Black Woman Invented The Terminator.
A less than accurate newspaper article about Sophia Stewart and her case caused many to believe that she had won her copyright infringement suit claiming authorship of the Terminator and Matrix manuscripts and was about to receive a multi-billion dollar settlement. This 28 October 2004 article, penned by a second-year communications student for the Salt Lake Community College Globe, erred in mistaking Sophia Stewart's 4 October 2004 Los Angeles Federal Central District Court victory against a dismissal motion for her having eventually prevailed in her copywright imfringement suit. The article asserted Stewart "will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels" and would "soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood." What Sophia Stewart had won was the right to proceed with her case. This was a prediction not a fait accompli.
The Globe subsequently posted the following correction:
In reference to the recent article entitled "Mother of the Matrix Victorious," some information has been deemed misleading. Ms. Sophia Stewart has not yet won her case against Joel Silver, Time Warner and the Wachowski Bros. The decision on October 4th enabled Ms. Stewart to proceed with her case, as all attempts to have it dismissed were unsuccessful. Ms. Stewart's case will proceed through the Los Angeles Federal Central District Court of California.
Thanks,
The Globe Staff
(Author's NOTE) However, that is not the end of the story. Due to the size of the potential award, and the power of the Defendant, it is not inconceiveable that a condition of a potential settlement would have required Sophia Stewart to take a cash settlement and to make no more waves. It was not determined that she was not the victim of copywright imfringement. Indeed, this would have been a perfectly acceptable face saving conclusion to the litigation for Time Warner. It is such a pity that in this day and age, one can never accept the obvious as true. A critical thinker should always look to the less obvious and consider the possibility. Since truth is stronger than fiction, it is entirely feasible that the following story in the logical conclusion of the litigation set in motion by Sophia Stewart's law suit against Time Warner, et. al. for theft of intellectual property and copywright imfingement.
Black Woman Invented The Terminator, and The Matrix.
Black Author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case
This little known story has met a just conclusion, as Sophia Stewart, African American author of The Matrix will finally receive her just due from the copyright infringement of her original work!!!
A six-year dispute has ended involving Sophia Stewart, the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers. Stewart's allegations, involving copyright infringement and racketeering, were received and acknowledged by the Central District of California, Judge Margaret Morrow presiding.
Stewart, a New Yorker who has resided in Salt Lake City for the past five years, will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels. She will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood , as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars.
Stewart filed her case in 1999, after viewing the Matrix, which she felt had been based on her manuscript, 'The Third Eye,' copyrighted in 1981. In the mid-eighties Stewart had submitted her manuscript to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers, requesting new sci-fi works..
According to court documentation, an FBI investigation discovered that more than thirty minutes had been edited from the original film, in an attempt to avoid penalties for copyright infringement. The investigation also stated that 'credible witnesses employed at Warner Brothers came forward, claiming that the executives and lawyers had full knowledge that the work in question did not belong to the Wachowski Brothers.' These witnesses claimed to have seen Stewart's original work and that it had been 'often used during preparation of the motion pictures.' The defendants tried, on several occasions, to have Stewart's case dismissed, without success.
Stewart has confronted skepticism on all sides, much of which comes from Matrix fans, who are strangely loyal to the Wachowski Brothers. One on-line forum, entitled Matrix Explained has an entire section devoted to Stewart. Some who have researched her history and writings are open to her story.
Others are suspicious and mocking. 'It doesn't bother me,' said Stewart in a phone interview last week, 'I always knew what was true.'
Some fans, are unaware of the case or they question its legitimacy, due to the fact that it has received little to no media coverage. Though the case was not made public until October of 2003, Stewart has her own explanation, as quoted at aghettotymz.com :
'The reason you have not seen any of this in the media is because Warner Brothers parent company is AOL-Time Warner.... this GIANT owns 95 percent of the media... let me give you a clue as to what they own in the media business... New York Times papers/magazines, LA Times papers/magazines, People Magazine, CNN news, Extra, Celebrity Justice, Entertainment Tonight, HBO, New Line Cinema, DreamWorks, Newsweek, Village Roadshow and many, many more! They are not going to report on themselves. They have been suppressing my case for years.'
Fans who have taken Stewart's allegations seriously, have found eerie mythological parallels, which seem significant in a case that revolves around the highly metaphorical and symbolic Matrix series. Sophia, the Greek goddess of wisdom has been referenced many times in speculation about Stewart. In one book about the Goddess Sophia, it reads, 'The black goddess is the mistress of web creation spun in her divine matrix.'
Although there have been outside implications as to racial injustice (Stewart is African American), she does not feel that this is the case. 'This is all about the Benjamins,' said Stewart. 'It's not about money with me. It's about justice.'
Stewart's future plans involve a record label, entitled Popsilk Records, and a motion picture production company, All Eyez On Me, in reference to God. 'I wrote The Third Eye to wake people up, to remind them why God put them here. There's more to life than money,' said Stewart. 'My whole to the world is about God and good and about choice, about spirituality over 'technocracy'.'
If Stewart represents spirituality, then she truly has prevailed over the 'technocracy' represented in both the Terminator and the Matrix, and now, ironically, by their supposed creators.
