Thursday, December 10, 2009

-The Smoking Gun- The 1:45 Terminator Introduction



The film opens with a post nuclear darkened war scene canvassed by robots controlled through computer chips with laser-guided weapons in or about 2010 to 2030 A.D. A hovercraft of immense proportions enters the scene with the most advanced computer oriented laser guided weapons known to the post nuclear world. A man pops up from nowhere and begins to run as his friend hopes that he make it. Still, with precision, the computer generated robot focuses, aims, and disperses his atom relationships so as to mystify his very existence.



Then the insert on the screen wrote these unscripted words: “The machines rose from the ashes of the nuclear fire. Their war to exterminate mankind had raged for decades, but the final battle would not be fought in this time. It would be fought here, in our present tonight.” (Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, The Third Eye)



This description does not appear anywhere in the script written by James Cameron. Yet, the words and the post nuclear war came from MY SOURCE WORK. This was not revealed in any draft done by James Cameron including the draft from June of 1982.



Sophia Stewart completed the six-page treatment of the Third Eye on May 1, 1981. It was forwarded to the Vice President of Creative Affairs of Fox before May 7, 1981. Surprisingly, Gale Anne Hurd, then the public relations and marketing director of New World Productions under Roger Corman who had never produced a film, started Pacific Western Productions on May 12, 1981.



The first minute and 45 seconds of the film includes visual dialogue that is not written into the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth draft of the screenplay.



In the April 29, 2005 Motion for Summary Judgment submitted to the Court by Bruce Isaacs of Beverly Hills, he did not disclose to the court the following facts:



1) that the first minute and 45 seconds of the film does not read on the screenplay by Cameron and Hurd;

2) that the first minute and 45 seconds of the film does read on the treatment by Sophia Stewart dated May 1, 1981;

3) that the May 1, 1981 treatment was sent to Fox before May 7, 1981;

4) that the May 1, 1981 treatment was transferred from Fox to Roger Corman of New World Pictures prior to May 9, 1981;

5) that Gale Hurd, Corman's assistant, started Pacific Western Productions on May 12, 1981 while James Cameron was in Italy and did not know about the May 1, 1981 treatment;

6) Cameron was required to play along with Hurd to get the opportunity to write and direct the project based upon Stewart's work product.

(ABSOLUTE FRAUD!!!)




If Law Enforcement protects the rights of corporations, shouldn't Law Enforcement protect the rights of citizens?

The Stewart case shines a light on white collar crime now sweeping America. Stewart uncovered a sophisticated theft of her protected literary work, its embezzlement and how that was used as a means to conceal the crime and escape repercussions. For Instance: “This willful failure to disclose Stewart’s contribution makes the copyright registration invalid under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for willfully failing to reveal that the substantial contributing author was omitted with the intent to deny her royalties in the project. Yet, on a reading of the "Third Eye" as copyrighted on February 2, 1983, it is undeniable that the first minute and 45 seconds came from that discussion and that it is totally excluded from the copyright submission of Cameron and Hurd to the Copyright Office. The technique of taking the script and sending it through a chop shop so that many of its features are changed while unpublished and then bringing it forth as a published work is described as infringement in Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century Fox. Yet, it is plainly present in the movie. This is evidence that Hurd had consciousness of the wrongfulness of this activity and did not want it to be said that she wrote exactly what was written in Stewart’s treatment. The May 1, 1981 treatment is covered by copyright registration number Txu 117-610 in the name of Sophia Stewart. This is evidence of a theft of the script, knowing unauthorized use of it, and an intent to deny Stewart of her share of the profits associated therewith”.

