Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ardito v. NBC Universal, Inc. (No. 07-1142)

Supreme Court brief2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILES” -

Gry (2) 071142 JAN 2 - 2008

NO. OFFICE OF THE CLER«

In The

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

CHIVALRY FILM PRODUCTIONS and

JOSEPH ARDITO Individually,

Petitioner,

-V-

NBC UNIVERSAL, INC., UNIVERSAL PICTURES

COMPANY, INCORPORATED, UNIVERSAL

STUDIOS, INC., UNIVERSAL STUDIOS LLC,

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, UNIVERSAL

CITY STUDIOS, INC., UNIVERSAL CITY

STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, DREAMWORKS,

L.L.C., DREAMWORKS L.L.C. D/B/A

DREAMWORKS SKG, DREAMWORKS

PRODUCTIONS LLC, DREAMWORKS, INC.,

TRIBECA PRODUCTIONS INC., AMY SAYRES,

NANCY TENENBAUM, NANCY TENENBAUM

FILMS, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM

CORPORATION, EVERYMAN PICTURES, JAY

ROACH, AND JAY ROACH D/B/A EVERYMAN

PICTURES,

Respondents,

On Petition For WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ProSe: Joseph Ardito

Petitioner

97-12 76 Street

Ozone Park, NY 11416

Tel. No. (917) 435-2820

SERRA ARICA STIR SS TIE WM AE. SR SRR AP TE EEE a SERIO ET RS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether a plaintiff in a copyright infringement

case involving Stolen Federal Copyright

clearly demonstrates access and overwhelming

Characters, Scenes, and Settings that actually

proves copying and plagiarism had occurred

would he be entitled to discovery?

II.

Whether plaintiff in these proceedings is

entitled to start anew due to a_ retained

attorney who assisted in formulating said

complaint against the defendants and had

intentionally tried to sabotage the proceedings

due to his involvement and interest in the

outcome?

Iil.

Whether the Civil RICO in this case can be re-

instituted against the defendants due to frauds

perpetrated by defendants throughout these

legal proceedings by the intentional tampering

of federal evidence and perjured affidavits

used to manipulate and distort the outcome of

said proceedings?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

cis consi cd snc nanadovencssacasodesenesvadseadoale i

I EE BO one ci ncdnsunsdenievacnacdesecssdavishtonesens il

Meee OP AUTHORILIBG. .0..000ccccccesesccosccoccescssscesces iV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....0000.00. ee. }

Bg eg Ay 1

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 1

SPeee ee eeBET D OOF TELE CASES ........00cccccscccssscsccsscesseess 2

a ica ecuca sah dciagsennesukeusiictnipoedaanesiiees 2

I GE SII a vcscusccasvsscnseensansecnuassavsconsonsinesein 6

1. The Premeditated Scheme involved by

the defendants to steal and deprive

this petitioner of his federal protected

teks acids cine cxeioinoacuieeenionus RRO 6

2. The overwhelming characters, scenes

and settings that clearly demonstrate

that unlawful copying and plagiarism

nad occurred. ................... ederitasenata ireeeuaitare! 13

3. The Scheme of the alleged 1991 “Meet

The Parents” videocassette that paved

the way to Summary Judgment

es ctunnanvers ANDRE RTM WO oan 22 Oo 17

ARGUMENT

4. The Statute of limitations concerning

“Meet the Parents” January 11, 2006

order was ambiguous, not clarified and

this petitioner was unaware ......................

5. Civil RICO claims that were dismissed

on January 11, 2006 should’ be

SCR Rae AUER Ee ANON oe Ee Rae A

ee a edema enntaeninremaemeias

JURAT OF PETITIONER

(a)The perjured’= affidavits by

employees located at the Library of

Congress and offered into evidence. ..........

(b) The deliberate and intentional

altering of the alleged 1991 Meet the

Parents videocassette offered into

evidence by’ intentionally and

deceptively covering the label with the

caption of the case for the purpose and

intent of confirming § fraudulent

findings and receiving a_ favorable

| AAR Ne RAD eT fee NE I) AL rT

Meet the Parents videocassette. ................

APPENDIX

Summary Order of the Second Circuit Court

Se II cine as ndcuscuagsneteacavanasazisen aac App. 1

SRO OOOO EEE EERE EEE ERE EEO EEE EEO EH HE HEHEHE HEHE

Aer |

soca ee

Opinion and Order of the United States

District Court granting summary judgment

I I, i I dics fac ks tesrersesedvacpecasnscndedoncnnnt App. 4

Opinion and Order of the United States

District Court granting summary judgment

in part and denying summary judgment in

Judge Lynch’s Memo Endorsed Order

Pe i sentaisanitnenssnanionas App.

Library of Congress Tracie Coleman’s

Certification that pages 191 through 222

were missing from the registered deposit ....... App.

Library of Congress Tracie Coleman’s

certification for MTP 1991 (Pau-1-571-116)

ee Fe Fig kite stcsacnsceccncnsanciastnassapinnn App.

Richard D. Sharps certified letter for MTP

1991 Pau-1-571-116 dated March 28, 2006..... App.

Letter from the Library of Congress dated

I SE bc ccioviecin caedisacpenieenescadcdinncaeeainnss App

The defendants’ representation of the 1991

Meet the Parents (Pau-1-571-116)

videocassette for summary judgment

intentionally covering the true label on the

videocassette intentionally tampering

NN I epg eek a snndeaencanieaan) App.