Stewart is currently having discussions with CBS about a possible exclusive story and has several media engagements in the near future to nationally publicize her victory. June 13th 2004. Sophia Stewart's press release read: 'The Matrix & Terminator movie franchises have made world history and have ultimately changed the way people view movies and how Hollywood does business, yet the real truth about the creator and creation of these films continue to elude the masses because the hidden secret of the matter is that these films were created and written by a Black woman...a Black woman named Sophia Stewart. But Hollywood does not want you to know this fact simply because it would change history. Also it would encourage our Black children to realize a dream and that is...nothing is impossible for them to achieve!'
Greg Thomas, Editor
PRESS RELEASE.
December 23, 2008.
Screenplay writer Stewart, better known as Mother of the Matrix and author of the book the Third Eye, will soon be releasing her own version of the continuation of the series. The Matrix which was released in 1999 , which starred actors Kenau Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie Ann Moss was listed as one of the most successful box office hits in the history of the movie industry. Also, the movie featured the successful digital innovation that revolutionized cyber, techno, cinematography, special effects and was a first of it’s kind to do so, with much of the credit given to the original writer, Sophia Stewart .
Although Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, James Cameron, Joel Silver, Andy and Larry Wachowski were sued by Ms Stewart. in the U.S Federal Court, for illegal use, infringement, redevelopment, reproduction, distribution and promotion of Stewart’s copyrighted literary work entitled “The Third Eye” which was the source of the creation and development of the Matrix, Stewart feels, it is time to put forth more of the work.
For years moviegoers and Matrix fans around the world have been both analytical and critical to obvious missing links connecting the first Matrix Movie with it’s sequels The Matrix Reloaded (May, 2003) and The Matrix Revolutions (November, 2003). Ms Stewart states” It is very difficult to make effective sequels when you are not the original source of the ideology and philosophy of the work and this is where the audiences and fans of the Matrix was shortchanged.”
Sophia Stewart’s new release of M4 will finally address the questions that for years many fans have sought to have answered in the sequels of the Matrix.
M4 a live action film , will feature cyber, techno, cinematography, never before seen epic special effects and graphics, hidden code sequences, and unique concepts, that will surpass Stewart's creative work used to revolutionize the movie industry and that of the first Matrix Movie.
MATRX 4 THE EVOLUTION, which is currently in pre production, has already garnered a lot of attention from studios in the movie industry wanting a piece of the pie and is certainly being billed as the next blockbuster release project for Matrix fans and moviegoers worldwide.
Ginepri Capitol-Sega of wall street have expressed interest in the tunes of a $150 million dollars to continute the billion dollar franschise.Ginepri Capital is a Hedge Fund with well into the nine figures under active management and a leveraged capacity of approximately $4.6 billion.
It appears that interest in the making of Stewart's M4 is so intense, she has received phone calls from Hip Hop moguls such as Curtis Jackson a.k.a. 50 cent, who would like to be one of the Executive Producers on the movie. Global recognition and offers have come, as far as the Middle East, China, France, Japan, Ukraine, Italy and Germany.
Sophia Stewart has expressed interest in having the original cast, producers, and technical people of the Matrix Trilogies to continue her creativity.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sophia Stewart
Matrix4TheMovie@yahoo.com
* We will set-up conference calls for Serious inquiries only
Posted: 12/26/2008 at 23:23 Read 11 times | 0 comments | Leave Comment
Recent Decision Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
SOPHIA STEWART,Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARYBROWN, and JOHN DOES I through X,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Case No. 2:07CV552 DAK
This matter is before the court on (1) Defendant Gary S. Brown’s (“Mr. Brown) Motion to Dismiss or Change Venue to the Central District of Los Angeles, California; (2) DefendantDean Webb’s (“Mr. Webb”) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion to Change Venue;(3) Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s (“Mr. Stoller”) Motion to Dismiss and his Joinder in the other Motions to Change Venue; and (4) Defendant Jonathon Lubell’s (“Mr. Lubell”) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Change Venue.
A hearing on the motions was held on June 25, 2008. At the hearing, Mr. Brown represented himself and appeared via telephone. Mr. Webb was represented by Kathleen Liuzzi.Mr. Stoller and Mr. Lubell represented themselves.
