THE TENANT

and/or

THE DYSFUNCTIONALS

are now for

"SALE"

included in the sale "5" federal protected copyrights originally created by Joseph Ardito with complitalions and revisions.

Copyright Protection, Creative Ownership, Fraud Prevention and Public Accountability.

Chivalry film productions stands for the protection of original creative work, the lawful recognition of authorship , and the responsible defense of intellectual property rights. This page addresses serious concerns involving copyright infringement , fraud , misuse of creative materials and corruption that can occur when artistic ownership is ignored, exploited, misrepresented , or wrongfully appropriated . Creative work has value . Original ideas, , scripts, footage, concepts, films, treatments, production materials, branding, and related intellectual properties that deserve lawful protection and ethical respect.

STATEMENT

The purpose of this page is to present the same core message in clear, formal, and legally conscious language: unauthorized use of protected works is not acceptable , fraudulent conduct surrounding creative materials must be challenged; and corruption that interferes with truth, ownership , credit ,or compensation must be exposed through proper, lawful , and documented channels.

Chivalry Film Productions recognizes that the film and entertainment industries depend on trust, documentation, originality, , and respect for the legal rights of creators. When a writer, producer, filmmaker , artist, or production company creates original work, that work is protected by law from unauthorized copying, distribution, reproduction, public display , adaption , sale , licensing, or exploitation . Copyright infringement occurs when a protected work is used without permission from the rightful owner or without a valid legal defense. In the creative industry , infringement can take many forms, including the unauthorized use of scripts, storylines, characters film footage, production concepts , music , promotional content ,titles , artwork , business materials, or other original creative expressions.

This page is intended to communicate a firm and lawful position against copyright infringement, fraud, and corruption. The message is simple; creative ownership matters, documentation matters, and accountability matters. No individual , company , organization , distributor , collaborator , investor ,contractor , or third party should misappropriate another person’s creative work, claim false ownership , conceal the origin of protected materials , interfere with rightful credit , or benefit financially from work that was obtained or used through thefts or without proper authorization.

Copyright infringement is not merely a business disagreement it involves unlawful conduct that causes substantial harm to the rightful creator or owner. That harm may include loss of income ,loss of licensing opportunities , reputation damage, denial of professional credit , interference with distribution, dilution of brand identity, destruction of evidence, and unjust enrichment by those who benefitted use, in some circumstances , infringement may also be connected to fraudulent representations, falsified records, deceptive business practices, concealing of ownership or coordinated misconduct intended to deprive the rightful owner of recognition and compensation.

Fraud in connection with creative work may arise when a person knowingly makes false statements ,misrepresents facts, conceals material information, or uses deceptive conduct to obtain rights, access, money , credit , signatures, contracts , production materials, or business opportunities . Fraud may also exist where a party falsely claims to own intellectual property, falsely represent that it has permission to use protected work, misleads investors or collaborators, submits altered documentation , or attempts to erase the involvement of the original creator. Chivalry Film Productions takes such matters seriously and supports the use of proper legal processes, written records , and evidentiary documentation to address misconduct.

Corruption, as addressed on this page, refers to conduct that undermines fairness, transparency, lawful process , and ethical responsibility . In the context of film, media , and intellectual property ,corruption includes abuse of influence, suppression of evidence , retaliation against creators, misdirection , or coordinated efforts to protect wrongful conduct. Where corruption affects creative rights, it can prevent creators from receiving the credit , control, compensation , and professional opportunity they are entitled to receive.

Chivalry Film Productions believes that creators must be able to protect their work without intimidation, retaliation, or improper interference. The right to speak about infringement, fraud, and corruption is important, but it must be exercised responsibly. Statements concerning these matters should be based on documents, communications, registrations, contracts, production records, timestamps, witness information, correspondence, and other evidence capable of supporting the claim. Legal concerns should be addressed through appropriate remedies, including written notices, settlement demands, copyright registration records, Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices where applicable, cease and desist communications, contract enforcement, administrative complaints, civil claims, and other lawful procedures.

LEGAL-STYLE POSITION STATEMENT

Chivalry Film Productions expressly reserves all rights in and to its original works, including but not limited to all films, scripts, screenplays, treatments, outlines, concepts, characters, dialogue, footage, audiovisual recordings, production materials, photographs, logos, website content, business plans, written materials, and any related intellectual property created, owned, controlled, licensed, or developed by Chivalry Film Productions. No person or entity is authorized to copy, reproduce, distribute, modify, adapt, display, publish, sell, license, upload, download, transfer, register, claim, or otherwise exploit any protected material without prior written authorization from the rightful owner.

Any unauthorized use of protected material may constitute copyright infringement and may expose the responsible party to legal claims, damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, profits attributable to infringement, statutory damages where available, and other remedies permitted by law. Any false claim of ownership, false representation of authority, concealment of source materials, fraudulent use of documents, or intentional misappropriation of creative property may also give rise to additional legal claims, including fraud, conversion, unfair competition, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, interference with business relations, or other civil causes of action depending on the facts and applicable law.

The content of this page is intended to place visitors, collaborators, industry participants, and interested parties on notice that Chivalry Film Productions values lawful conduct and will not knowingly waive or abandon its rights. Silence, delay, negotiation, investigation, or public explanation shall not be construed as permission, waiver, consent, release, or approval of any unauthorized conduct. All rights and remedies are reserved.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND DOCUMENTATION

Proper documentation is essential in any matter involving intellectual property, ownership, fraud, or corruption. Creators should maintain copies of original files, drafts, dates of creation, registration materials, contracts, emails, messages, production logs, payment records, witness statements, metadata, distribution records, and any evidence showing who created the work, when it was created, how it was used, and whether permission was granted. Documentation may help establish ownership, prove infringement, identify responsible parties, confirm damages, and support lawful enforcement.

Chivalry Film Productions encourages transparency and accountability. Anyone who has received, accessed, viewed, copied, used, distributed, or profited from protected materials should ensure that their actions were authorized in writing. Verbal assumptions, informal access, prior conversations, professional relationships, or participation in a project does not automatically create ownership rights. A person who contributes to a production does not necessarily own the work. A person who receives a copy of a script , film, pitch , treatment , or production material does not automatically receive the right to use it . A person who discusses a concept does not automatically acquire the right to exploit it . Rights must be determined by law , written agreements , ownership records and the specific facts.

Where disputes arise, the preferred approach is to review the evidence carefully, communicate in writing, preserve all relevant records, avoid destruction or alteration of materials, and resolve the matter through lawful means. If a party has used material without authorization, corrective action may include immediately stopping the use, removing infringing content, providing an accounting, identifying all persons who received the material, preserving evidence, acknowledging the rightful owner, correcting public credits, negotiating compensation, and entering into a written resolution agreement.”

NOTICE REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED USE

Visitors and third parties are hereby placed on notice that the unauthorized use, reproduction, republication, redistribution, sale, licensing, adaptation, or commercial exploitation of any protected work associated with Chivalry Film Productions is prohibited unless written permission has been obtained from the lawful rights holder. This includes use on websites, streaming platforms, social media, pitch materials, production proposals, investor presentations, advertising, promotional reels, film festivals, private submissions, public exhibitions, or any other medium.

Any party in possession of materials believed to belong to Chivalry Film Productions should not alter, delete, conceal, transfer, monetize, or publish those materials without authorization.

