books” and adds gibberish

around the turn of phrase to create dissimilarity.

Coates mimic’s Plaintiff description of how he did not

just read books about Wall Street, “I devoured them.”

Defendant copied the essence and structure of

Shock Exchange. Arica, 970 F.2d at 1073. Coates

copied the same facts and marshaled the facts in the

same manner. Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 96. The

selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts in

Shock Exchange are original and creative. Feist

Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. at 357.

Coates confessed to copying Plaintiffs “special

knowledge.” U.S. v. Pierce, 785 F.3d at 841, U.S. v.

Stuckey, 253 F. App'x at 482. Between is a servile and

evasive imitation of Shock Exchange. Daly v. Palmer

et al., Case No. 3,552, Emerson v. Davies et al., Case

No. 4,436. The narrative is unoriginal, and crafted to

supersede Shock Exchange and represents unfair

use. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (1841), 17 U.S.

Code § 107. Copyright infringement could “occur by

reason of a substantial similarity that involves only a

small portion of each work.” Burroughs v. MetroGoldwyn Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d at 624. Pursuant to

the “Switch Arrangement,” Defendant copied 83

percent of the top five repeated words, and 93

. percent of the next four most-repeated words.41 App.

18. Hartfield, 91 F.2d at 1000-1001.

Coates plagiarized Eight Years. The book is a

collection of eight essays Coates “claims” to have

written for The Atlantic. Two of the essays - the 2014

Essay and the 2015 Essay — were plagiarized from

Shock Exchange. In the introduction for Eight Years,

Coates describes Reconstruction in the state of South

Carolina, mimicking Plaintiffs expression of

41 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

Reconstruction in Virginia. Plaintiff describes how

blacks growing power helped shape Virginia politics

during the 1880s. Coates describes how blacks in

South Carolina dominated politics in the state for

eight years. Plaintiff describes how under black

influence, the Readjuster Party (with the support of

a black power base) passed progressive legislation,

abolished anti-black voting regulations, and

established a public school system. Defendant

mimics this description. Plaintiff explains how the

Readjuster Party helped reconstruct the state.

Coates describes how blacks in South Carolina

reconstructed the state. Plaintiff describes how

political opponents quelled black advancement by

destroying the Readjuster Party. Coates mimics the

sentiment. Plaintiff explains how the Virginia state

legislature eliminated black voting rights. Coates

describes how the South Carolina state constitution

eliminated black voting rights.

Pursuant to the narrative on Reconstruction, the

2014 Essay and the 2015 Essay, Defendant copies

the arrangement of words.42 App. 18. Hartfield, 91

F.2d at 1000-1001. Defendant copies the same facts

and marshals the facts in the same manner as the

Plaintiff. Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 96. Defendant

copies the essence and structure of Sock Exchange.

Arica, 970 F.2d at 1073. The selection, coordination,

and arrangement of facts in Shock Exchange are

original and creative. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel.

Serv. Co., 499 U.S. at 357. Defendant(s) confessed to

copying Plaintiffs “special knowledge.” U.S. v. Pierce,

785 F.3d at 841, U.S. v. Stuckey, 253 F. App'x at 482.

The accused passages are servile and evasive

42 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

imitations of Shock Exchange. Daly v. Palmer et al.,

Case No. 3,552, Emerson v. Davies et al., Case No.

4,436. The narrative is unoriginal, crafted to

supersede Shock Exchange and represents unfair

use. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (1841), 17 U.S.

Code § 107. Copyright infringement could “occur by

reason of a substantial similarity that involves only a

small portion of each work.” Burroughs v. MetroGoldwyn Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d at 624.

Defendant(s) copied the arrangement of words for

the Black Panther movie, Black Panther comic, and

Captain America comic. Pursuant to the Black

Panther movie, Defendant(s) copied 92 percent of the

Plaintiffs arrangement pursuant to the top five

repeated words, and 100 percent the next four mostrepeated words, respectively.43 App. 18. Pursuant to

the Black Panther comic, Defendant(s) copied 88

percent of Plaintiffs arrangement pursuant to the

top five repeated words, and 100 percent the next

four most-repeated words, respectively. App. 18.