Plaintiff Sophia Stewart (“Ms. Stewart”) was represented by Kevin Moriarty. Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts relating to these motions. NowCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008
Page 1 of 9 The following “facts” are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are assumed to be true 1 for purposes of these motions to dismiss.2 being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND 1 This case is primarily a legal malpractice action against Ms. Stewart’s attorneys in aprevious copyright infringement lawsuit (the “Infringement Action”) that she had filed inCalifornia in 2004. In her prior lawsuit, she alleged that Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski,Thea Bloom, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., JamesCameron, Gale Ann Hurd and Joel Silver appropriated and infringed on her copyrighted material in creating the Matrix and Terminator Trilogies. Her case, however, was dismissed on May 18,2005, and judgment was entered against Ms. Stewart on June 14, 2005.In the instant case, Ms. Stewart alleges that the Infringement Action was dismissed because of Defendants’ malpractice, negligence, conspiracy and breaches of contract. Specifically she claims that summary judgment was entered against her in the underlying case because her attorneys–without her knowledge–failed to produce her for a deposition, neverconducted any discovery, and failed to respond to the defendant’s discovery requests, including failing to respond to requests for admissions, which facts were later deemed admitted.Defendants in the instant action have made two arguments for dismissal. First, theyargue that Ms. Stewart’s action is time-barred because California law applies, and the California statute of limitations for legal malpractice is one year. Because the one-year limitations periodexpired by no later than June 15, 2006, they contend that this action, which was filed on July 30,Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 2 of 9 In addition, Defendant Brown contends that the time by which Plaintiff had to 2commence an action against him was even earlier (May 17, 2006) because he withdrew from representing Plaintiff on May 18, 2005 due to his hospitalization for a heart attack.32007, is time-barred. Next, they argue that even if the action is not time-barred, Utah is thewrong venue because all Defendants reside in California, New Jersey, or Washington–and all thepertinent events occurred in Los Angeles. Thus, Defendants contend, this action should either be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to Los Angeles.Ms. Stewart, on the other hand, argues that Utah law applies to this action, and Utah’s statute of limitations for legal malpractice is four years, thus rendering this action timely. Ms.Stewart also contends that venue is proper in Utah because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in Utah. Therefore, she urges thecourt to deny all the motions.
DISCUSSION:
WAS THE INSTANT ACTION TIMELY FILED?
The question of whether the action is time-barred hinges on which state’s law applies. If California law applies, the action is time barred, but if Utah law applies, the action was timely filed. Defendants contend that courts should look to the law where the harm occurred, which,they claim, is in California. They contend that Ms. Stewart filed her lawsuit in California, theattorneys were all admitted (or were granted permission ) to practice in the Central District ofCalifornia, and the “harmful conduct,” which they characterize as the dismissal of the action,occurred in California. 2Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 3 of 94Ms. Stewart, on the other hand, argues that Utah’s four-year statute of limitations appliesin this case. She retained Defendants at various times beginning in 2004, and all events relevantto her claims in the Infringement Action occurred between 2004 and 2006. The instant action was filed in August 2007, within the four-year limitations period. Thus, according to Ms.Stewart, Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) must be denied.A federal court sitting in a diversity action follows the procedural law of the forum state,regardless of whether the court applies the substantive law of the forum state or another state.Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Texatron, Inc., 24 F.3d 125, 128 (10 Cir. th1994). Utah follows the traditional rule that "statutes of limitation are essentially procedural innature," and that "under a general conflicts of law analysis, the limitations period of the forum applies." Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864, 870 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Lee v. Gaufin, 867P.2d 572, 575 (Utah 1993), Jackett v. Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power, 771 P.2d 1074,1075-76 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), and Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142, 1145-46 (Utah 1991));see also Sun Oil Co. v. Wortmann, 486 U.S. 717 (1988) (application of the forum state's statutesof limitation is consistent with the traditional view that such statutes are procedural and is consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution); Fin. Bancorp, Inc. v.Pingree & Dahle, Inc., 880 P.2d 14, 16 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (Utah follows the majority position that limitation periods are generally procedural in nature, and thus, Utah’s statutes of limitationapply to actions brought in Utah.”).Accordingly, in the instant action, this court applies Utah’s limitations period for legal malpractice claims. Because Utah law provides a four-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s actionCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 4 of 95is not time-barred.
IS VENUE PROPER IN UTAH?
Next, Defendants argue that venue is improper in Utah, and thus the action should bedismissed or transferred. Defendants conclusorily argue that all the substantial events took place in California and that none of the Defendants lives in Utah. In contrast, Ms. Stewart argues that venue is appropriate in Utah because a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving riseto her claim occurred here. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2), venue in diversity cases is proper in any judicial districtwhere “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” This language has been interpreted to allow for the fact that a substantial part of the events may haveoccurred in more than one district and “venue may be proper even if contacts with another district were more substantial.” Mohr v. Margolis, Ainswoth & Kinlaw Consulting, Inc., 434 F.Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Kan. 2006).
Federal district courts have held that the "substantial part" requirement of Section1392(a)(2) is satisfied where the plaintiff resides in the forum state and the defendants havecontacts with plaintiff in the forum state related to the subject of the action. In Furr v. Aguilar, the District Court for the District of Colorado, the court considered a motion to dismiss forimproper venue in a case involving claims by a Colorado resident against a California law firm,which had defended the Colorado resident in an action in California state court. Furr, 2005 WL1801627 (D. Colo. July 28, 2005) (unpublished decision). The court noted that the law firm'snormal duties in representing the Colorado resident included informing him of the status of theCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 5 of 96case, any offers to settle and other matters raised in the action. The court also found that such correspondence occurred via telephone from the law firm's offices in California, and that the attorney-client relationship was established with a resident of Colorado. Based on thesecontacts, which were related to the malpractice claims at issue, the court concluded that theplaintiff had demonstrated that a substantial part of the relevant events had occurred in Colorado,and denied defendants' motion to dismiss.In Stein v. Stein, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas held that plaintiffs, whowere residents of Kansas, met their burden of demonstrating proper venue under Section1391(a)(2). Stein, 184 Fed. Appx. 808, 2006 WL 1892580 (D. Kan. July 11, 2006) (unpublisheddecision). In that case, plaintiffs, who were residents of Kansas, sued Washington residents anda Washington LLC for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faithand fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs alleged that they had contractedwith defendants to make an equity investment in the LLC's business enterprise, and based on thatalleged contract plaintiffs had obtained a line of credit from a Kansas bank for the benefit of thedefendants. The court found that the alleged contract was sent to plaintiffs in Kansas, plaintiffsperformed their part of the alleged contract in this state, and any of the alleged fraudulentrepresentations were made via facsimile, e-mail or in person to plaintiffs in Kansas. Thus,Kansas was an appropriate venue under Section 1391(a)(2).In this case, Plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations to demonstrate that Utah is aproper venue under Section 1392(a)(2).