Preservation of evidence is important. Deleting communications, removing metadata, altering credits, changing file names, destroying drafts, or concealing the history of a project may create further legal concerns. Parties are encouraged to act responsibly and to resolve disputes through verifiable written communications and appropriate legal channels.

ETHICAL COMMITMENT

Chivalry Film Productions supports ethical filmmaking, lawful collaboration, and fair recognition of creative contributions. The entertainment industry functions best when artists, writers, producers, crew members, investors, and distributors respect ownership rights and act in good faith. Ethical production requires honesty about authorship, permission, compensation, credits, licensing, and use of materials. It also requires that claims of ownership be supported by documents and that disputes be handled without threats, retaliation, intimidation, deception, or misuse of influence.

Standing against infringement, fraud, and corruption is not only a legal position; it is a professional standard. Creative industries should not reward those who take work without permission, erase the original creator, misrepresent facts, or use influence to silence legitimate concerns. Accountability protects artists, strengthens the industry, and helps ensure that original work remains connected to the people who created it.

8. PUBLIC MESSAGE

Chivalry Film Productions is committed to protecting original content and pursuing truth where copyright infringement, fraud, or corruption may be present. The company's position is grounded in the belief that creative work deserves respect and that no person or entity should profit from the unauthorized use of another's intellectual property. When ownership is ignored, when records are manipulated, or when powerful interests attempt to benefit from another creator's labor, the integrity of the creative process is harmed.

This page serves as a clear public statement: original work must not be stolen, copied, misused, concealed, or falsely claimed. Fraudulent conduct must be confronted. Corruption must be exposed through lawful means. Creators must have the opportunity to defend their rights, preserve their evidence, and seek appropriate remedies. Chivalry Film Productions remains dedicated to protecting its work, asserting its rights, and promoting accountability in the film and media community.

CALL TO ACTION

Anyone with information concerning unauthorized use, misappropriation, fraudulent claims, improper distribution, concealed ownership, or corruption involving protected creative materials connected to Chivalry Film Productions is encouraged to communicate through proper written channels. Relevant information may include dates, names, documents, communications, links, screenshots, contracts, payment records, production files, distribution records, or other evidence that may help clarify the facts.

All communications concerning potential infringement, fraud, or corruption should be truthful, specific, and supported by available documentation. Chivalry Film Productions seeks accountability, lawful resolution, and protection of creative rights. The goal is not speculation, but clarity; not intimidation, but evidence; not confusion, but truth.

WEBSITE NOTICE AND RIGHTS RESERVATION

All content appearing on or associated with chivalryfilmproductions.com, including written content, visual content, production materials, creative concepts, and related intellectual property, is protected to the fullest extent available under applicable copyright, trademark, contract, and unfair competition laws. Unauthorized use is prohibited. No license, assignment, permission, waiver, or transfer of rights is granted by access to the website or by viewing any material on the website.

Chivalry Film Productions reserves the right to investigate suspected infringement, fraud, corruption, misrepresentation, unauthorized use, and related misconduct. Chivalry Film Productions further reserves the right to pursue all available remedies, including removal requests, written demands, negotiations, claims for damages, injunctive relief, public correction of attribution, and any other lawful relief supported by the facts and applicable law.

Chivalry Film Productions believes that truth, ownership, and accountability must remain central to the creative process. Copyright infringement, fraud, and corruption damage not only individual creators but the integrity of the film industry as a whole. This page affirms a continuing commitment to protect original work, challenge unauthorized use, preserve evidence, confront deception, and support lawful remedies. Creative work should be honored, credited, and protected. Those who create should not be silenced, exploited, or denied the value of their own work. Chivalry Film Productions stands for lawful ownership, ethical production, and the protection of creative rights.

The "Truncated Discovery"

Discovery is allowed even in straightforward accident cases. In copyright law, judges sometimes "bifurcate" or limit discovery if they believe that a side-by-side comparison of the two works (the "extrinsic test") clearly shows they are so different that no further evidence about how the movie was made would affect the outcome. In this case, all the characters, scenes, and settings from the plaintiff's five federally protected copyrights were stolen and unlawfully used by the defendants in making "Meet the Parents," "Meet the Fockers," and "Wedding Crashers." This was proven beyond any reasonable doubt—a stricter standard than the usual preponderance of evidence required in copyright infringement cases—that the defendants deliberately and intentionally used the plaintiff's copyrights unlawfully and must be held civilly and criminally accountable.

The Risk of Limitation

The judges and defendants used a legal tactic to bar discovery, violating the plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial proceeding—essentially denying due process. The plaintiff was prevented from accessing depositions, the police report, forensic analyses, and other evidence that would have clearly demonstrated a criminal RICO violation beyond any reasonable doubt.

Allegations Regarding the Library of Congress

Serious allegations of fraud on the court involve the so-called "black box" evidence and claims against Richard D. Sharp and Tracie Coleman.

Forensic Evidence

The defendants’ prior work was purportedly a fraudulent prerecorded videotape with no written copyright. Normally, forensic analysis of paper, ink, or digital timestamps would be used to verify this. However, without discovery, due process, and a fair trial, these rights were blatantly violated.

Sovereign Immunity & Dismissal of the Library of Congress

Dismissal often hinges on "Sovereign Immunity" or the "Administrative Procedure Act." Judges sometimes dismiss cases on their own initiative if they believe the court lacks jurisdiction over a federal entity or if the complaint fails to state a claim. However, this was not the case here. The judge erred in her ruling, and in a public forum or senate committee hearing, this ruling would expose a flawed perception of justice.

Due Process and the Appellate Path

It is frustrating when a case reaches the Supreme Court but feels unheard due to multiple frauds, corruption, conflicts of interest, government agencies altering federal evidence, and cover-ups exposing the theft ring involving the plaintiff's five stolen copyrights. This includes Library of Congress fraud, altered evidence, perjury, altered legal contracts, and deleted characters, scenes, and settings—all violating the plaintiff’s due process rights to a fair and impartial trial.

Question of Facts vs. Law

The similarities in characters, settings, and scenes were clear "questions of fact" meant for a jury to decide.

Judicial Discretion

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals typically grants trial judges broad discretion in managing their cases. When an appellate court affirms a dismissal, it indicates the trial judge acted within their legal authority. However, in this instance, the judges acted with extreme bias and prejudice to ensure the defendants prevailed in what was a gross miscarriage of justice.

The federal courts have willfully ignored evidence of fraud, altered and forensic evidence, depositions of defendants and accomplices, perjured affidavits, verified statements from Library of Congress employees, police reports, and other critical evidence—all of which should have been considered to protect the plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial proceeding.

CHIVALRY FILM PRODUCTIONS/JOSEPH ARDITO v. NBC UNIVERSAL, et al.

Chronology/Procedural History concerning the above matter(s).

Corruption in the Federal Courts was to deny plaintiff "Discovery" a crucial factor in litigation that would have exposed the truth and proven this plaintiff's case beyond any reasonable doubt against the studio defendants NBC Universal et al., including and not limited to members of the theft ring, perjured afffidavits, sworn statements, frauds, writer frauds that in in essence created and manipulated evidences paving the way to the prejudicial biases of the court to destroy any chance of this plaintiff's right to a fair and impartial trial against Hollywood's Organized Crime Syndicate.