An independent inspection at the Library of

Congress for MTP 1991 (Pau-1-571-116) a —

I Or nt oar sins bs ca rrenrsuticaanond cennaenaniweaines App

. 30

Declaration in Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment

Table of Similarities between “Meet the

Parents” and “The Tenant” and/or “The

I i als a as

Table of Similarities between “Meet the

Fockers” and “The Tenant” and/or “The

RE LL Te ERAT !

Complaint filed in the United States

District Court in the Southern District of

SI I a Ne pee eee ea a

(a) Certificate of Copyright Registration:

“The Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals”

TXu000742462 / 1996-05-15 «2.0...

(b) Certificate of Copyright Registration:

“The Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals”

FXUOOOTTSTSO | 1996-12-24 .......cccceseccesenccess

“The Tenant” PAu002380629 / 1999-02-02...

(d) Certificate of Copyright Registration:

“The Tenant” PAu002423720 / 1999-07-19 ..

(e) Certificate of Copyright Registration:

“The Tenant” PAu002283460 / 1998-04-27 ... /

Retainer Agreement between Robert J.

Epstein, Esq. and Joseph Ardito

App.

180

224

. 226

. sel

. 228

Letter from Joseph Ardito to Robert J.

Epstein, Esq., dated September 8, 2006

rescinding retainer agreement due to conflict

of interest and sabotage ......................ccceeeeeees App. 231

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Anderson v. Lobby, Inc,. 477 U.S. 242, 247-

SATIN iis cdidh meascaaenibonenaksddadaleiniadiacmbaumaracennuanaaD 25

Celotes Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

3 RES noeenes RRS ROIS OP NE ET PAREN ES SNES cS 25

Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs., Corp.,

43 F.3d 29,37 (2d Cir. 1904)...........00..cccccccesecscscssensees 26

Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc.,

ee ee ee ae 16

Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs, Ltd

P’ship., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2D Cir 1994)................ 26

Gershwin Publishing Corp v. Columbia

Artist Mgt..Inc, 443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1971)........... 16

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., v. Nation

Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 549 (1985). .................... 16

Herzog v. Castle Entertainment,

893 F. 3d 1241, 1268 © Cir. 1990) ..................0205..22 14

Knight v. U.S. Fire Inc. Co.,

ne FH. Bee, EE CEE CAR. BOGGS) ona ccc cccccccccccccccecseccesease 26

Malsushita Elec Indus. Co Ltd v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). .....00..00000000... 26

vill

Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F. 3d at 1073 (9 Cir.

, | DREN ORD IC MERPROR OR Be Heer ISTE Stile 15, 23

Shaw v. Lindheim

G19 FF. Za 1363 Cth Cir. 1900) wnncicccecccccsscensesescecsacrees 14

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Film Ventures

International, Inc.,

543 F. Supp 1134 (C.D. Cal. 1962) .n....ccsscccccccoconenesse 15

Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

613 F.Supp. 1107 (2.D.N.Y. 1985)......................cc0000 14

STATUTES:

7 U.B.GA. Boctiom BOE viciscsiscccdssecsseneaee 2

Pod. RR. Cav. 2. G6 iicsccccicuneacsaeanee eee 27

BG U7.8.0). Spetis BET GOD oc cscicaccssciicseesseee ee 2

BB RF BA, GID oe ieovcccesndapicdasacasceacsieeeensse eee | ee -

28 U.S... Beko RO viesyecsansen ovtisisvacentenaee 1

ZB U.S .C.A. Berctinnth LAB CA vicina vcsvnccascncecsnasccoveiaece 2

28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) and (c) .....................0200ce0e 1

U.S. Seetiom 2400 (a) onions 1

15 U.S.C. Section 11Z0 G6) o.gestictince eee ]

0.5. Se. SA BIAS COC Ce TD vciccedetestzcaueeel 18

4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1869 (9 th Cir. 1987) -..ccccccccccccceeee-. 16

15 U.S.P.Q. 2d, 1132 (4th Cir. 1990) .....0000000000.... 16

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Australia’s Copyright Statute of 1968.................. aa

The Berne Convention .....................0...0002. 1

Canadian Copyright Statute Section 43 (a)........... Ls

The Lanham Act Section 43 (a) .........................0005. 1, 2

EY MR ROMIINS BAROY a0 cccocccccccccccccsscecccccccccsccececcece =

United Kingdom's Copyright Statute..........0..0....... 1,2

Universal Copyright Convention.........................65. a

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit dated October 4t*, 2007. There is no order

respecting a rehearing, and no extension of time to

file present petition for writ of certiorari has been

filed.

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Petitioner, Section 1254(1).

Rule 29.6 Statement

Petitioner, Chivalry Film Productions 1s a sole

proprietorship duly organized existing under and by

virtue of the laws of the State of New York, County of

New York, Joseph Ardito is the sole owner of plaintiff

Chivalry Film Productions.

Statutory Provisions Involved

Federal Copyright Act of 1976, as amended 17

U.S.C.A. Section 101. et seq, 28 U.S.C Section 1367,

Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization

(R.I.C.O.) pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. (c)-(a) Federal

Wire Fraud, (b) Federal Mail Fraud. 28 U.S.C.

Section 1391 (b) and (c) and 1400 (a), under 15

U.S.C. Section 1125 (a) and Section 43 (a) of the

Lanham Act. Canadian Copyright Statute, the

United Kingdom's Copyright Statute, Australia’s

Law, all of which are enforceable by U.S. citizens

under applicable treatise and conventions, under the

Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) and under

the “Berne Convention” the judicial code 28 U.S.C.A.