Plaintiff is a Utah resident. (First Amended Complaintat ¶ 1). She was contacted by each of Defendants at her residence in Utah, and agreed to retainCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 6 of 97each in Utah. (Aff. of Sophia Stewart at ¶¶ 3-6, 9-10). She executed an engagement letter withMessrs. Lubell, Brown, and Webb in Utah. (Id. ¶ 6). She had telephone conversations andcorresponded with each of the Defendants from Utah. (Id. ¶ 7, 11, 14, 17).
Plaintiff did not attend any hearings in California, based on the advice of one or more of the Defendants. (Id. ¶23). Defendants sent her bills for services at her address in Utah. (Id. ¶ 22). These contactswere over the course of the Infringement Action, from the spring of 2004 through summer 2006.(Id. ¶ 3-23). Like the plaintiffs in Furr, Plaintiff has brought this action against her formerattorneys for malpractice, who purposefully and regularly directed their contacts toward a Utah resident when they were retained and throughout their handling of the Infringement Action. Like the plaintiffs in Stein, Plaintiff contends that she complied with her obligations with respect tothe attorney-client relationship and the prosecution of the Infringement Action in Utah. Thus,the court finds that these contacts were sufficient to qualify as a "substantial part" of the actionsand omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, and thereby satisfy the requirements for venue in Utah under Section 1391(a)(2).
SHOULD THE CASE BE TRANSFERRED?
Defendants again conclusorily argue that the court should transfer the case to the CentralDistrict of California. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to meet their burden ofdemonstrating that this action should be transferred. In considering whether to transfer venue, acourt considers the following factors: a plaintiff's choice of forum; the accessibility of witnessesand other sources of proof, including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendanceof witnesses; the cost of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability of aCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 7 of 98judgment if one is obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that mayarise from congested dockets; the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area ofconflict of laws; the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law; and, allother considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotingTex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 1967)). A court must give greatweight to plaintiff's choice of forum. KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 1212,1214 (D. Kan. 1998). Unless the balance strongly favors the movant, plaintiff's forum choiceshould rarely be disturbed. Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965. "Merely shifting the inconvenience from one side to the other . . . is not a permissible justification for a change of venue.” Id. at 966. Inexercising its discretion, “the Court must ‘adjudicate motions for transfer according to an‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Chrysler, 928 F.2d at1516 (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).In addition, the party moving to transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) bears theburden of establishing that the existing forum is inconvenient. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. CountryChrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10 Cir. 1991). Defendants have failed to carry their thburden in this case. Given the weight assigned to Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the fact that atleast some of the Defendants would have to travel in any event, and the other factors that a court considers, Defendants simply have failed to demonstrated that the action should be transferred to California.Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 8 of 99
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, (1) Defendant Gary S. Brown’s Motion toDismiss (docket # 14) is DENIED and his Motion to Change Venue to the Central District of LosAngeles, CA (docket # 15) is DENIED; (2) Defendant Dean Webb’s Motion to Dismiss (docket# 18) is DENIED and his Alternative Motion to Change Venue (docket # 26) is DENIED; (3)Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion to Dismiss (docket # 20) is DENIED and his Motion toChange Venue (by joining in other Defendants’ motions) is DENIED; (4) Defendant JonathonLubell’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #21) is DENIED, and his Motion to Change Venue (docket# 22) is DENIED. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to the Complaint by no later thanSeptember 23, 2008. DATED this 28 day of August, 2008. thBY THE COURT:DALE A. KIMBALLUnited States District JudgeCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 9 of 9
Posted: 11/10/2008 at 16:32 Read 42 times | 0 comments | Leave Comment
FRAUD REOPENS THE MATRIX CASE
In 1981-83 an Epic sci-fi story was written by Sophia Stewart Titled "THE THIRD EYE". It is an epic science fiction work with Biblical subliminization. This body of work was copy righted by the Library of Congress. The book is out now, that tells a story within a story. The Book was written for the Matrix fans and the People who want to know the TRUTH about the Matrix, Terminator and The Woman who created this great body of work, So take the Red pill and stay in wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
FRAUD REOPENS THE MATRIX CASE.
Screenplay writer Stewart, better known as Mother of the Matrix and author of the book the Third Eye, will soon be releasing her own version of the continuation of the series. The Matrix which was released in 1999 , which starred actors Kenau Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie Ann Moss was listed as one of the most successful box office hits in the history of the movie industry. Also, the movie featured the successful digital innovation that revolutionized cyber, techno, cinematography, special effects and was a first of it’s kind to do so, with much of the credit given to the original writer, Sophia Stewart .