This plaintiff at the inception of the lawsuit claimed his 5 (five) federal copyrights were stolen in a premeditated criminal scheme by NBC Universal et al., who made billions of dollars in revenues on plaintiff's stolen federal copyrights, originally created and owned by Joseph Ardito. The theft ring with intent and premeditation stole this plaintiffs 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and extracted and used all of the characters, scenes and settings from this plaintiff's 5 federal protected copyrigths in the unlawfully making of defendant's NBC Universal, et al movies entitled " Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers".

(Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Wedding Crashers, Little Fockers, and the upcoming Focker In-Law installment are all derivatives of plaintiff's five (5) federal protected copyrights.)

Federal court judges erred in truncating discovery, granting defendants summary judgement, as discovery is granted in the "simplest cases." However, given this lawsuit was formulated on the premise of stolen federal copyrights, discovery should have been granted beyond any reasonable doubt.

This case is "no different" than stealing a car from a legal owner and painting the car a different color without changing the mechanical components that make the car run then fraudulently claiming original ownership of the mechanics.

The difference between the stolen car and this plaintiff's copyright case is that the defendants changed the title and deceptively used all of this plaintiff's characters, scenes and settings. This plaintiff's copyrights was noted for starting a trend in comedy (Christian Science magazine) in where many movies had been made to decptively steal, subterfuge and claiming original copyright creation of someone elses 5 federal protected copyrights goes beyond theft.

Character Elements & Dialogue Parallels

Mirror Proposal Rehearsal: Plaintiff’s character ("Jo Jo") stutters while practicing asking a woman out in a mirror ("Pam wi wi will you go out with me") vs. Greg Focker practicing his marriage proposal in a mirror ("Pam, will you marry me?").
House Rules & Authority: Landlord asserts total control with "It’s my way or the shelter" vs. Jack Byrnes’ "It’s my way or the highway" rule.
"Circle of Trust" & Allegiance: Landlord demands absolute allegiance among a dysfunctional group vs. Jack Byrnes’ core "Circle of Trust" requirement.
Non-Verbal Intimidation: Landlord uses "I’m watching you" hand gestures vs. Jack Byrnes using the iconic "I'm watching you" eye-to-finger gesture.
Tardy Phobia / Time Obsession: Landlord is obsessively time-conscious and panics about being late vs. Jack Byrnes’ obsessive focus on punctuality and fear of being tardy.
Specific Verbatim Dialogue: Father/Landlord states, "This guy has been giving us problems since he came into the house," mirroring Jack Byrnes’ identical line regarding Greg Focker.

Scene-by-Scene Narrative Similarities

Scene / Sequence	Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work	*Alleged Infringing Work (Meet the Parents***)
Arrival & Surveillance	Landlord cynically peeks through window blinds as tenant pulls into driveway.	Jack Byrnes cynically peeks through the window as Greg pulls into driveway.
Vehicle Interrogation	Landlord interrogates tenant on driving skills and car specs ("standard or automatic?").	Jack Byrnes ridicules Greg’s driving and interrogates him about his car choice/color.
Shower / Hair Alibi	Landlord claims he was in the shower, but his hair is completely dry.	Greg claims he was in the shower, but Jack points out his hair is dry.
Hidden Camera & Surveillance	Landlord uses hidden infrared cameras to monitor the tenant, later viewed as evidence.	Jack Byrnes uses hidden cameras to monitor Greg, later viewing tape as evidence.
Polygraph Test	Tenant undergoes and is traumatized by a lie detector test.	Greg undergoes and is traumatized by Jack Byrnes' lie detector test.
Roof & Escape Pursuit	Character climbs onto roof pursuing a subject who vanishes like a cat.	Greg climbs onto the roof pursuing Jinx the cat, who vanishes.
House Destruction & Closet Discovery	House looks hit by a hurricane; clothes are bizarrely shredded; pet found in closet.	House looks hit by a hurricane after destruction; clothes shredded; cat found.
Eviction	Tenant is formally evicted immediately following the shredded clothes scene.	Greg is evicted from the premises immediately following the shredded clothes scene.
Carpentry / Exotic Wood	Character highlights master carpentry ("Michael Angelo of carpentry") with wood imported from Vienna.	Pam’s ex-boyfriend highlights master carpentry hobby with wood imported from Bolivia.
Erratic Driving / Parallel Stops	Cars race and pull up parallel exactly three times with direct eye contact; jackknifing into no-parking zone.	Jack and Greg race, pulling up parallel exactly three times with eye contact; car jackknifes into no-parking zone.

Specific Gags, Visuals, and Plot Motifs

Volleyball Injury: A competitive volleyball game results in a female player suffering a broken/injured nose.
Luggage & Paraphernalia: A jammed-full suitcase is forced open/jimmied, revealing adult sex paraphernalia inside.
Disguises & Male Nurse Ridicule: A male character involved in nursing is subjected to constant ridicule regarding his profession / character dresses in a nurse's uniform.
Bizarre Physical Arrest: The main character is forcibly carried off by lunatic.
Restrained Interrogation: A formal interrogation sequence takes place while the character is physically handcuffed and restrained in a chair.
Airport Ring Scene: A key narrative beat centers around inspecting/handling an engagement ring at an airport terminal.
Minor Visual Gags:

CIA badge-flicking gesture.
Frayed electrical wires sparking.
Eavesdropping on landline phone extensions.
Accent mimicry (Asian dialect and Southern travel agent dialect gags).
Purchase of a cheap bottle of champagne.
Neighbors calling to report issues regarding a household pet (dog vs. cat / animal shelter Involvement).
Skimpy bathing suit gags and karate sequences.

The defendants' NBC Universal, et al., including and not limited to the studio "writers, studio defendants, attorneys, the doctor employed at NBC Universal was the same doctor liinked to plaintiff's law firm and complicit and involved in the theft ring , the alleged producer involved with the theft ring was in fact the doctor's patient employed at NBC Universal.

The Library of Congress was also complicit in the theft as employees at the Library of Congress altered and deleted federal evidence in the copyright case that was supposed to protect plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights that were stolen and used by the defendants in an elaborate theft scam in stealing plaintiff's Jospeh Ardito's 5 federal protected copyrights without permission or consent in the unlawful making of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Wedding Crashers and every derivative thereafter that continues to generate billions of dollars from stolen federal copyrights that were supposed to be protected by the Library of Congress!

The defendants NBC Universal et al., only prevailed by corrupted political connections, conflicts of interest , corrupted judges, corrupted Library of Congress and judicial biases, that "barred discovery" a crucial factor in the cases that would have not only exposed the defendant's theft ring in the stolen federal copyright cases, but would have proved plaintiff's case beyond any reasonable doubt a stringent burden of proof than a preponderence of evidence entitling this plaintiff to "billions of dollars" in nominal,punitive and treble damages.

NBC Universal, et als., theft ring , was protected by the corrupted LAPD, F.B.I. , U.S. Attorney General’s Office, including and not limited to the corruption in the federal court system and the corrupted Library of Congress that was readily available through defendants attorney to protect the defendants by whatever fraudulent means necessary to evade criminal and civil liabilies.

The political connections are exposed by the federal court judges preciding over these cases, defendants attorneys Prior, Cashman, Sherman and Flynn's conflicts of interest at the Library of Congress in Washington that intentionally tampered with federal evidence to go as far as placing a predated manufactured fraudulent backdated 1991 MTP-VHS with no written copyright found in a black box at the Library of Congress that violated this plaintiff's constitution right to a "fair and impartial" proceeding and/or trial by jury criminally violating this plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights.