Section 1338 (a).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Introduction

Petitioner Chivalry Film Productions, et al., sues

respondents NBC, ect al. This action arises under the

Federal Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17

U.S.C.A. Section 101. Seq. This action also arises

under plaintiffs Claim II for an accounting that is a

supplemental claim that this Court has jurisdiction

over Count II is based on supplemental jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. This action also

arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organization (R.I.C.O) pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C (c)

— (a) Federal Wire Fraud, (b) Federal Mail Fraud.

This action also arises Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section

1391 (b) and (c) and 1400 (a), under 15 U.S.C Section

1125 (a) and Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act. This

action also arises under the Canadian Copyright

Statute, the United Kingdom’s Copyright Statute,

Australia’s Copyright Statute of 1968 and Japan’s

citizens under applicable treaties and conventions,

under the Universal Copyright Convention the

(“UCC”), and under the Berne Convention for the

Protection of Literary and Artistic Works “The Berne

Convention”. The Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A.

Section.1338 (a)). Because the United States,

Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan

are all signatories to the UCC and the Berne

Convention and because this Court has personal

jurisdiction over each of the defendants, plaintiffs

Chivalry Film Productions and Joseph Ardito, are

entitled to seek and obtain both nationwide and

extraterritorial injunctive relief and damages in this

Court, as a result of the defendants’ infringement of

plaintiffs Chivalry Film Productions and Joseph

Ardito’s copyrights in each of the above-referenced

countries, pursuant to the copyright laws of each of

those countries, respectively.

This action consist of a comprehensive

premeditated scheme by the defendants carefully

designed and calculated over the years with intent

through deliberate and willful acts of the defendants

in concert, a scheme solely devised to intentionally

deprive and defraud this petitioner of his Fedcral

Certificates of Copyright Registration, rights accrued

and protected to him from infringement of his own,

origination, creation and/or development of his

literary novel/screenplay entitled “The Tenant”

and/or “The Dysfunctionals” (Certificates of

775-750, (c). Pau-2-380-629, (d). Pau-2-423-720, (e).

Pau-2-283-460) these manuscripts are identified as

comical satires ridiculing dysfunctional families.

See App. 196.

On or about January, 2005 this plaintiff viewed

“Meet the Fockers” the character, scenes and setting

seemed very similar to that of this petitioner’s

copyrighted manuscript “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals.” After viewing “Meet the Fockers”

and a subsequent viewing of “Meet the Parents”

made it quite clear and evident to this plaintiff, that

these screenplays were in fact a blatant copyright

infringement of this petitioner’s “Stolen Federal

Copyrighted Materials” entitled “The Tenant” and/or

“The Dysfunctionals” that had been reported stolen

on August 21%, 1998 police report number

980626165. See also App. 197.

The defendants released a screenplay motion

picture entitled “Meet the Parents” and a derivative

screenplay picture entitled “Meet the Fockers.” The

defendants intentionally, deliberately and willfully

released these pictures to the general purchasing

public two separate movies that consisted of

overwhelming parts of the same identical synopsis,

theories, characters, scenes and settings etc.

Each of these two movies motion picture

productions entitled “Meet the Parents” and “Meet

the Fockers” was prepared, created, developed and

proscribed by said defendants and so released for

viewing and purchase, by the general public in movie

theatres, on video reproductions, and other electronic

and/or magnetic tape devices and by methods of

reproduction recording CD-ROM, cable television,

reruns on national television and_ syndication

television, Pay Per View, movies made for television

and International/Foreign viewing by the general

public throughout the world, by means of Foreign,

International, Domestic, Interstate and Interstate

commerce. (Satellite devices, computer software via

email, United States Postal Service, United States

Mail Service, mail and wire transfers and

communications, publications and _ distributions)

containing substantial material parts, components

thereof, in fraud, deceit and deception of petitioner's

federally protected and secured registrations of

petitioner's Certificates of Copyright (Txu-742-

462,Txu-775-750, Pau-2-380-629, Pau-2-423-720,

Pau-2-283-460 comical satires ridiculing

dysfunctional families entitled “The Tenant” and/or

“The Dysfunctionals” without the expressed ,

written or oral permission nor exclusive permission,

consent or authority by petitioner in violation of

petitioner’s rights secured by and entitled under the

Federal Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17

U.S.C.A. Section 101. Seq.

The defendants, and each of them, were all

members of a group of the movie motion picture

producers, directors, officers, authorized agents,

benefactors, editors, screenwriters, movie composers,

movie motion pictures, distributors and movie

production companies were conspirators who agreed

between and among themselves to engage act

conduct and/or perform and did engage in criminal

conduct and/or perform and are engaging in criminal

activities in acting conducting and/or performing in

acts of wrongful deception, misrepresentation, fraud,

deceit to the petitioner and that of the purchasing

public, wrongful deprivation of wrongful deception of

petitioner’s good name and reputation and credit asa

screenwriter, composer, editor, and creator of certain

copyrighted literary and/or artistic works and the

owner of the copyrighted screenplays entitled “The

Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals.”

On January 11th, 2006, the district court

dismissed plaintiffs various other causes of action at

the pleading stage. On December 22"4, 2006, the

district court entered a final judgment that disposed

of all the parties’ claims.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s

decision on October 4, 2007.

B. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Premeditated Scheme by the

defendants to steal and deprive this

petitioner of his federal protected

copyrighted materials.