Pursuant to the Captain America comic,

Defendant(s) copied 142 percent of the Plaintiffs

arrangement pursuant to the top five repeated

words, and 107 percent of the next four mostrepeated words, respectively. App. 18. Hartfield, 91

F.2d at 1000-1001. Defendants only have to copy the

order of words in Plaintiffs literary composition to

run afoul of copyright infringement. White-Smith

Music, 209 U.S. at 3.

Derivative works such as stage plays pursuant to

Between, and an Oprah’s Book Club interview with

Coates on Apple TV+ (the “Apple Infomercial” or the

43 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

“Infomercial”) also ran afoul of copyright

infringement. The District Court ordered The Apollo

(the “Apollo” or “Defendant”) and Kamilah Forbes

(“Defendant”) to file an exhibit pursuant to the

Between stage plays on a compact disc, ordered

Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) to respond to the

Complaint by January 19, 2023, and ordered Apple

to file exhibits on a compact disc.44 In February 2023

Plaintiff alerted the District Court that Schulte Roth,

the Apollo and Ms. Forbes had submitted an

inoperable disc, and subsequently asked to have

their motion denied due to their “late filing.”45 In

May 2023 Plaintiff alerted the District Court he

could not open the Apple discs and requested Loeb &

Loeb resubmit the discs.46 The inoperable discs

hampered Plaintiffs ability to respond to litigation

counsel’s motions to dismiss, and represented late

filings. In July 2024 Plaintiff filed a motion for

contempt against litigation counsel for bad faith

actions, and asked the Appellate Court to dismiss the

appellee briefs pursuant to the case.47

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Plaintiff alleged Defendant(s) copied (i) Plaintiffs

language and arrangement of words, (ii) they copied

his ideas and expression of ideas, and (iii) in certain

instances, they copied both. According to the Second

44 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 83-1, Baker v.

Coates, et al., Docket Numbers 88,103, 113.

45 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 83-1, Baker v.

Coates et al., Docket Numbers 97, 137,138, 140.

46 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 76-1, Baker v.

Coates et al., Docket Number 143.

47 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 76-1, and Docket

Entry: 83-1.

Circuit, “Where the excerpts from Shock Exchange

employ a straightforward, unadorned literary style,

the excerpts of Coates’s works demonstrate a more

intricate and detailed manner of writing.” App. 5.

Here, the Second Circuit addresses “style,” which is

subjective. Plaintiffs case is that Defendant(s) copied

how the words were arranged. Plaintiffs briefs to the

Second Circuit defined the “arrangement” and the

“combination of the expression,” and provided an

“objective” measurement. Defendants copied the

“total occurrence” or “density” of Plaintiffs language.

The analytical dissection of the arrangement of

words illustrates Defendants copied a substantial

portion of Plaintiffs arrangement - multiples of the

threshold for Hartfield of 21 percent.48 App. 18. For

the avoidance of doubt, this is “actual copying,” and

it warrants a trial date. Eight people - Coates, Chris

Jackson, Victoria Matusi, Nicole Counts, Roxane

Gay, Yona Harvey, Ryan Coogler, Joe Robert Cole copied Plaintiffs language and arrangement of

words. Stan Lee also took writing credit for the Black

Panther movie. Pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 102(a),

works fixed in a tangible medium of expression that

can perceived, reproduced or communicated.

Therefore, Shock Exchange rhythmic prose and

tedious talk is an expression protected by copyright.

48 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1.

Per the Second Circuit, “In evaluating substantial

similarity in terms of total concept and overall feel,

the district court assessed whether the fundamental

essence and structure of Shock Exchange was

duplicated in Coates’s works. We agree it was not.”

App. 5, App. 6. Plaintiffs “accused passages” in the

comprehensive non-literal similarity test prove

substantial similarity.49 The evidence is

overwhelming, and Coates’ confession to copying

Plaintiffs “special knowledge,” forging documents,

copying the language and customs of “those that

should be beyond my station,” and editing and

augmenting documents amplifies that evidence.50

substantial similarity that involves only a small

portion of each work.” Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn

Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d 610 n. 14 (2d Cir. 1982). The

Second Circuit’s affirmation of the District Court

order is a grievous error.