The FBI recently admitted that the epidemic of Mortgage fraud spread across America is born from the "lending industry" itself not borrowers. Is the "film industry" itself any different? If so, why did a Warner Brothers Attorney named Judy Neulak inform Stewart that she (Neulak) knew for a fact, that Warner Brothers had used Stewart's protected literary work? Why is Warner Brothers & Fox permitting the sale of images of "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" with Stewart's book "The Third Eye" on amazon.com (since 2005) without suing Stewart for copyright infringement? - http://www.amazon.com/Third-Eye-Mother-Matrix/dp/0978539648 Who will explain the fact that the alleged creator's scripts BEAR NO RESEMBLEMCE to what's on screen in both sets of Terminator and Matrix films? Due to a lack of “source material” - did Cameron, Hurd & the Wachowski’s get caught hiding stolen source material in the plain sight of the movies themselves?
For a good reason, thieves don’t register what they steal without an attempt to fraudulently alter the 'make and model' of what was stolen. These “Alterations” are actually “calculated measures” used to escape detection and repercussions. Likewise, this pattern of theft is consistent with child kidnappers who are known by law enforcement to shave the heads and/or otherwise “alter” the appearance of children they abduct in order to (1) keep their parents from ever recognizing them and (2) escape repercussion. Nevertheless, a good mother will always recognize her baby.

“If someone steals your car and puts it through a chop shop, (where the crooks add or take away from it) trying to make it their own, is it still your car? Do you go out and buy another car to prove yours was stolen?”

–Sophia Stewart, Legal Owner of the Matrix & the Terminator



Saturday, November 28, 2009

Major Script language Associated with Infringement #2




Draft in Development

Terminator
Main Titles – Chapter One
Arrival of the Terminator Chapter Two
A1 Title Sequence – Slitscan Effect A1

Fifth Draft
March 11, 1984
March 19, 1984 revision pages

By James Cameron with Gale Anne Hurd

[This description is evidence of the intent of the parties to engage in willful copyright infringement within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 506 (e).]

Gradually the sound of distant traffic becomes audible.
A low angle bounded on one side by a chain link fence and on the other by the one-story public school buildings.

Spray can hieroglyphics. A Los Angeles public school in a blue-collar neighborhood.

Angle between school buildings, where a trash dumpster looms in a low angle. A cat crosses frame.

Close on CAT, which freezes, alert, sensing something just beyond perception.

A source less wind rises, and with it a keening WHINE.
Papers blow across the pavement.
The cat YOWLS and hides under the dumpster.
Windows rattle in their frames.
The Whine intensifies, accompanied now by a wash of frigid purple light. A concussion like a thunderclap right overhead blows in all the windows facing the yard.

C.U. – C.A.T., its eyes are wide as the glare dies.

1A/FX Angle – Dumpster 1A/FX

Electrical discharges arc from the dumpster to a water faucet and climb a drainpipe like a Jacobs’ ladder.

2 EXT. School yard – Night 2

Slow Pan as the sound of stray electrical crackling subsides.
Frame comes to rest on the figure of a naked man kneeling, faced away, in the previously empty yard.
He stands slowly.
This man is in his late thirties, tall and powerfully built, moving with graceful precision.

He is the TERMINATOR.

Actual depiction of the introduction of the Terminator Film does not include the cat, the war scene, or the statement overlay.

Description observed by the writer.

The film opens with a post nuclear war darkened war scene canvassed by robots controlled through computer chips with laser-guided weapons in or about 2010 to 2030 A.D. A hovercraft of immense proportions enters the scene with the most advanced and computer oriented laser guided weapons known to the post nuclear world. A man pops up from nowhere and begins to run as his friend roots that he make it. Still, with precision, the computer generated robot focuses, aims, and disperses his atom relationships so as to mystify his very existence.

Then the insert from the screen wrote these words:

The machines rose from the ashes of the nuclear fire. Their war to exterminate mankind had raged for decades, but the final battle would not be fought in this time. It would be fought here, in our present tonight.

This description does not appear any where in the script written by James Cameron. Yet, the words and the post nuclear war came from some source. This was not revealed in any draft done by James Cameron including the draft from June of 1982.