This petitioner in 1993 became a neighbor of

Robert Epstein, an attorney affiliated with Julien

& Schlesinger located at 150 William Street, 19 floor,

New York, New York. This petitioner became

involved in an International Custody battle in

January 1997 that involved the petitioning of the

“Hague Convention.” Robert Epstein, familiar with

the facts, helped assist this petitioner in formulating

the legal affidavits for said case.

Robert Epstein knew this petitioner as a writer

since 1993 that had every intention of breaking into

the film industry on an independent level with a

project entitled “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals,” a multi-faceted novel/screenplay, a

comical satire ridiculing dysfunctional families.

Robert Epstein throughout the friendship had

requested on numerous occasions to read this

petitioner’s novel and was never afforded the

opportunity by petitioner. However, in an attempt of

persuading this'- petitioner to release’ the

novel/screenplay in January 1997, Robert Epstein

claimed to have been one of this petitioner’s best

friends and vowed as an attorney to keep all

materials in relation to said novel entitled “The

Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals” confidential as

an attorney. Robert Epstein in gaining this

petitioner's trust claimed he also intended to break

into the entertainment industry as an attorney and

had no interest in the writings of novels or

screenplays. Robert Epstein claimed that he would

become “in house” counsel to this petitioner’s future

film company that became known as “Chivalry Film

Productions” founded by this petitioner in 1998.

This petitioner felt as though Robert Epstein was

sincere and felt comfortable in releasing the

December 24th, 1996 novel entitled “The Tenant”

and/or “The Dysfunctionals.” It was agreed that all

information regarding this novel/screenplay would

remain confidential and that Robert Epstein would

not make any copies or divulge any of the content.

Upon this agreement said novel/screenplay was

released in gocd faith to Robert Epstein. Upon

receipt of the novel/screenplay Robert Epstein flew

off to the west coast and returned some four days

later claiming that novel/screenplay was _ totally

hilarious. Robert Epstein offered this petitioner a

free office at Julien & Schlesingers located at 150

William Street, 19 floor, N.Y. N.Y, where this

writer could work on his future projects.

On April 15», 1998 this petitioner completed

revisions and compilations on “The Tenant” and

printed the novel out from his lap-top computer that

was equipped with a small printer, with the intent of

filing another copyright that same day. Robert

Epstein came into the office and assisted this

petitioner in making a copy of the project on Juhien &

Schlesingers’s copy machine for the Library of

Congress; it was 238 pages. Robert Epstein insisted

that petitioner remain in the office and fill out the

This petitioner after filling out the copyright

application packaged the project in an envelope

certified return receipt and upon information and

belief Robert Epstein claiming to be on his way to the

post office, mailed said copyright.

This same copyright mailed out on April 15t,

1998 had been returned from the Library of Congress

a week and half later for reasons unknown. This

petitioner checked the April 15t, 1998 copyright to

make sure it was in full and re-mailed it back to the

Library of Congress. See App. 24.

In August of 1998 this petitioner’s best friend

John died of liver cancer and after the funeral this

petitioner headed out to California with his four year

old daughter, Crystal, to vacation and to work on

various projects outlines entitled “The Tenant” and

“The Attorneys” and “The Hague.” This petitioner

made reservations at the Sheraton Hotel at

Universal City.

Upon this petitioner’s arrival into Los Angeles

this petitioner received a phone call from Robert

Epstein stating that this petitioner should go and

stay at Dr. Americo Semonini’s house for the

night, another employee at Julien & Schlesigner’s

Office located at 150 William Street who was a doctor

that evaluated personal injury cases for the firm.

Upon this petitioner’s arrival at Dr. Americo

Semonini house his girlfriend Brenda was present.

Dr. Semonini requested to read this petitioner's

project entitled “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals.” This petitioner flatly denied his

request and upon that note Dr. Americo Semonini

claimed to be hungry. This petitioner was staying

the night and as a courtesy was obliged to

accompany and pay for the meal. My daughter

Crystal at the time was only four years of age it was

a bit late so I would have to carry her.

This petitioner was concerned about the projects

and inquired as to the safety of the premise. Dr.

Americo Semonini reassured this petitioner that the

house was safe and the bags could be left. This

petitioner made sure the bag containing the projects

was secured with a lock prior to leaving the premise.

Upon the return to the house some 2 1/2 hours

later, Dr. Semonini upon entering the premise

screamed out that the door was open. It was a most

awkward situation to encounter.

Upon entering the house, this petitioner checked

his bag. The lock on the bag was missing, this

petitioner opened the bag only to find that it had

been ransacked, all of the papers had _ been

disheveled and various project outlines were missing,

“The Attorneys” and “The Hague. One project was

put back “backwards” meaning that the first 60

pages were right side up and the next 178 pages

were backwards. This project was entitled - “The

Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals” dated April

15%, 1998 (PAu-2-283-460). See: App. 228

This petitioner felt violated and became very

cynical and notified Robert Epstein informing him of

the theft and the petitioner’s intentions of filing a

police report. Robert Epstein instructed this

petitioner not to file a report because Dr. Semonini

was his friend. This petitioner filed a report with the

L.A.P.D. dated August 215, 1998.

Los Angeles Police Report No.980626165.

Dr. Semonini some 2-5 days after the physical

theft of this petitioner’s projects flew to Chicago on

an alleged medical conference and to meet with two

writer friends allegedly Gregg Glienna and Mary

Ruth Clarke.

Upon information and belief Dr. Americo

Semonini was actually arrested on his return flight

from Chicago to Los Angeles for refusing to check his

bag with the flight attendant that did not fit in

overhead storage. This same scene was portrayed in

“Meet the Parents” 2000.