Discovery, a crucial factor in this copyright case would have proven this plaintiff's case "beyond any reasonable doubt" a more stringent burden of proof than a "mere preponderance of evidence" the studio defendants NBC Universal et al., were in possession of this plaintiff's Joseph Ardito's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights at all times that were stolen and unlawfully used in defendants NBC Universal et, al., in the unlawful making of defendants NBC Universal, et al., screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents,” “Meet the Fockers” and "Wedding Crashers."

The federal courts by and through numerous criminal frauds violated due process and constitution in protecting the defendants NBC Universal et al., that had with intent and premeditation used plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights in a premeditated criminal scheme with the overall intent of barring "discovery" a crucial factor in this multi-billion dollar copyright "theft" infringement case to conceal, subterfuge and protect defendants NBC Universal et al., the theft ring, fraudulent writers, studio defendants, attorneys, a doctor, the Library of Congress and the corruption in the federal courts protecting the defendants NBC Universal., et al from all civil and criminal liabilities.

NBC Universal et al,. studio defendants "knew at all times" that they were in possession of plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights that were stolen by and through their premeditated theft ring allowing the defendants NBC Universal et al., to benefit criminally , monetarily and unlawful in the fraudulent and unlawful making of the defendants NBC Universal, et al ., screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers.”

The theft ring consisted of fraudulent writers, studio defendants, actors, attorneys, doctor linked to the studio defendants , producer and the plaintiff's former law firm, theft ring was also linked to the film producers and distributors that acted unethically and criminally in "concert and collusion" in unlawfully using this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and throughout the course of litigation, the defendants perpetrated numerous other crimes to sabotaging plaintiff's copyright infringement case through the Library of Congress, including and not limited to the federal court system - all involved in this premeditated theft scheme of stealing and using this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights "extracting" all of the characters, scenes and settings from this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and putting the "extracted stolen" characters, scenes and settings into defendants NBC Universal et al., screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents" , "Meet the Fockers" , and "Wedding Crashers".

The studio defendants even went a step further after extracting and using all of the plaintiff's "characters, scenes and settings" in this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights. The studio defendants NBC Universal claimed copyrights and original creation!

This plaintiff's copyrighted materials consisted of 5 (five) federally protected copyrights entitled "The Tenant", "The Dysfunctionals" self-explanatory and "The Attorneys" that crashed "Weddings and Funerals" in essence comical satires ridiculing dysfunctional families.

Any unbiased judge, jury, Magistrate or Supreme Court Justice politically connected to NBC Universal et al., and the studio defendants who "read" plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights would have known "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the defendants NBC Universal, et al ., theft ring extracted all of the characters, scenes and settings from this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and used them in the unlawful making of defendants NBC Universal, et al. screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers", and "Wedding Crashers.” "Without this plaintiff’s 5 (five) federally protected copyrights, these NBC Universal movies would have never existed"!

The theft ring involved in this plaintiff's stolen federal copyrights were employed at the "same law firm" as this plaintiff, other members of the studio theft ring were the studio defendants,, "friends and writer frauds" linked to the theft ring that attended undergraduate college with attorneys from the "same law firm" located at 150 William Street, 19 floor, New York, New York, or knew Robert Epstein, and/or Dr. Americo Semonini and were all contracted by the defendants NBC Universal, et al., in the theft of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights that were used without the consent or permission of this plaintiff.

Steven Soderbergh a producer, was employed at NBC Universal, Mr. Soderbergh was also a friend and patient of Dr. Americo Semonini who was employed at the "same law firm" as this plaintiff and was in possession of this plaintiff's stolen federal copyrights. Dr. Americo Semonini evaluated personal injury cases for the "same law firm" in New York and lived in California where he was employed as a cardiologist at Cedar Sinai, as well as being employed as a doctor on the sets at "NBC Universal" the defendants in this copyright infringement case.

August 12, 1991: Copyright PAu001571116 - Title: Meet the Parents/by CEM Productions: Copyright Claimant: Greg Glienna; Description: Videocassette: Work Claimed: X Motion picture or filmstrip; Class: PA UNP; Copies: Motion Picture. – The Defendants’ attorneys Pryor, Cashman, Sherman and Flynn, relied on an alleged pre-dated 1991 MTP video-cassette with no written copyright- found in a black box at the Library of Congress to challenge this Plaintiff’s 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and 79 pages of comparisons of characters, scenes and setting extracted from this plaintiff's copyrights that were stolen and unlawfully used in defendants NBC Universal, et al, movies entitled "The Tenant", Meet the Fockers and Wedding Crashers that would have never existed if it weren't for this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights that were stolen and used unlawfully!

May 15, 1996: Copyright TXu-742-462 - Title: The Tenant/The Dysfunctionals; 122p.; Note: Novel; Claimant: Joseph C. Ardito.

December 24, 1996: Copyright TXu-775-750 -Title: The Tenant/ The Dysfunctionals; Description: 176p.; Note: Fiction; Claimant: Joseph C. Ardito.

April 27, 1996: Copyright PAu2-283-460 - Title: The Tenant; Description: 1v.; Note: Screenplay; Claimant: Joseph C. Ardito.

August 21/22, 1998: The above three (3) "Ardito" copyrighted documents were stolen from the residence of Defendant Americo Semonini in Los Angeles, California. (Police Report Filed).

February 2, 1999 - Copyright PAu2-380-629 - Title: The Tenant; Motion Picture-Dramatization - Script; Claimant : Joseph Ardito.

July 19, 1999 - Copyright PAu2-423-720 - Title: The Tenant; Motion Picture; Claimant: Joseph Ardito.

June 16, 2005 - Chivalry Film Productions/Joseph Ardito v. NBC Universal, et al., was filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 05 CV 5627. This plaintiff would have filed the complaint in April 2005, however awaited for Robert Epstein, Esq. to revise certain portions of the complaint that would later be used as part of summary judgment favoring the defendants in this case. This plaintiff had no idea that Robert Epstein was in fact part of the theft ring; the jurisdiction and last minute revisions on the complaint didn't hit home until after the summary judgment used by Judge Lynch in his decision. (Judge Lynch: Clinton appointed 1995).

Robert Epstein being part of the "theft ring" manipulated and distorted the jurisdiction and portions of the complaint in a last look over prior to the filing on June 16, 2005, his last minute revisions proved that he was part of the theft ring playing both sides as he kept Pryor, Cashman Sherman & Flynn apprised of this plaintiff's every move throughout the litigation.

This plaintiff finished the complaint in February 2005 and Robert Epstein took 4 months formulating the jurisdiction part of the complaint which led to the complaint being filed in June 2005, as he looked over the causes of actions in the complaint and revised certain portions. Robert Epstein accompanied this plaintiff to file the complaint in federal court on June 16, 2005. Normally, a case filed in federal court is issued an Index number and a judge is selected using a hand tumbling machine. However, as soon as this plaintiff walked up to the clerk, without using the tumbling machine Judge Lynch's name was stamped on my complaint. Mr. Epstein was actually trying to hide from the court’s camera's view, which wasn't possible. This unusual behavior on that day (June 16, 2005) can be verified by the court’s cameras.

