Jack Dunn’s Dilemma - Dan Brown’s Copying - Is this another government Cover-up?
In 2006 Jack Dunn filed a copyright Infringement lawsuit against Dan Brown, Random House Publishing and Sony Pictures for Brown’s copying of Dunn’s book The Vatican Boys to write The Da Vinci Code. In September, 2007 Springfield Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge Michael Ponser (Yale Law) threw the case called Dunn I out of court stating, “There are no Substantial Similarities.”
In 2010 Dunn filed a second lawsuit copyright Infringement against Dan Brown and Simon & Schuster for Brown’s copying The Vatican Boys text in word for word and phrasing, characters, storyline, scenes and time-frame events directly into Angels & Demons. Dunn told the court in his submissions that Dan Brown had gained international fame, made more than $1 Billion Dollars by using, copying his work, and this was the largest literary crime in United States history. This lawsuit called Dunn II was filed in Boston Federal Court but was returned to the same Springfield Court, to Federal District Court Judge Michael Ponser.
In August of 2011, Federal Judge Magistrate Kenneth Neiman (Harvard Law) issued a Report and Recommendation, documenting over 10 out of hundreds of significant “substantial similarities”
Jack Dunn has now filed a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court that was docketed on July 30, 2012 as case Number 12-132. In his petition to the Supreme Court Dunn states that his civil rights have been violated and the actions of these courts sets the stage for other courts to do the same things to other authors and artists denying them the value of their copyrighted property. It also opens the doors for judges to begin to deny jury trials in all sorts of cases by discriminatingly applying or withholding legitimate, essential evidence inspections.
As the Petitioner, Jack Dunn states in his Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court that this unlawful action by the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, with the court abusing its power in a legal procedure by not affording the petitioner due process. It violates the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, with the court construing laws and evidence inspections to deny the petitioner his civil rights. And, it violates the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by discriminatingly denying the petitioner, a trial by jury, substantive and procedural rights, and equal protection under the law, of life, liberty, justice, and his right of protected intellectual creation, his property, a United States copyright.
Footnote: On June 27, 2012 after the Writ of Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court by Jack Dunn, the Federal District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted Brown’s lawyer’s Motion for Attorney Fees in a Memorandum and Order. In it he said, “On August 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation, which recommended the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment be granted. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed this Court’s order.” He further states, “Plaintiff’
There is no mention by the district court of what the appeals court affirmed that, “After our own independent review of the record and the briefs of the parties we conclude that, essentially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Neiman in his Report and Recommendation dated August 16, 2011 and adopted by the district court on September 26, 2011, no reasonable juror could find either substantial similarity of expression sufficient to support an infringement claim or probative similarity of expression sufficient to support an inference of actual copying, even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.”
So the judges at their own discretion, not applying or withholding the proper evidence inspections, determined on their own what a reasonable juror would find if the “entire evidence” in this case was exposed or presented properly in a legitimate jury court trial.