Upon information and belief Dr. Semonini lived in

Michigan where the supposed settings for the movie

“Meet the Parents” 2000 had taken place even

though scenes were filmed in N.Y.

Dr. Americo Semonini was employed at NBC

Universal as a doctor on the sets.

Dr. Americo Semonini was an agent employee

and/or servant of NBC Universal.

NBC Universal is a defendant in this action and

also produced and distributed both “Meet the

Parents” and “Meet the Fockers.”

Steven Sodenburg is a close friend and patient

of Dr. Americo Semonini was the _ producer

affiliated with Gregg Glienna and Mary Ruth

Clarke and responsible for bringing the alleged 1991

“Meet the Parents” to NBC Universal.

Upon information and belief Adam Schlesinger

an entertainment attorney located at 150 William

Street, 19 floor, New York, New York is affiliated

with most of the defendants in this action and

attended school with John Hamburg.

John Hamburg who allegedly came up with

most of the “Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials”

including characters, settings and scenes was one of

the screenwriters on both “Meet the Parents”

and “Meet the Fockers.”

In essence the premeditated scheme to defraud

and deprive this petitioner of his federal protected

copyrights came from within his immediate

surroundings. It is not like this petitioner is “coming

out of Nebraska.” These individuals were all linked

to one another and the defendants in this case.

This petitioner upon viewing “Meet the Fockers”

in January 2005 and subsequently viewing “Meet the

Parents” intended to file a copyright action as

expeditiously as_ possible. Robert Epstein had

claimed he would assist, however he continually

procrastinated for months. It was only when this

petitioner began formulating the complaint on his

own that Robert Epstein agreed to assist.

After signing a retainer, Robert Epstein made a

conference call to Dr. Semonini informing him he had

been retained to prosecute the case. This petitioner

was instructed to remain silent during the

conversation. The gist of said conversation seemed

tailored however during the course of said

conversation Dr. Semonini told Robert Epstein that

the script had been changed — “check your copy.”

The inference drawn by this statement would only

conclude that both Dr. Semonini and Robert Epstein

were both in possession of this petitioner's “Stolen

Federal Copyrighted Materials.” See App. 229.

In formulating this Petitioner’s complaint Robert

Epstein provided the prolific jurisdiction, attorneys’

fees and made certain corrections that he claimed

needed to be incorporated into the complaint. This

petitioner originally intended to file said complaint

in Westchester County because most of the

defendants in the case had offices and maintain

residence in Manhattan County, however, Robert

Epstein was adamant and wanted to file said case in

New York County upon a day of his availability.

Robert Epstein intentionally tried to sabotage the

legal proceedings in this case due to his involvement.

Discovery in this case would have unraveled the

“Theft Ring” above involved in this petitioner’s

“Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials” but this

petitioner was denied discovery. See App. 231.

The respondents in this case throughout the

proceedings have avoided any opposition to the

allegations of interstate and international

transportation of Stolen Federal Copyrights, fraud,

mail fraud, wire fraud, perjured affidavits,

tampering with federal evidence and a number of

other crimes relating to this case.

The respondents’ attorneys at the inception of the

case made claims that certain defendants in this case

were not involved with the “Stolen Federal

Copyrighted Materials,” however, upon this

petitioner request that the defendants provide an

affidavit of non-involvement the defendants

adamantly refused.

2. The Overwhelming Characters, Scenes

and Settings that clearly prove that

copying and plagiarism had occurred.

The Characters in “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals”: CIA, Mother, Father, Daughter,

Sons, Dog, Nurse, Attorney, Doctors, Judge,

Psychiatrist, Babies, toddlers, teenagers, Michael

Angelo of Carpentry, In-Laws, A.S.P.C.A agent,

Concerned Neighbor, Police Officer, Minister —

Monk, Senior Citizens, Court Officer, Minister, etc,

etc., not only similar but identical the characters

in both “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers”

were intentionally portioned out. Whatever

portions of the “Stolen Federal Copyrighted

Materials not used in “Meet the Parents” the balance

of these same “Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials

were used in “Meet the Fockers.”

Simple Mathematics: The same characters in

“Meet the Parents” plus the same characters in

“Meet the Fockers” equal all of the Characters

combined in “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals.” This is indisputable and cannot be

challenged.

The character differences in similarities are

reviewed to determine whether the defendants’ work

has taken expression involving characters of the

first. Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 613

F.Supp. 1107 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).

However, a number of similarities between

characters can support a finding of substantial

similarity, even if the similarities individually are

common, stock elements. Shaw v. Lindheim, 919

F.2d 1353 (9 Cir. 1990).

In evaluating character similarity, courts tend to

character background, attributes and motivation.

Herzog v. Castle Rock Entertainment, 193 F.3d 1241,

1258 (11t Cir. 1999).

The Scenes in “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals”: Lie Detector test, frayed wire

spark, control freak, time conscience, hidden

surveillance camera, “I’m watching you,” gay

ridicule, volleyball game in where a woman sustains

injury to her nose, skimpy bathing suit, carpenter

ordering wood from Vienna, race home in where they

pull up exactly three times making eye contact,

incarceration scene, airport scene only person in the

lobby of the airport, aircraft scene, frayed wire,

shredded clothes, eviction, truth serum, drunk scene

in where true feeling emerge, pulled over by police

for speeding, rubber-dolls found by police with other

sex paraphernalia leading the police to the

conclusion that they were dealing with sexual

deviants however upon further investigation this was

not the case, stun gun-when administering the dose

actually talking voltage, rules and regulations of the

house my way or the shelter, jimmying the door,

ransacking the bag, eavesdropping on the phone,

speaking Asian dialect, southern accent, climbing up

on the roof, tazer gun, police scene, Bureau Child

Welfare, investigative scene, jail scene, renovations

of bathroom, hospital scene in where a baby is being

born and the family is skeptical about doctor's

qualifications however the delivery goes well and

many more, rational v. dysfunctional method of

bringing up children, psychiatrist getting to the

foundation of the problem, claiming to have taken a

shower however the hair is noticeably dry, etc, etc,.