A less than accurate newspaper article about Sophia Stewart and her case caused many to believe that she had won her copyright infringement suit claiming authorship of the Terminator and Matrix manuscripts and was about to receive a multi-billion dollar settlement. This 28 October 2004 article, penned by a second-year communications student for the Salt Lake Community College Globe, erred in mistaking Sophia Stewart's 4 October 2004 Los Angeles Federal Central District Court victory against a dismissal motion for her having eventually prevailed in her copywright imfringement suit. The article asserted Stewart "will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels" and would "soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood." What Sophia Stewart had won was the right to proceed with her case. This was a prediction not a fait accompli.
The Globe subsequently posted the following correction:
In reference to the recent article entitled "Mother of the Matrix Victorious," some information has been deemed misleading. Ms. Sophia Stewart has not yet won her case against Joel Silver, Time Warner and the Wachowski Bros. The decision on October 4th enabled Ms. Stewart to proceed with her case, as all attempts to have it dismissed were unsuccessful. Ms. Stewart's case will proceed through the Los Angeles Federal Central District Court of California.
Thanks,
The Globe Staff
(Author's NOTE) However, that is not the end of the story. Due to the size of the potential award, and the power of the Defendant, it is not inconceiveable that a condition of a potential settlement would have required Sophia Stewart to take a cash settlement and to make no more waves. It was not determined that she was not the victim of copywright imfringement. Indeed, this would have been a perfectly acceptable face saving conclusion to the litigation for Time Warner. It is such a pity that in this day and age, one can never accept the obvious as true. A critical thinker should always look to the less obvious and consider the possibility. Since truth is stronger than fiction, it is entirely feasible that the following story in the logical conclusion of the litigation set in motion by Sophia Stewart's law suit against Time Warner, et. al. for theft of intellectual property and copywright imfingement.
Black Woman Invented The Terminator, and The Matrix.
Black Author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case
This little known story has met a just conclusion, as Sophia Stewart, African American author of The Matrix will finally receive her just due from the copyright infringement of her original work!!!
A six-year dispute has ended involving Sophia Stewart, the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers. Stewart's allegations, involving copyright infringement and racketeering, were received and acknowledged by the Central District of California, Judge Margaret Morrow presiding.
Stewart, a New Yorker who has resided in Salt Lake City for the past five years, will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels. She will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood , as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars.
Stewart filed her case in 1999, after viewing the Matrix, which she felt had been based on her manuscript, 'The Third Eye,' copyrighted in 1981. In the mid-eighties Stewart had submitted her manuscript to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers, requesting new sci-fi works..
According to court documentation, an FBI investigation discovered that more than thirty minutes had been edited from the original film, in an attempt to avoid penalties for copyright infringement. The investigation also stated that 'credible witnesses employed at Warner Brothers came forward, claiming that the executives and lawyers had full knowledge that the work in question did not belong to the Wachowski Brothers.' These witnesses claimed to have seen Stewart's original work and that it had been 'often used during preparation of the motion pictures.' The defendants tried, on several occasions, to have Stewart's case dismissed, without success.
Stewart has confronted skepticism on all sides, much of which comes from Matrix fans, who are strangely loyal to the Wachowski Brothers. One on-line forum, entitled Matrix Explained has an entire section devoted to Stewart. Some who have researched her history and writings are open to her story.
Others are suspicious and mocking. 'It doesn't bother me,' said Stewart in a phone interview last week, 'I always knew what was true.'
Some fans, are unaware of the case or they question its legitimacy, due to the fact that it has received little to no media coverage. Though the case was not made public until October of 2003, Stewart has her own explanation, as quoted at aghettotymz.com :
'The reason you have not seen any of this in the media is because Warner Brothers parent company is AOL-Time Warner.... this GIANT owns 95 percent of the media... let me give you a clue as to what they own in the media business... New York Times papers/magazines, LA Times papers/magazines, People Magazine, CNN news, Extra, Celebrity Justice, Entertainment Tonight, HBO, New Line Cinema, DreamWorks, Newsweek, Village Roadshow and many, many more! They are not going to report on themselves. They have been suppressing my case for years.'
Fans who have taken Stewart's allegations seriously, have found eerie mythological parallels, which seem significant in a case that revolves around the highly metaphorical and symbolic Matrix series. Sophia, the Greek goddess of wisdom has been referenced many times in speculation about Stewart. In one book about the Goddess Sophia, it reads, 'The black goddess is the mistress of web creation spun in her divine matrix.'
Although there have been outside implications as to racial injustice (Stewart is African American), she does not feel that this is the case. 'This is all about the Benjamins,' said Stewart. 'It's not about money with me. It's about justice.'
Stewart's future plans involve a record label, entitled Popsilk Records, and a motion picture production company, All Eyez On Me, in reference to God. 'I wrote The Third Eye to wake people up, to remind them why God put them here. There's more to life than money,' said Stewart. 'My whole to the world is about God and good and about choice, about spirituality over 'technocracy'.'
If Stewart represents spirituality, then she truly has prevailed over the 'technocracy' represented in both the Terminator and the Matrix, and now, ironically, by their supposed creators.