The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Conflicts

With This Court’s Decision That An

Author’s Arrangement Of Words is

Protectable

According to the O&O signed by the Honorable J.

Paul Oetken, “...a particular writing style or method

of expression standing alone is not protected by the

49 Baker v. Coates, et al., Docket Number 150.

50 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit: A.

Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2004).51 App. 14.

The Whitehead court referenced Feist Publications,

Inc., 499 U.S. at 350, 362, 111 S.Ct. 1282, which

ruled an unoriginal compilation of facts from a

typical telephone directory was not copyrightable;

Whitehead is not applicable here. Judge Oetken’s

order conflicts with this Court’s ruling in Holmes:

The right thus secured by the copyright act is not

a right to the use of certain words, because they

are the common property of the human race, and

are as little susceptible of private appropriation

as air or sunlight; nor is it the right to ideas

alone, since in the absence of means of

communicating them they are of value to no one

but the author. But the right is to that

arrangement of words which the author has

selected to express his ideas. Or, as Lord

Mansfield describes it, ‘an incorporeal right to

print a set of intellectual ideas, or modes of

thinking, communicated in a set of words or

sentences, and modes of expression. It is equally

detached from the manuscript, or any other

physical existence whatsoever.’ 4 Burrows, 2396.

Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 at 86.

If the Second Circuit’s Summary Order is not

overturned by this Court, Judge Oetken will have

changed the law from the bench and asserted that an

51 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 70-1, Baker v.

Coates et al., Docket Number 158.

author’s arrangement of words is not protectible by

In the O&O Judge Oetken asserted:

But as Magistrate Judge Cave observed, those

side-by-side comparisons demonstrate that

Baker’s and Defendants’ works actually ‘differ

dramatically . . . in total concept and overall

feel... as well as in elements more easily

isolated, like plot, themes, and pacing.’

Montgomery, 408 F. Supp. 3d at 375 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

For example, Baker includes a comparison of a

passage from Shock Exchange and a passage

from “Between the World and Me” that are

purportedly similar. (ECF No. 2 at 117.)

Baker’s excerpt describes his relationship with

his grandmother and the games he played

with his family when growing up. (Id.) That

excerpt, however, differs dramatically in both

style and content from Coates’s passage, which

describes Coates’s thoughts on journalism and

the advent of the Internet. (Id.) Such lack of

similarity ultimately pervades the numerous

comparisons that Baker provides in his

complaint. (See R&R at 43-46.)

The side-by-side comparison Judge Oetken

referred to here was from Exhibit F of the Complaint,

which compared the prose from Between to the prose

from Shock Exchange,52 Judge Oetken implied

because the themes from the two passages were

different, it overrode Plaintiffs claim of substantial

similarity pursuant to the arrangement of words.

This was an error of law. Judge Oetken’s order also

conflicts with this Court’s ruling in White-Smith

Music:

This court has substantially decided that the

subject of property in a copyrighted musical

composition is the order of the notes in the

author's composition, by adopting in Holmes v.

Hurst, 174 U.S. 86, Mr. Justice Erie's definition of

the subject of property in a book or literary

composition as being ‘the order of the words in the

author's composition.’ And the same thing must

also be true as to the notes of a musical

composition. The only thing that has to be copied

to constitute a copy of the copyright property is

the order in which the notes were set down.”

White-Smith Music Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1

(1908).

Judge Oetken’s order also conflicts with Jefferys,

which says, “The order of each man's words is as

singular as his countenance . . .” Jefferys v. Boosey, 4

H.L.C. at 869. “Countenance” is equivalent to “one’s

face. Copying Plaintiffs order of words is equivalent

to stealing his face or identity. To argue that Coates

stole Plaintiffs face - yet the act is not illegal - is

non-sensical. Holmes adopted Jefferys, so Judge

Oetken’s order also conflicts with Holmes. If the

52 Baker v. Coates, et al., Complaint, Exhibit F H I.

Second Circuit’s Summary Order is not overturned

by this Court, Judge Oetken will have changed the

law by misstating it.

II.