Robert Epstein signed a retainer with this plaintiff claiming that this plaintiff could use the law firm’s address located at 150 William Street, 19^th fl., New York, NY receiving all of defendants motions and court correspondences.

Robert Epstein and Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn worked in "concert and collusion" with the premeditated intent of sabotaging this plaintiff's case. This plaintiff received motions and correspondents 4 to 5 days late constantly, and had to request adjournments from the court, this was eventually uncovered by plaintiff as Robert Epstein constantly asking this plaintiff to have him look at any and all oppositions/motions prior to filing and serving them in the court and to Pryor, Cashman, Sherman and Flynn this was solely done with the premeditated intent of "sabotaging plaintiff's case".

December 14, 2005 - Certified Correspondence received from "Tracie M. Coleman" of the Copyright Office of the United States, stating "that pages 191 through 222 were missing from the registered deposit" under PAu2 -283-460, (Ardito Screenplay). That is, while the written copyright was in custody of the Library of Congress’ Copyright Office, pages were mysteriously missing?! This plaintiff’s 5 (five) federally protected copyrights were in fact tampered with by the theft ring, as over “32 pages” were missing, destroyed and extracted from this plaintiff’s federally protected copyrights.

December 14, 2005 - Certified correspondences from "Tracie M. Coleman", of the Copyright Office of the United States, stating "that pages 191-through 222 were missing from the registered deposit" under PAu 2-283-460, (Ardito Screenplay).

March 7, 2006 - Certified correspondence from "Tracie M. Coleman," of the Copyright Office of the United States, concerning PAu-1-571-116 (Meet the Parents), stating, "that the attached photocopies are a true representation of the front of the video-cassette tape, and side of the video-cassette tape cover."

March 28, 2006 - Correspondence from "Richard D. Sharp ," of the Copyright Office of the United States, stating, "This letter is a correction to the certified letter for PAu-1-571-116 (Meet the Parents) sent to you on March 7, 2006. To clarify, there are no "attached photocopies" of "the front of the video-cassette tape" or the "front and side of video-cassette tape cover. The video-cassette tape cover came in an unmarked black container." (Emphasis added.)

Tracie M. Coleman and Richard D. Sharp both gave conflicting sworn statements concerning the alleged 1991 Meet the Parents video-cassette found in a black box at the Library of Congress, claiming no labels or written copyright. (Emphasis added.)

May 19, 2006 - Plaintiff Ardito was granted discovery by Magistrate Debra Freeman , which included taking the sworn deposition of Richard D. Sharp . ( When Plaintiff sought to schedule Mr. Sharp's deposition, he was informed by Tracie M. Coleman , of the Library of Congress Copyright Office , that Mr. Sharp had taken an indefinite sabbatical leave of absence, and she did not know when he was returning.)

Discovery in this case was the "linchpin and crucial factor" that would have exposed the "defendants theft ring" including and not limited to the civil liabilities and criminal liabilities encompassing the blatant theft and altering of federal evidence in this case.

This plaintiff was cynical and apprehensive about Richard D. Sharp's sudden sabbatical leave of absence and decided to go to Washington, DC to further investigate the alleged original pre-dated 1991 Meet The Parents videocassette with no written copyright that became suspect. The pre-dated alleged 1991 MTP after this plaintiff put in a 79 page comparison sheet of characters, scenes and settings stolen from his 5(five) federally protected copyright and Richard D. Sharps sudden sabbatical leave of absence ,conflicting sworn statements by Richard D. Sharp and Tracie M. Coleman became suspect including the pre-dated 1991 MTP video cassette found in a black box at the Library of Congress with "no written copyright"! I had spoken to Robert Epstein and told him that the alleged 1991 MTP video cassette with "no written copyright" found at the Library of Congress had to be forensically evaluated.

July 24, 2006 - Judge Lynch "suddenly stayed" Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman’s May 19, 2006 Discovery Order which included taking the deposition of defendant, Richard D. Sharp and allowed Defendants NBC Universal, et al ., to proceed with a Summary Judgment Motion - "without the ordered discovery".

Judge Lynch after receiving a 79 Pages of comparisons in (10 pts font) relating to similar characters , scenes and settings - proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendants were in fact, in possession of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and used all of this plaintiff's characters, scenes and settings in the unlawful making of defendants "Meet the Parents", Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" .

No Judge in the midst of Discovery "stays discovery" shows a grave indifference and bias against the plaintiff by not allowing a proper investigation for the plaintiff's to proceed without depositions, interrogatories, forensic analysis when conflicting affidavits and a pre-dated 1991 VHS found in a black box at the Library of Congress with "no written copyright" was suspect totally undermining the rule of law.

December 22, 2006 - Summary Judgment was granted by Judge Lynch against Chivalry Film Productions/Joseph Ardito. (“Based upon an unlabeled video-cassette, allegedly submitted to the Copyright Office of the United States "in an unmarked black container, with no written copyright)

The defendants/respondents in the summary judgment motion, did not oppose any opposition or affidavits concerning the "Theft of the stolen Copyrights" relating to the transportation of stolen federal goods interstate, international, wire fraud , mail fraud and did not oppose the police report. In essence the defendants/respondents did not "answer or oppose" anything concerning the "theft" of this plaintiff/appellants 5 (five) federal protected copyrights.

January 9, 2007 - Plaintiff Ardito filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking review of Judge Lynch's Order granting Defendants Summary Judgement, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

If the trier of fact were to believe that the defendants read the scripts , as alleged by plaintiff, it could be easily infer that the many similarities between the plaintiff's scripts and the defendants was a result of copying and not mere coincidental. This is recognized under the access rule" where the court requires a lower standard of proof on substantial similarities when a high degree of access is shown. However, the defendants NBC Universal, et al., had overwhelming verbatim similarites in characters, scenes and settings that were extracted from this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights stolen and used unlawfully in the defendant's NBC Universal, et al., screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers".

"Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" would have never existed without the premeditated theft of this plaintiff's federally protected copyrights by defendants NBC Universal, et al. and this is indisputable.

March 9, 2007 – Plaintiff Joseph Ardito was present at the Library of Congress Copyright Office. (Library Card No. 604660), seeking to examine the materials submitted under copyright number PAu 1-571-116 (Meet the Parents).

When this plaintiff arrived at the Library of Congress, upon requesting the alleged 1991 MTP videocassette, without a written copyright, plaintiff was informed by employees at the Library of Congress it was nowhere to be found. It was later discovered that the alleged original1991 Meet The Parents videocassette offered into evidence in the copyright action was locked in the desk of Richard D. Sharp.

Plaintiff Ardito was subsequently escorted back into the office of Richard D. Sharp where, in the presence of two (2) Copyright Office employees, an attorney and locksmith from the Library of Congress who broke the lock on Richard D. Sharp's desk and retrieved a black videocassette box .

The retrieval was of the black box contained the alleged pre-dated 1991 MTP videocassette that was in fact "marked" 60 minutes crossed out to 72 minutes conflicting the sworn certified statements of Richard D. Sharp and Tracie M. Coleman claiming that the alleged pre-dated 1991 videocassette found in a black box was "unmarked" with no labels!

The alleged pre-dated 1991 MTP videocassette, with no written copyright, that had a label reflecting 60 minutes crossed out to 72 minutes inconsistent with Richard D. Sharp and Tracie M. Coleman's conflicting sworn statements became suspected fraud and had to be forensically evaluated.