Original Combination of substantial similarities

and arrangement of individually unprotectable ideas

can support a finding of copyright infringement.

Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F. 3d at 1073 (9% Cir. 2002).

The settings in “The Tenant” and/or “The

Dysfunctionals”: House, restaurant, car, vacation,

airport, aircraft, hospital, volleyball court, beach,

boat and many more.

The common settings for two works can support

substantial similarity determination. Universal

Studios, Inc, v. Film Ventures International, Inc., 543

F. Supp 1134 (C.D. Cal. 1982).

“The Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctinals” April

15th, 1998 copyright 1s a multifaceted

novel/screenplay consisting of 238 pages that is

equivalent to over 600 pages of script that

incorporates all of the above characters, scenes and

settings. “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers”

are undoubtedly derived from this petitioner's

“Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials” the

respondents portioned off the same identical

characters, identical scenes and _ identical

settings when you add both of the respondents’

projects “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers”

all of the portioned characters, scenes and settings

equal and are identical to the “Stolen Federal

Copyrighted Materials” this is indisputable and

clearly demonstrates on an elementary level that the

respondents had unlawfully copied and plagiarized

from this petitioner's “Stolen Federal Copyrighted

Materials.”

In Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation

Enterprise, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), they did not act in

good faith, this weighs against giving him the benefit

of fair use defense, the defendant had knowingly

used a_ stolen copy of plaintiffs unpublished

manuscript to obtain quotes. This fact contributed to

the court’s fair use defense.

Courts have held that an original combination of

individuality unprotectable elements is _ itself

protectable, and that the combination of

unprotectable elements has been held cligible for

numerous enough and their selections and

arrangements original enough that their combination

constitutes an original work of authorship. Dawson

v. Hinshaw Music Inc., 905 F 2D 731, 736 15

U.S.P.Q. 2d 1132 (4% Cir. 1990), see also Aliotta v. R.

Dakin & Co., 831 F. 2d 898, 902, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1869

(9th Cir. 1987). Gershwin Publication Corp v.

Columbia Artist Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159,

(2d. Cir. 1971).

“The Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals” is a

multifaceted novel/screenplay a comical satire

ridiculing dysfunctional families of which many

movies can be made.

Jay Roach the director of both “Meet the Parents”

and “Meet the Fockers” stated unequivocally in his

“Meet the Fockers” commentaries “that the script

was excellent and funny and had layer upon layers in

which many movies could be made.”

Jay Roach also stated in his commentaries that a

“sequel was already written.”

3. The Scheme of the alleged 1991 “Meet

The Parents” videocassette that paved

the way to Summary Judgment Motion.

The alleged 1991 “Meet the _ Parents”

videocassette was requisitioned by this petitioner in

July 2006 duc to distortions and voice over. See

App. 27. However, this request was circumvented

by Tracie Coleman and the alleged 1991 “Meet the

Parents” videocassette was not made available until

after February or March of 2007, when summary

judgment had already been decided. However, this

petitioner had requested discovery on this case on

numerous occasions but was declined by the court.

See: App. 22.

(a) The perjured affidavits by

employees located at the Library of Congress

and offered into evidence.

Tracie Coleman and Richard D. Sharp both

employees at the Library of Congress claimed under

oath that the alleged 1991 videocassette by Gregg

Glenna and Mary Ruth Clarke was found in a black

box at the Library of Congress with “no-labels

attached on the cover” side or front and “no

labels attached to the videocassette” on the

front.” See App. 25.

Richard D. Sharp a clerk at the Library of

Congress sent a correction letter concerning PAU-1-

571-116 (Meet the Parents) 1991 - stating that said

video cassette tape came in an unmarked black box

with no attached photo copies of the front of the

video-cassette tape or of the front side of the video-

cassette tape cover.” See App. 26.

(b) The deliberate and_ intentional

altering of the alleged 1991 “Meet the Parents”

videocassette offered into evidence’ by

intentionally and deceptively covering the

label with the caption of the case for the

purpose and intent of confirming fraudulent

findings and receiving a favorable outcome.

See App. 29.

Upon an independent inspection at the Library of

Congress concerning the alleged 1991 “Meet the

Parents” videocassette PAU-1-571-116. It was found

that the affidavits procured by Tracie Coleman and

Richard D. Sharp with respect to the 1991

videocassette had been procured with the intention of

misleading this petitioner. The alleged 1991 Meet

the Parents was in fact labeled on the side in a type

written format either 60 minutes or 6 minutes

because Gregg Glienna was also a song writer.

However, the type written format had been manually

altered and crossed out to reflect 72 minutes of time

either altering 12 minutes of videocassette that is

equivalent to 12 pages of scnpt or altering an

additional 66 minutes of videocassette that is

equivalent to 66 pages of script, either way, the

evidence in this case has been compromised by these

employees and the defendants. See App. 30. Tracie

Coleman and Richard D. Sharp under oath had with

intent and premeditation deceptively altered the

affidavits with the intention of misleading this

petitioner. See: App. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30.