The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Conflicts

With Other Circuit Courts

The Second Circuit’s Summary Order asserts,

“However, the absence of substantial similarity is

dispositive of Baker’s copyright claims against all

defendants, as well as his unfair competition

claims.”53 Plaintiff has proven substantial similarity

between the works. The fact pattern suggests Chris

Jackson, other editors, and Coates are using Shock

Exchange to train authors how to copy Plaintiffs

language and arrangement of words. This has

created confusion in the marketplace and represents

unfair competition under the Lanham Act and New

York Common Law Act. The Lanham Act prohibits

activities like trademark infringement, trademark

dilution, false advertising, and unfair competition.

Unfair competition involves market conduct which

gains or seeks to gain an advantage over rivals

through misleading, deceptive or fraudulent conduct

in trade or commerce. Through the plagiarized

works, Defendants engaged in misleading, deceptive,

and fraudulent conduct.

The Ninth Circuit recently adopted Plaintiffs

legal argument. Under California’s Unfair

Competition Law (“UCL”), plaintiffs argued

53 Baker v. Coates, No. 23-7483, Docket Entry: 95-1.

defendants used copyrighted material to train

ChatGPT without plaintiffs’ permission. The U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of California

cited defendants may have run afoul of the UCL:

. . . The statute is intentionally broad to give the

court maximum discretion to control whatever

new schemes may be contrived, even though they

are not forbidden by law . . . Assuming the truth

of Plaintiffs allegations - the Defendants used

Plaintiffs copyrighted works to train their

language models for commercial profit - the

Court concludes that Defendants’ conduct may

constitute an unfair practice ... this portion of the

UCL claim may proceed. PAUL TREMBLAY, et

al.,v. OPENAI, INC., et al., Case Nos. 23-cv03223-AMO 23-cv-03416-AMO.

For those same reasons, Plaintiff alleges

defendants have run afoul of the Lanham Act and

New York Common Law Act. Per Jefferys, “The order

of each man's words is as singular as his

countenance ...” Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H.L.C. at 869.

“Countenance” is the equivalent of “one’s face.” In

copying the order of words in Plaintiffs literary

composition, Defendants have stolen Plaintiffs face

and/or identity. Bette Midler sued Ford Motor

Company for running a commercial impersonating

her voice. The Ninth Circuit asserted that to

impersonate Ms. Midler’s distinctive voice, “is to

pirate her identity ... We hold only that when a

distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely

known is deliberately imitated in order to sell a

product, the sellers have appropriated what is not

theirs and have committed a tort in California.”

Midler v. Ford, 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). Bert

Lahr sued Adell Chemical Company for using a

commercial that imitated Lahr’s distinctive voice.

According to the First Circuit, “It could well be found

that defendant's conduct saturated plaintiffs

audience to the point of curtailing his market. No

performer has an unlimited demand.” Lahr v. Adell

Chemical Co., 300 F.2d 256 (1st Cir. 1962).

Plaintiff and his distinctive language are wellknown to the book industry, corporate media, and

arguably every Black professor, journalist, and

author in America. Defendants’ books and derivative

works compete with Plaintiffs book. Defendants’

actions represent both a tort liability and unfair

competition as they have saturated and curtailed the

market for Plaintiffs work.

III.

This Case Could Set Legal Precedence

Plaintiff is not aware of any recent cases

involving literary works that allege infringement of

an author’s arrangement of words. This case could

set legal precedence, and potentially create a

pathway for other authors to protect their language.

Plaintiff recently filed a complaint against Nikole

Hannah-Jones pursuant her alleged copying of

Plaintiffs arrangement of works for The 1619

Project: A New Origin Story (“1619 Project”). Baker v.

Hannah-Jones, No. 25-300. Defendants in the case

confessed to being part of an army of secret agents at

war with the Plaintiff.54 The case before this Court

could be the tip of the iceberg. It is paramount that

this Court grant the petition and let this war play

out in front of a jury.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted, the Summary Order of the court of appeals

should be vacated, and a trial date should be

scheduled to ensure the truth emerges.

Respectfully submitted.

Ralph W. Baker, Jr.

Pro Se

54 Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones, et al. Complaint, Exhibit: A.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.