After this plaintiff viewed the alleged pre-dated 1991 videocassette movie at the Library of Congress in the presence of two employees, and an attorney representing the Library of Congress, it was concluded that the alleged pre-dated 1991 Meet The Parents video was totally "irrelevant" to the defendants NBC Universal, et al., screenplays entitled Meet the Parents (2000), Meet the Fockers (2004), with "no relevance" to the characters, scenes and settings including and not limited to Wedding Crashers (2005), further proving without plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights that were stolen and unlawfully used in the defendants NBC Universal et al., movies "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" was beyond any reasonable doubt a product of plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and without possession of this plaintiff's stolen federal copyrights, defendants NBC Universal, et al., movies "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" would have never existed!

On August 28, 2007, Plaintiff Ardito requested that Inspector General Michael Peters, investigate the irregularities associated with the custody and contents of the videocassette and box retrieved from the desk of Richard D. Sharp, and for a forensic analysis of the retrieved videocassette and box forcibly removed from the desk of Richard D. Sharp.

October 4, 2007 - United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Order/Mandate affirming Judge Lynch's Summary Judgment. to the Defendants. Plaintiff had (5) five minutes to oppose summary judgment - the defendants Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn claimed the Plaintiff couldn't prove "access" the overwhelming characters, scenes and settings extracted in a 79 page comparison sheet was more than enough to prove access that defendants NBC Universal, et al., were in possession of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and used them unlawfully. (U.S. Court of Appeals Judges for the Second Circuit: (Judge Pierre N. Leval - Clinton appointed 1993) , (Judge Robert D. Sack Clinton appointed 1998) , ( Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis -nominated by Clinton and upon recommendation of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y. appointed in 2000).

Judge Lynch's decision to "bar discovery" was used to protect NBC Universal, et al., the studio defendants including and not limited to the theft ring, writer frauds and Library of Congress as "discovery" a crucial factor would have proven "beyond any reasonable doubt" a more stringent burden of proof than a "mere preponderance of evidence" that defendants NBC Universal, et al., through a premeditated criminal scheme stole and unlawfully used this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights the "overwhelming" characters, scenes and settings were in fact a product of copying, theft and plagiarism in the unlawful making of "Meet the Parents, "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers"!

Discovery is a crucial factor in all cases; it's a litigation tool in the courts to prove or disprove one's case ! No case can be proven "without discovery" however, the overwhelming characters, scenes and settings without discovery proved that the courts were bias and the defendants were in possession of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights that were used unlawfully in the making of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers and Wedding Crashers and without plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights that were stolen and used unlawfully by the defendants NBC Universal, et al., movies "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" would of never existed!

The corruption and bias of the court "barred discovery" and allowed the defendants NBC Universal , et al to evade in this multi-billion dollar copyright infringement case involving plaintiff's 5 (five) federal copyrights that were "stolen" barring discovery allowed the defendants NBC Universal, et al , to evade depositions, investigations, forensic analysis in where the altering of federal evidence was actually suspect linked to the theft ring , writer frauds, defendants attorneys judges plaintiff's former law firm that created an undue bias in the corrupted court decisions.

Plaintiff does not believe Judge Lynch and the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (all Clinton appointed) ever viewed defendant's alleged video cassette with no written copyright the pre-dated "horror movie" or truly read this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights. If they did, they would of have concluded that all of the characters, scenes and settings were "extracted" from this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and used unlawfully in a premeditated criminal scheme allowing defendants NBC Universal, et al to use this plaintiff's stolen federal copyrights unlawfully !

Assuming arguendo, it's fair to say without using this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights - Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers and Wedding Crashers would have never existed!

The defendants’ attorneys in concert and collusion with Robert Epstein (sabotaging the case) and Pryor, Cashman, Sherman and Flynn have been dealing with the Library of Congress for over 60 years relied on a pre-dated 1991 fraud with no written copyright that would never be forensically evaluated once "Discovery" a crucial factor in case was barred . This plaintiff believes that defendants’ attorneys used their "conflicts of interest" and political connections in the federal court system and the Library of Congress to tamper with federal evidence perpetrating numerous frauds and crimes in the federal courts on behalf of the defendants NBC Universal et al., and the decisions by the district court and United States Court of Appeals including the Supreme Court of the United States of the United States were all "politically motivated" securing the thefts of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights in bias and corrupted court decisions protecting defendants NBC Universal, et al., from the billions of dollars in civil and criminal liability which now warrants a senate committee investigation.

The pre-dated 1991 Meet The Parents videocassette, in a nutshell, was narrated by a gas station attendant where everyone in the family was tragically killed including the dog.

https://lwlies.com/articles/original-meet-the-parents/

The manufactured fraudulent 1991 MTP VHS with no written copyright did not have any of this plaintiff's characters, scenes or settings and was used by defendants' attorneys and the studios' defendants as a "title" to subterfuge the premeditated criminal theft of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights Ardito's orginal creation stolen and used by NBC Universal , et al ., in the unlawful making of "Meet the Parents" , "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" !

This plaintiff "welcomes" Gregg Glienna's "horror movie" where everyone in the family is killed including the dog to prove none of the characters, scenes or settings are in Meet The Parents, Meet The Fockers or Wedding Crashers!

All of the characters, scenes and settings were in fact "beyond any reasonable doubt" extracted from this plaintiff's (5) five federally protected copyrights that were stolen by the defendants' NBC Universal, et al., in the unlawful making of Meet The Parents, Meet The Fockers and Wedding Crashers. The defendants, judges and writers were all complicit in using this fraud to conceal and subterfuge the theft of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights!

The sequel to the alleged pre-dated 1991 Meet The Parents videocassette "horror movie" with "NO WRITTEN COPYRIGHT" found in a black box at the Library of Congress, was a tragedy at the circus that had no bearing or relevance to Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers or Wedding Crashers.

Plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected written copyrights entitled, “The Tenant /The Dysfunctionals and The Attorneys” were all comical satires ridiculing dysfunctional families; all of the plaintiff's characters, scenes and settings, including The Attorneys that crashed weddings and funerals were originally created by this plaintiff and used by the defendants NBC Universal, et al. in the unlawful making of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers and Wedding Crashers without plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights that were "stolen" by the defendants NBC Universal, et al. the defendants screenplays entitled "Meet the Parents", "Meet the Fockers" and "Wedding Crashers" would have never existed.

The characters, scenes and settings in a 79 page comparison sheet by this plaintiff's evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt a more stringent burden of proof than a mere preponderance of evidence that "all" of the characters, scenes and settings were in fact "extracted" from this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights that were stolen by the defendants NBC Universal, et al., and used unlawfully without plaintiff's consent or permission.

The sequel to plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights was to "meet another dysfunctional family.” Squarely fitting into the Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers sequel - further proving that the defendants through a premeditated criminal scheme stole this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and used them unlawfully.

Jay Roach, Producer/Director commentaries, "stated unequivocally" in the 2004 Meet The Fockers commentaries, "That we already had the sequel - Meet The Fockers when we were shooting Meet The Parents."

Jay Roach stated in the Meet The Fockers commentaries unequivocally, "That we had an "excellent script" where many movies could be made layers upon layers of laughs."

Jay Roach also stated, "We hired an audience of 100 people to try and delete some scenes but the audience all agreed to keep all characters, scenes and setting in both movies."