Tracie Coleman in an affidavit also revealed

that this petitioner was missing 31 pages from

petitioner's April 15, 1998 novel/screenplay entitled

“The Tenant” and/or “The Dysfunctionals.” Tracie

Coleman has been entrusted with the videocassette

and evidence in this case and has been deceptive, an

investigation into these missing pages is warranted.

See App. 24.

The defendants in this case in attempt to confirm,

aid and abet the deception of the fraud perpetrated

by Tracie Coleman and Richard D. Sharp concerning

the alleged 1991 “Meet the Parents” videocassette,

actually tampered with the federal evidence by

deceptively covering the label on the side of the

videocassette with the caption of the case and

brazenly attaching this tampered federal evidence to

defendants’ summary judgment confirming on a

visual note that “no labels existed” to intentionally

distort and manipulate the outcome of these

proceedings.

“Meet the Parents” videocassette.

The alleged 1991 “Meet the Parents”

videocassette in question 1s a horror movie narrated

by a gas station attendant in where all of the family

members are killed including the dog. A stick is

thrown into the lake for the dog to fetch and the dog

drowns. One daughter, a singer commits suicide and

is found swinging from a rope in her bedroom

claiming that she had been sexually molested by her

sisters boyfriend. The father comes down the

stairwell on a shotgun spree accidentally killing his

surviving daughter and wife and supposedly dies of a

heart attack thereafter.

The sequel to this alleged videocassette 1991

“Meet the Parents” is once again narrated by a gas

station attendant - “A Father taking his children to

the Circus” in where the entire family would be

killed in a catastrophic event similar to the above.

The sequel to this petitioners “The Tenant”

and/or “The Dysfunctionals’” is that the tenant moves

on to “Meet another Dysfunctional family” squarely

fitting into “Meet the Fockers.” Important to Note:

The respondents in this case unlawfully used the

unused portions of characters, scenes and settings

from the “Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials”

originally created and owned by this petitioner. This

clearly proves beyond any reasonable doubt on a

mathematical level that copying and plagiarism of

the “Stolen Federal Copyrighted Materials” by the

defendants is indisputable and cannot in reality be

challenged.

ARGUMENT

The respondents’ independent creation of the

1991 “Meet the Parents” videocassette has to be

forensically evaluated due to the frauds perpetrated

throughout these legal proceedings in relation to the

evidence. The affidavits procured under oath by

employees (Tracie Coleman and Richard D. Sharp)

were intentionally done so with the intent of

misleading this petitioner and evading any type of

discovery.

The intentional covering of the minutes of the

alleged 1991 “Meet the Parents” videocassette with

the caption of the case by defendants was to confirm

the deceptive affidavits procured by Tracie Coleman

and Richard D. Sharp as being true in relation to the

labels. This proves that the defendants in this case

will resort to any criminal means in protecting this

“Organized Crime Syndicate” and protecting this

alleged 1991 “Meet the Parents” videocassette from

being forensically evaluated. The credibility of this

evidence considering the circumstances surrounding

this case is zilch.

Upon information and belief, Dr. Americo

Semonini is affiliated with Robert Epstein, Steven

Sodenberg, Mary Ruth Clarke, Gregg Glienna, Adam

Schlesinger and John Hamburg.

Upon information and belief, Richard D. Sharp is

employed at the Library of Congress and has a Ph.D.

in English Literature and is also affiliated with the

above, however, without discovery this petitioner has

a problem verifying his connection.

The defendants in their summary judgment

motion’s reply papers to this petitioner’s opposition

claimed that this petitioner had mischaracterizations

in the lie detector test - The lie detector test in “The

Tenant” used a frayed wire that sparked in where

the tenant was tied into a chair and questioned in

exposing the truth similar to Jack Brynes strapping

Focker into a chair and questioning him to expose

the truth.

The frayed wire spark scene was used as a home

made lie detector test however when Gregg climbed

up on the roof to pursue Jinx who vanished into thin

air. Similar to Jimmy climbing up on the roof top

chasing a neighbor who took off like a scared cat and

vanished into thin air. Gregg started the fire witha

frayed wire spark as he was trying to catch Jinx the

cat who vanished into thin air.

The Tenant was traumatized by the ordeal and

vented out his frustrations to the landlord. similar

to Focker being traumatized by the ordeal and

venting out his frustrations to Pam.

The landlord claimed to have known Bill Clinton,

claiming to have been to the White House (Oval

Office), claiming to have known the General and

even claimed to have been going on a secret mission;

similar to Jack Brynes having a picture with

President Clinton, Jack Brynes having a picture with

the General, Jack Brynes in a disguise dressed up as

an Arab on a secret mission.

Defendants claim another mischaracterization:

The landlord claimed to be CIA similar to Jack

Brynes who was retired CIA agent.

Defendants claimed another mischaracterization

in their reply papers, claiming that when the

landlord claimed to be speaking Asian to the Asians

he really did not know how to speak Asian similar

Jack Brynes wife Dina — “Jack don’t talk That...”

The tenant had a hidden surveillance camera in

the house to view any undesirables similar to Jack’s

Nanny Camera.

The tenant views the camera in an attempt to

prove the landlord and his brother were the true

culprits similar to when Jack Brynes views the

camera to prove that Gregg was the culprit.

The defenses of the respondents fall short of

reality when respondents begin using similar scenes

in trying to prove dissimilarities. A paradox in itself

that is self-defeating. In essence actually helping

this petitioner prove similarities and copyright

infringement.