Stewart is currently having discussions with CBS about a possible exclusive story and has several media engagements in the near future to nationally publicize her victory. June 13th 2004. Sophia Stewart's press release read: 'The Matrix & Terminator movie franchises have made world history and have ultimately changed the way people view movies and how Hollywood does business, yet the real truth about the creator and creation of these films continue to elude the masses because the hidden secret of the matter is that these films were created and written by a Black woman...a Black woman named Sophia Stewart. But Hollywood does not want you to know this fact simply because it would change history. Also it would encourage our Black children to realize a dream and that is...nothing is impossible for them to achieve!'
Greg Thomas, Editor
PRESS RELEASE.
December 23, 2008.
Screenplay writer Stewart, better known as Mother of the Matrix and author of the book the Third Eye, will soon be releasing her own version of the continuation of the series. The Matrix which was released in 1999 , which starred actors Kenau Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie Ann Moss was listed as one of the most successful box office hits in the history of the movie industry. Also, the movie featured the successful digital innovation that revolutionized cyber, techno, cinematography, special effects and was a first of it’s kind to do so, with much of the credit given to the original writer, Sophia Stewart .
Although Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, James Cameron, Joel Silver, Andy and Larry Wachowski were sued by Ms Stewart. in the U.S Federal Court, for illegal use, infringement, redevelopment, reproduction, distribution and promotion of Stewart’s copyrighted literary work entitled “The Third Eye” which was the source of the creation and development of the Matrix, Stewart feels, it is time to put forth more of the work.
For years moviegoers and Matrix fans around the world have been both analytical and critical to obvious missing links connecting the first Matrix Movie with it’s sequels The Matrix Reloaded (May, 2003) and The Matrix Revolutions (November, 2003). Ms Stewart states” It is very difficult to make effective sequels when you are not the original source of the ideology and philosophy of the work and this is where the audiences and fans of the Matrix was shortchanged.”
Sophia Stewart’s new release of M4 will finally address the questions that for years many fans have sought to have answered in the sequels of the Matrix.
M4 a live action film , will feature cyber, techno, cinematography, never before seen epic special effects and graphics, hidden code sequences, and unique concepts, that will surpass Stewart's creative work used to revolutionize the movie industry and that of the first Matrix Movie.
MATRX 4 THE EVOLUTION, which is currently in pre production, has already garnered a lot of attention from studios in the movie industry wanting a piece of the pie and is certainly being billed as the next blockbuster release project for Matrix fans and moviegoers worldwide.
Ginepri Capitol-Sega of wall street have expressed interest in the tunes of a $150 million dollars to continute the billion dollar franschise.Ginepri Capital is a Hedge Fund with well into the nine figures under active management and a leveraged capacity of approximately $4.6 billion.
It appears that interest in the making of Stewart's M4 is so intense, she has received phone calls from Hip Hop moguls such as Curtis Jackson a.k.a. 50 cent, who would like to be one of the Executive Producers on the movie. Global recognition and offers have come, as far as the Middle East, China, France, Japan, Ukraine, Italy and Germany.
Sophia Stewart has expressed interest in having the original cast, producers, and technical people of the Matrix Trilogies to continue her creativity.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sophia Stewart
Matrix4TheMovie@yahoo.com
* We will set-up conference calls for Serious inquiries only
Posted: 12/26/2008 at 23:23 Read 11 times | 0 comments | Leave Comment
Recent Decision Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
SOPHIA STEWART,Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARYBROWN, and JOHN DOES I through X,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Case No. 2:07CV552 DAK
This matter is before the court on (1) Defendant Gary S. Brown’s (“Mr. Brown) Motion to Dismiss or Change Venue to the Central District of Los Angeles, California; (2) DefendantDean Webb’s (“Mr. Webb”) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion to Change Venue;(3) Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s (“Mr. Stoller”) Motion to Dismiss and his Joinder in the other Motions to Change Venue; and (4) Defendant Jonathon Lubell’s (“Mr. Lubell”) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Change Venue.
A hearing on the motions was held on June 25, 2008. At the hearing, Mr. Brown represented himself and appeared via telephone. Mr. Webb was represented by Kathleen Liuzzi.Mr. Stoller and Mr. Lubell represented themselves.
Plaintiff Sophia Stewart (“Ms. Stewart”) was represented by Kevin Moriarty. Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts relating to these motions. NowCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008
Page 1 of 9 The following “facts” are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are assumed to be true 1 for purposes of these motions to dismiss.2 being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND 1 This case is primarily a legal malpractice action against Ms. Stewart’s attorneys in aprevious copyright infringement lawsuit (the “Infringement Action”) that she had filed inCalifornia in 2004. In her prior lawsuit, she alleged that Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski,Thea Bloom, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., JamesCameron, Gale Ann Hurd and Joel Silver appropriated and infringed on her copyrighted material in creating the Matrix and Terminator Trilogies. Her case, however, was dismissed on May 18,2005, and judgment was entered against Ms. Stewart on June 14, 2005.In the instant case, Ms. Stewart alleges that the Infringement Action was dismissed because of Defendants’ malpractice, negligence, conspiracy and breaches of contract. Specifically she claims that summary judgment was entered against her in the underlying case because her attorneys–without her knowledge–failed to produce her for a deposition, neverconducted any discovery, and failed to respond to the defendant’s discovery requests, including failing to respond to requests for admissions, which facts were later deemed admitted.Defendants in the instant action have made two arguments for dismissal. First, theyargue that Ms. Stewart’s action is time-barred because California law applies, and the California statute of limitations for legal malpractice is one year. Because the one-year limitations periodexpired by no later than June 15, 2006, they contend that this action, which was filed on July 30,Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 2 of 9 In addition, Defendant Brown contends that the time by which Plaintiff had to 2commence an action against him was even earlier (May 17, 2006) because he withdrew from representing Plaintiff on May 18, 2005 due to his hospitalization for a heart attack.32007, is time-barred. Next, they argue that even if the action is not time-barred, Utah is thewrong venue because all Defendants reside in California, New Jersey, or Washington–and all thepertinent events occurred in Los Angeles. Thus, Defendants contend, this action should either be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to Los Angeles.Ms. Stewart, on the other hand, argues that Utah law applies to this action, and Utah’s statute of limitations for legal malpractice is four years, thus rendering this action timely. Ms.Stewart also contends that venue is proper in Utah because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in Utah. Therefore, she urges thecourt to deny all the motions.