This is further proof and indisputable that the defendants NBC Universal, et al., had stolen this plaintiff's 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and used them unlawfully in defendant's "Meet The Parents," "Meet The Fockers," and "Wedding Crashers!"

March 3, 2008 - (On or about.) Joseph Ardito petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari seeking review of The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Order/Mandate affirming Judge Lynch's grant of Summary Judgment to the Defendants. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed by Clinton 1993).

Joseph Ardito's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied by Justice Ginsburg.

June 4, 2008 - Joseph Ardito petitioned the United States Supreme Court for Rehearing of his abovementioned Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

January 21, 2014 - Chivalry Film Productions/Joseph Ardito v. NBC Universal, et al., filed a "Second Amended Complaint" in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 13 CV 9158. (Tracie M. Coleman and Richard D. Sharp, employees of the Library of Congress were named as additional defendants.)

On January 28, 2014 - Judge Preska dismissed the case "sua sponte" before the defendants, the Library of Congress, had been served or appeared in the action."

April 6, 2014 - Joseph Ardito filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Preska's "sua sponte" dismissal of Index No. 13 CV 9158.

When Joseph Ardito went to pay the filing fee associated with the abovementioned Notice of Appeal, he was informed by Judge Preska's chambers that if he continued the litigation he would be subject to civil and/or criminal proceedings.

CASE LAW

Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F. 3d 1170, 1174 (9^th, Cir. 2003)

This petitioned has alleged facts and produced documents showing ownership. Ownership of the copyrights which gives this petitioner federal statutory protection of his literary works; Respondents’ copying of those literary works; this is infringed. Proof of infringement is shown by evidence of Respondents’ access to Petitioner’s protected literary works and the existence of substantial similarity between Respondents’ motion pictures and those protected works.

Three Boys Music Corporation v. Bolton, 212 F. 3d. 477, 482 (9^th, Cir. 2000)

Proof of access is met by proof of “a reasonable opportunity” or “reasonable possibility” of viewing Petitioner’s work.

Metcalf v. Bocho 294 F. 3d 1069, 1074 (9^th, Cir 2000)

Proof of access also supports proof of copying. “If the trier of fact were to believe that defendants actually read the scripts, as alleged by this petitioner, it could easily infer that the many similarities between the petitioner’s scripts and respondents’ work were the result of copying, not mere coincidence.”

The court must take into consideration that the respondents’ have unlawfully used this petitioners’ stolen federal copyrights in a premeditated scheme over the years with the intent of extracting all of the characters, scenes and settings this is clearly demonstrated by the new compliant. This petitioner’s federal protected copyrights amount to over 2,500 pages of script that started a trend in the industry. “It could easily infer that the many similarities between petitioners copyrights and respondents copyrights were the result of copying and not mere coincidental.”

Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F. 2d 1353 (9^th Cir. 1990)

“This is recognized in the “access rule” where the court requires a lower standard of proof on substantial similarity when a high degree of access is shown.”

A number of similarities between characters can support a finding of substantial similarity, even if the similarities are common, stock elements.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F. 2d696, 699 (9^th, Cir. 1990)

Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 80 F. 3d 336, 337, 338 (9^th, Cir. 1996)

A FRCP 12(b) (6) dismissal is proper only where there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.

Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F. 3d 1480, 1484 (9^th, Cir. 1995)

Everest & Jennings v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F. 3d 226, 228 (9^th, Cir. 1994)

In resolving a Rule 12 (b) (6) motion, the District Court must;

(1) Construe the complaint in light most favorable to the petitioner;

(2) Accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true;

(3) Determine whether petitioner can prove any sent of facts to support a claim that would merit relief.

Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc., 905, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2D 1869 (9^th Cir. 1987)

Gershwin Publication Corp v. Columbia Artist Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, (2d. Cir. 1971)

Courts have held that an original combination of individually unprotectable elements is itself protectable, and that a combination of unprotectable elements has been held eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selections and arrangements original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.

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

Original Combinations of substantial similarities and arrangement of individually unprotectable ideas can support a finding of copyright infringement.

Celotes Corp. v. Catrett, 477, U.S. 317, 322 (1986)

Anderson v. Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986)

Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs, LTD. P’ship, 22F.3d. 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1984)

Most importantly, summary judgment should have failed because there are questions of fact in determining this case no depositions, no interrogatories and/or 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).

Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs., Corp 43 F 3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 1994)

Summary judgment is improper if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

Knight v. U.S. Fire Inc. Co. 804 F. 2D 9, 11 (9^th Cir. 1986)

In considering the motion, the court’s responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact, but to assess whether there are factual issued to be tried.

Aliotta v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F. 2d 898, 902 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d. (9^th, Cir. 1987)

Gershwin Publications Corp v. Columbia Artist Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, (2d. Cir. 1971)

Summary judgment should have failed because there are questions of fact in determining this copyright case the combination of unprotectable elements has been held eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selections and arrangements original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.

SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff's copyrighted materials were stolen from the home of defendant, Dr. Americo Semonini on August 12, 1998. Dr. Semonini resides in California where he is employed as a cardiologist at Cedar Sinai, as well as employed as a doctor at NBC Universal on set.

Pages from my copyrighted materials were found to be “missing”, while the documents were in the custody of the Library of Congress / Copyright Office.

After suing the defendants, I was granted discovery by Magistrate Judge Freeman.

The discovery granted would have covered the theft of my scripts and included taking the depositions of Library of Congress/Copyright Office clerks, Tracey Coleman and Richard Sharp.

There were/are specific questions of fact concerning the copyrighted pages missing from my script submissions. There were/are specific questions of fact concerning contents and custody of the defendants “prior copyright” videocassette.

Why did Judge Lynch stop the court ordered discovery process before ANY discovery had been conducted?

Judge Lynch then permitted the defendants to make a summary judgement motion - without any discovery and upon a suspect and tampered with “prior copyright” videotape.

(No investigation was conducted by the Inspector General of the Library of Congress concerning the videotape forcibly removed from the desk of Defendant Richard D. Sharp, or the missing pages from my script.)

Judge Lynch granted defendants motion for summary judgement, stating “no reasonable fact-finder could conceivably find the works so similar as to warrant an inference that one was copied from the other.”

I submitted numerous comparisons between my copyrighted scripts and the defendants productions. Discovery should have been completed and a “reasonable” jury, not a single judge, should have been permitted to make the factual determinations in this case.

Judge Preska dismissed my subsequent case against the original defendants, as well as the Library of Congress and clerks Tracey Coleman and Richard Sharp, “sua sponte”, without any consideration of the theft of the copyrighted materials, as well as the Library of Congress/Copyright Office “irregularities”.

Judge Preska dismissed my case against all the defendants, “before the defendant, the Library of Congress, had been served or appeared in the action.”

I appealed Judge Preska’s dismissal and was threatened with civil and/or criminal proceedings if I continued with that lawsuit.

********

The theft ring involved in this plaintiff's 5 (five) stolen federally protected copyrights were employed at the same law firm as this plaintiff, other members of the studio theft ring included and were not limited to the studio defendants, writer frauds, Library of Congress including writers that attended undergraduate college with attorneys from the same office as this plaintiff, which was located at 150 William Street, 19 floor, New York, New York, knew Robert Epstein, Esq., attorneys from the same office, Dr. Americo Semonini or were contracted by the studio defendants. John Hamburg is one of these alleged fraudulent writers of Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers, who attended undergraduate school with the attorneys from this plaintiff’s office.