The respondents in this case have the luxury of

choosing between 5 different copyrights of this

petitioner totally evading the main “Stolen Federal

The district court set an example of the car scene

however if you take the full context of the car scene

many scenes will be revealed and whatever is

deconstructed will be reconstructed in further

proving combinations of substantial similarities and

an arrangement of individually unprotectable ideas

that can support a finding of copyright infringement.

Metcalf v. Bochco, n. 50 supra. 294 F .3d at 1073.

Prior to the car scene the landlord is manning a

window pacing back and _ (forth cynical and

apprehensively about his relationship with the new

tenant working out similar to Jack Brynes who is

also manning a window cynical and apprehensive

about Pam’s relationship with her new boyfriend.

The landlord is time conscious similar to Jack

Brynes being time conscious.

In “The Tenant” the tenant pulls into the

driveway and sees the dilated pupil of the landlord

“watching his every move” the tenant feels

uncomfortable ... the landlord finally answers the

door and claims to have been taking a shower

however his hair was noticeably dry similar Focker

who started the frayed wire spark fire claimed to

Jack Brynes that he was taking a shower however

his hair was noticeable dry. (The comical aspect is

that they are both lying.)

The difference in whether you are asking whether

the car 1s automatic or standard or what color is

irrelevant, you are still asking about the car. The

comical aspect is what leads up to the question.

All of the comical aspects that gave “Meet the

Parents” and “Meet the Fockers” worldwide success

were stolen and extracted from this petitioner’s

“Federal Protected Copyrights.” It is far from

coincidental to have all of the characters, scenes and

settings including and not limited to deleted scenes.

4. The Statute of limitations concerning

“Meet the Parents” January 11, 2006 order was

ambiguous, not clarified and this petitioner

was unaware.

The district court stated in its January 11, 2006

decision: “There can be httle doubt that Ardito

should have known of any infringement by “Meet the

Parents” at or shortly thereafter the highly

publicized release of the film. In 2000 5% of the

population in the United States saw “Meet the

Parents” if this petitioner saw “Meet the Parents” the

Statute of Limitations would not have been an issue.

This petitioner was inundated in the Supreme Court

in Manhattan concerning the custody of his daughter

and this petitioner's mother was sick dying of lung

cancer. At that time this petitioner was not only a

full time dad taking care of his daughter but taking

care of his mother as well. So it wouldn't appear

clear that this appellant should have known. When

this petitioner viewed “Meet the Fockers” the police

were immediately notified.

5. Civil RICO

This case deals with an “Organized Crime

Syndicate” whom have executed their premeditated

scheme with precision in an unconscionable manner

with the sole intent of stealing and depriving this

plaintiff of his Federal protected Copyrights and

unlawfully passing them off as their own in the

making of defendants’ motion pictures entitled “Meet

the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers” for the purpose

of this litigation. However, no discovery in this case

has been afforded to this petitioner even though the

defendants in this case have brazenly tampered with

federal evidence, perjured affidavits and have

intentionally perpetrated frauds throughout these

legal proceedings. This truly violates and

undermines one’s perception of justice. This sort of

criminal conduct has to be abolished in the interest

of fairness and justice.

This petitioner is respectfully requesting that the

Civil RICO dismissal be reversed due to the

extenuating circumstances that have evolved in this

case pertaining to the circumventing of evidence, the

deceptive tampering of evidence by the defendants.

The Civil RICO will give this petitioner the

opportunity to reveal the copyright theft ring.

Summary judgment may not be granted unless

“the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories and admissions on file, together with

affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56 (c). See also Celotes Corp. v. Catrett, 477. 477

U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Anderson v. Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S.242, 247-48 (1986). Gallo v. Prudential

Residential Servs, Lid. P’ship, 22 F. 3d 1219, 1223

(2d Cir.1994).

In determining whether summary judgment is

appropriate, a court must resolve all ambiguities and

draw all reasonable inferences against the moving

party. See Malsushita Elec Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

Summary judgment is improper if there is any

evidence in the record from any source from which a

reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the

non-moving party. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs.,

Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 1994).

In considering the motion, the court's

responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact,

but to assess whether there are factual issues to be

tried. Knight v. U.S. Fire Inc. Co., 804 F. 2d 9, 11

(9th Cir. 1986).

Summary judgment should have failed because

there are questions of fact in determining this case

involving the premeditated theft of Federal Protected

Copyrights, the tampering of federal evidence, the

perjured affidavits, the alleged 1991 Meet the

Parents video cassette, access and the overwhelming

characters, scenes and settings that clearly prove

that the respondents in this case beyond any

reasonable doubt copied and plagiarized the Stolen

Federal Copyrighted Materials in the making of

“Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers.” See

Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion,

App. 31 and Table of Similarities, App. 75 -179.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons stated herein, this

petitioner respectfully request and prays that the

judgment of the Second Circuit be reversed, and this

case be remanded to the district court for discovery

and trial in the interest of justice and grant this

petitioner such other and further relief as the court

deems just and proper.

State of New York )

County of New York )

I am the petitioner in this action herein, I have read

the foregoing Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and

know the content thereof and the same is true of my

own knowledge, except as to the matters stated to be

alleged upon information and belief and _ those

( :

f lA :

geph Ardito

Sworn to before me this

ye of March, 2008

alin W heuyots

Notary Public

KATCRINA 1. GRAJALES

Notary Public, State Of New York

No. 01GR5010801

Qualified in N.Y. yr!

Commission Expires 4/5/20 !|

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.