DISCUSSION:
WAS THE INSTANT ACTION TIMELY FILED?
The question of whether the action is time-barred hinges on which state’s law applies. If California law applies, the action is time barred, but if Utah law applies, the action was timely filed. Defendants contend that courts should look to the law where the harm occurred, which,they claim, is in California. They contend that Ms. Stewart filed her lawsuit in California, theattorneys were all admitted (or were granted permission ) to practice in the Central District ofCalifornia, and the “harmful conduct,” which they characterize as the dismissal of the action,occurred in California. 2Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 3 of 94Ms. Stewart, on the other hand, argues that Utah’s four-year statute of limitations appliesin this case. She retained Defendants at various times beginning in 2004, and all events relevantto her claims in the Infringement Action occurred between 2004 and 2006. The instant action was filed in August 2007, within the four-year limitations period. Thus, according to Ms.Stewart, Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) must be denied.A federal court sitting in a diversity action follows the procedural law of the forum state,regardless of whether the court applies the substantive law of the forum state or another state.Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Texatron, Inc., 24 F.3d 125, 128 (10 Cir. th1994). Utah follows the traditional rule that "statutes of limitation are essentially procedural innature," and that "under a general conflicts of law analysis, the limitations period of the forum applies." Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864, 870 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Lee v. Gaufin, 867P.2d 572, 575 (Utah 1993), Jackett v. Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power, 771 P.2d 1074,1075-76 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), and Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142, 1145-46 (Utah 1991));see also Sun Oil Co. v. Wortmann, 486 U.S. 717 (1988) (application of the forum state's statutesof limitation is consistent with the traditional view that such statutes are procedural and is consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution); Fin. Bancorp, Inc. v.Pingree & Dahle, Inc., 880 P.2d 14, 16 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (Utah follows the majority position that limitation periods are generally procedural in nature, and thus, Utah’s statutes of limitationapply to actions brought in Utah.”).Accordingly, in the instant action, this court applies Utah’s limitations period for legal malpractice claims. Because Utah law provides a four-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s actionCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 4 of 95is not time-barred.
IS VENUE PROPER IN UTAH?
Next, Defendants argue that venue is improper in Utah, and thus the action should bedismissed or transferred. Defendants conclusorily argue that all the substantial events took place in California and that none of the Defendants lives in Utah. In contrast, Ms. Stewart argues that venue is appropriate in Utah because a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving riseto her claim occurred here. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2), venue in diversity cases is proper in any judicial districtwhere “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” This language has been interpreted to allow for the fact that a substantial part of the events may haveoccurred in more than one district and “venue may be proper even if contacts with another district were more substantial.” Mohr v. Margolis, Ainswoth & Kinlaw Consulting, Inc., 434 F.Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Kan. 2006).
Federal district courts have held that the "substantial part" requirement of Section1392(a)(2) is satisfied where the plaintiff resides in the forum state and the defendants havecontacts with plaintiff in the forum state related to the subject of the action. In Furr v. Aguilar, the District Court for the District of Colorado, the court considered a motion to dismiss forimproper venue in a case involving claims by a Colorado resident against a California law firm,which had defended the Colorado resident in an action in California state court. Furr, 2005 WL1801627 (D. Colo. July 28, 2005) (unpublished decision). The court noted that the law firm'snormal duties in representing the Colorado resident included informing him of the status of theCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 5 of 96case, any offers to settle and other matters raised in the action. The court also found that such correspondence occurred via telephone from the law firm's offices in California, and that the attorney-client relationship was established with a resident of Colorado. Based on thesecontacts, which were related to the malpractice claims at issue, the court concluded that theplaintiff had demonstrated that a substantial part of the relevant events had occurred in Colorado,and denied defendants' motion to dismiss.In Stein v. Stein, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas held that plaintiffs, whowere residents of Kansas, met their burden of demonstrating proper venue under Section1391(a)(2). Stein, 184 Fed. Appx. 808, 2006 WL 1892580 (D. Kan. July 11, 2006) (unpublisheddecision). In that case, plaintiffs, who were residents of Kansas, sued Washington residents anda Washington LLC for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faithand fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs alleged that they had contractedwith defendants to make an equity investment in the LLC's business enterprise, and based on thatalleged contract plaintiffs had obtained a line of credit from a Kansas bank for the benefit of thedefendants. The court found that the alleged contract was sent to plaintiffs in Kansas, plaintiffsperformed their part of the alleged contract in this state, and any of the alleged fraudulentrepresentations were made via facsimile, e-mail or in person to plaintiffs in Kansas. Thus,Kansas was an appropriate venue under Section 1391(a)(2).In this case, Plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations to demonstrate that Utah is aproper venue under Section 1392(a)(2).