Dr. Semonini’ s friend and patient was Steven Soderbergh, a producer employed at NBC Universal. Mr. Soderbergh engaged the studios in the unlawful making of “Meet the Parents,” “Meet the Fockers” and an 81 (eighty-one) page treatment was also stolen and used in the unlawfully making of the studio defendants "Wedding Crashers" entitled, “The Attorneys” by plaintiff who crashed weddings and funerals.

Mr. Steven Soderbergh and the defendants’ theft ring through a premeditated unconscionable criminal scheme, carried out the theft of this plaintiff’s 5 (five) federally protected copyrights methodically, and unlawfully used all of this plaintiff’s federal copyrights "extracting" all of the characters, scenes and settings and changing the titles of this plaintiff's federally protected copyrights.

The defendants NBC Universal, et al., to validate and subterfuge the theft of this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights sought unlawful copyrights at copyrights at the Library of Congress depriving this plaintiff's 5 (five) federal protected copyrights and original creation that started a trend in comedy!

Christian Science Magazine stated unequivocally that Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers started a trend in comedy and the “Pinnacle of that Trend” was in fact Wedding Crashers. All of these copyrights were originated by plaintiff Joseph Ardito and supposedly protected by the federal copyright laws of the United States!

Mr. Soderbergh, the alleged Producer of the 1991 Meet the Parents videocassette, and the defendants knew at all times that the plaintiff's copyrights were in fact, "stolen" and all of the characters, scenes and setting were "extracted" from this plaintiff/appellants 5 (five) federally protected copyrights and used unlawfully in the making of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers and Wedding Crashers would have never existed if it weren't for this plaintiff's characters, scenes and settings that were all federally protected copyrights stolen and used unlawfully.

Owen Wilson, an actor who was featured in both Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers claimed to have been a writer of "Wedding Crashers." . Mr. Wilson was in physical possession at all times of this plaintiff's 5 (five) stolen federal copyrights (The Tenant, The Dysfunctionals and The Attorneys), including an 81 (eighty-one) page treatment by Joseph Ardito entitled, "The Attorneys" that crashed weddings and funerals.

Jay Roach the "Director" of Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers stated unequivocally in the back of a Meet the Focker's DVD in a commentary “we already had the screenplay for Meet the Fockers when we shot Meet the Parents” (in 1998). This proves that Jay Roach was not aware of the theft of this plaintiff’s 5 (five) stolen copyrights that were in the possession of the defendants.

STOLEN HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTERS !

LEGAL ANALOGY

Any federal court judge who was not compromised by political motivation—after reading this plaintiff's five federally protected copyrights, regardless of their background—would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants NBC Universal, et al., stole the plaintiff's work to create their films Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, and Wedding Crashers.

The defendants, NBC Universal et al., extracted the characters, scenes, and settings from the plaintiff’s five federally protected copyrights—entitled The Tenant, The Dysfunctionals, and The Attorneys—and unlawfully incorporated them into Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, and Wedding Crashers. These films generated billions of dollars in revenue and would never have existed without the premeditated theft of the plaintiff's copyrighted works, aided by corruption at the Library of Congress to validate biased federal court decisions that paved the way for summary judgment.

Impartial judges reviewing this case would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' films were unlawfully derived from the plaintiff's five stolen copyrights. Consequently, they would have denied summary judgment, granted full discovery, and referred this matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Attorney General’s Office for complete criminal investigation and prosecution under the law.

However, the federal courts all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States were "compromised" by Clinton appointed judges and A bias compromised Supreme Court Justice protecting NBC Universal et al ., the theft ring , fraudulent writers that relied on bias compromised corrupted decisions by judges that clearly violated the law, the Constitution, due process, discovery and investigations that were needed to prove the defendants NBC Universal, et al., were civilly and criminally liable in the copyright thefts.

CRIMINAL ANALOGY

A car theft ring and A copyright theft ring are no different!

I will start with car theft: A perpetrator will steal your car, remove all valuable parts leaving the car stripped on boxes and/or paint it changing the appearance, and using the title of a similar car that was totaled to make it look legitimate!

A car theft ring is linked to organized crime, political corruption and usually involves the Department of Motor Vehicles and corrupted employees!

Corrupted employees at motor vehicles will assist in changing the vehicle identification numbers and creating new titles to allow these vehicles to appear legal as they transport them overseas, making hundreds of millions of dollars; the titles of these stolen vehicles are manufactured fraudulent titles!

Copyright theft rings: linked to organized crime, a theft ring that steals copyrights, extracts all characters, scenes and settings from the stolen copyrights and changes the title and author to appear legal would even go a step further and manufacture a pre-dated copyright fraud with the protection of the courts.

However, the defendants NBC Universal, et al., copyrights made billions of dollars in revenues. The corruption in these cases stems high in the political arena including and not limited to judges, justice, the Library of Congress, District Attorney’s office, the United States Attorney General's office and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The corrupted judges stemming from the district court to the - U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States the corruption in our federal court system cares nothing about the law or justice!

Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, & Wedding Crashers are in fact stolen federal copyrights that made billions of dollars protected by the very corruption destroying a fair system of justice.

The defendants NBC Universal, et al., when it comes to stealing relies on a corrupted / compromised bias Clinton legal system and studio defendants like Robert DeNiro/Tribeca, Spielberg SKG including and not limited to corrupted Judges, unethical attorneys, Library of Congress that all need to be investigated stand tall before a Senate Committee hearing , exposed the frauds , injustices and the removal from office for violating their oaths of office by engaging in criminally activities & corruption that blatantly violate a fair and impartial system of justice!

Chivalry Film Productions® is a Trade Mark Company active through the Library of Congress Trademark Office May 18th, 2004 Registration No. 3197330) Serial No. 78420664) and has been owned through a sole proprietorship that was created by Joseph Ardito in the Supreme Court in 1998. I started my writings in 1974, and since that time 48 (Forty Eight) projects have been created that will revolutionize the film industry. Chivalry Film Productions® is also enhancing its capabilities by bringing movies to its patrons over the internet at an affordable price. These independent motion picture films will be available on DVD, HD, 3D, VHS and of course CD for music soundtracks. Movie trailers will be readily available to promote and advertise future film features. These independent films will be diversified ranging from War, Action, Novels, Comedy, History, Dramas, Horror, Suspense Thrillers to Real Life Events. All these independent motion picture films will be accompanied by novels and in strict compliance with all government motion picture ratings and regulations

Movies will not be the only avenue Chivalry Film Productions® is striving to enhance, subsidiary companies of Chivalry Film Productions® have been created with the sole intent and objective of creating a fair and impartial news media corporation. This news media corporation "The Chivalry News Corporation"™ will consist of a network of independent news coverage that will be available to its patrons over the internet.

Chivalry Film Productions®

Stolen Hollywood Blockbusters- Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Wedding Crashers and other movies in the industry stolen by an Organized Crime Syndicate.

The Chivalry News Corpora

Some Characters/Scenes

Police Report

Blog Opposition

Principals

Opposition to blogs

The Chivalry News Corp.

Litigation-blogs

Evidence

Access - police report

The alleged 1991 MTP

"The Fraud"

unbiased Journalist

Litigation