Plaintiff is a Utah resident. (First Amended Complaintat ¶ 1). She was contacted by each of Defendants at her residence in Utah, and agreed to retainCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 6 of 97each in Utah. (Aff. of Sophia Stewart at ¶¶ 3-6, 9-10). She executed an engagement letter withMessrs. Lubell, Brown, and Webb in Utah. (Id. ¶ 6). She had telephone conversations andcorresponded with each of the Defendants from Utah. (Id. ¶ 7, 11, 14, 17).
Plaintiff did not attend any hearings in California, based on the advice of one or more of the Defendants. (Id. ¶23). Defendants sent her bills for services at her address in Utah. (Id. ¶ 22). These contactswere over the course of the Infringement Action, from the spring of 2004 through summer 2006.(Id. ¶ 3-23). Like the plaintiffs in Furr, Plaintiff has brought this action against her formerattorneys for malpractice, who purposefully and regularly directed their contacts toward a Utah resident when they were retained and throughout their handling of the Infringement Action. Like the plaintiffs in Stein, Plaintiff contends that she complied with her obligations with respect tothe attorney-client relationship and the prosecution of the Infringement Action in Utah. Thus,the court finds that these contacts were sufficient to qualify as a "substantial part" of the actionsand omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, and thereby satisfy the requirements for venue in Utah under Section 1391(a)(2).
SHOULD THE CASE BE TRANSFERRED?
Defendants again conclusorily argue that the court should transfer the case to the CentralDistrict of California. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to meet their burden ofdemonstrating that this action should be transferred. In considering whether to transfer venue, acourt considers the following factors: a plaintiff's choice of forum; the accessibility of witnessesand other sources of proof, including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendanceof witnesses; the cost of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability of aCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 7 of 98judgment if one is obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that mayarise from congested dockets; the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area ofconflict of laws; the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law; and, allother considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotingTex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 1967)). A court must give greatweight to plaintiff's choice of forum. KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 1212,1214 (D. Kan. 1998). Unless the balance strongly favors the movant, plaintiff's forum choiceshould rarely be disturbed. Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965. "Merely shifting the inconvenience from one side to the other . . . is not a permissible justification for a change of venue.” Id. at 966. Inexercising its discretion, “the Court must ‘adjudicate motions for transfer according to an‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Chrysler, 928 F.2d at1516 (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).In addition, the party moving to transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) bears theburden of establishing that the existing forum is inconvenient. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. CountryChrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10 Cir. 1991). Defendants have failed to carry their thburden in this case. Given the weight assigned to Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the fact that atleast some of the Defendants would have to travel in any event, and the other factors that a court considers, Defendants simply have failed to demonstrated that the action should be transferred to California.Case 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 8 of 99
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, (1) Defendant Gary S. Brown’s Motion toDismiss (docket # 14) is DENIED and his Motion to Change Venue to the Central District of LosAngeles, CA (docket # 15) is DENIED; (2) Defendant Dean Webb’s Motion to Dismiss (docket# 18) is DENIED and his Alternative Motion to Change Venue (docket # 26) is DENIED; (3)Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion to Dismiss (docket # 20) is DENIED and his Motion toChange Venue (by joining in other Defendants’ motions) is DENIED; (4) Defendant JonathonLubell’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #21) is DENIED, and his Motion to Change Venue (docket# 22) is DENIED. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to the Complaint by no later thanSeptember 23, 2008. DATED this 28 day of August, 2008. thBY THE COURT:DALE A. KIMBALLUnited States District JudgeCase 2:07-cv-00552-DAK Document 35 Filed 08/28/2008 Page 9 of 9
Posted: 11/10/2008 at 16:32 Read 42 times | 0 comments | Leave Comment
FRAUD REOPENS THE MATRIX CASE
In 1981-83 an Epic sci-fi story was written by Sophia Stewart Titled "THE THIRD EYE". It is an epic science fiction work with Biblical subliminization. This body of work was copy righted by the Library of Congress. The book is out now, that tells a story within a story. The Book was written for the Matrix fans and the People who want to know the TRUTH about the Matrix, Terminator and The Woman who created this great body of work, So take the Red pill and stay in wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
FRAUD REOPENS THE MATRIX CASE.
Screenplay writer Stewart, better known as Mother of the Matrix and author of the book the Third Eye, will soon be releasing her own version of the continuation of the series. The Matrix which was released in 1999 , which starred actors Kenau Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie Ann Moss was listed as one of the most successful box office hits in the history of the movie industry. Also, the movie featured the successful digital innovation that revolutionized cyber, techno, cinematography, special effects and was a first of it’s kind to do so, with much of the credit given to the original writer, Sophia Stewart .
Labels: Black American Firsts
posted by ichbinalj at 6:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home