Sophia Stewart completed the six-page treatment of the Third Eye on May 1, 1981. It was forwarded to the Vice President of Creative Affairs of Fox before May 5, 1981. Surprisingly, Gale Anne Hurd, then the public relations and marketing director of New World Productions under Roger Corman who had never produced a film, started Pacific Western Productions on May 12, 1981. The only thing that she could have had was the embezzled treatment of Sophia Stewart. How do we know this?

The description above that constitutes the first minute and 45 seconds of the film does not come from the script written by James Cameron with Gale Hurd. Instead, it reads on the language of the “Third Eye” that was written by Sophia Stewart on May 1, 1981. The copyright is Txu-116-610.

The copyright filed by Cameron and Hurd is subject to nullification under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for willfully failing to disclose their use of Stewart's stolen treatment.

Sophia Stewart copyrighted the May 1, 1981 treatment in February of 1983. Gale Hurd and James Cameron therefore had a duty to identify her work as a derivative contribution in paragraph 6 of the related copyright application. Did they do that?

Their copyright registration on February 3, 1984 says, “No.”

Its material features are as follows:

Registration Number: Pau-584-564
Authors: James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd
Description: 129 pages
Note: Screenplay
Claimant: Hemdale Film Corp.
Created: 1983 [first registered screenplay by Cameron alone with writer’s guild in July of 1982 thereby making copyright registration knowingly false]
Author on © application: Gale Ann Hurd, as employee for hire of Pacific Western Productions. [However, Hurd was the sole stockholder of the entity started on May 12, 1981 that seemed to operate with the script embezzled from Fox without the knowledge, consent, or approval of Sophia Stewart, the creative force behind the writing of the Third Eye.]

Sophia Stewart, then a USC film student, did not know that Gale Hurd, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Stanford, had secured her script by improper means and developed a Public Relations campaign to make it appear that the concept and plot design came totally from Cameron and Hurd. This willful failure to disclose Stewart’s contribution makes the copyright registration invalid under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for willfully failing to reveal that the substantial contributing author was omitted with the intent to deny her royalties in the project. Yet, on a reading of the "Third Eye" as copyrighted on February 2, 1983, it is undeniable that the first minute and 45 seconds came from that discussion and that it is totally excluded from the copyright submission of Cameron and Hurd to the Copyright Office.

The technique of taking the script and sending it through a chop shop so that many of its features are changed while unpublished and then bringing it forth as a published work is described as infringement in Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century Fox.

Yet, it is plainly present in the movie. This is evidence that Hurd had consciousness of the wrongfulness of this activity and did not want it to be said that she wrote exactly what was written in Stewart’s treatment. The May 1, 1981 treatment is covered by copyright registration number Txu 117-610 in the name of Sophia Stewart. This is evidence of a theft of the script, knowing unauthorized use of it, and an intent to deny Stewart of her share of the profits associated therewith.

Phil Banks

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Sophia Stewart’s former lawyers Are Part Of Fraud.


“HAD the evidence, hid it & did not submit it in the california COURTS”
What evidence?

-The “Terminator” & “Matrix” movies already in the attorney’s possession
-600 Pages of probative evidence
-*Constructive Trust Pacific Western Productions
(*The shell company that produced the 1:45sec [verbatim] out of Stewart’s 81 Third Eye Movie Treatment)
-*The articles of Incorporation with the Secretary State of California
-*The names of Attorneys who constructed the Trust
-Lubell’s Confession, Forged Admissions and other documents
-Perjury Affidavits of all the Defendants, Bruce Isaacs & John Shulaman
-Stewart’s copywritten Movie Treatment and manuscript (81, 83, & 84)
-“The Third Eye” book itself
What Pedigree lawyer on case worth BILLIONS of dollars is going to fumble routine legal tasks; such as submitting crucial evidence to win a case? Since when did lawyers cease the desire to make money? When did news become so one sided? Why is Sophia Story being “blacked-out” of the mainstream media? Why hasn’t Main Stream media Contacted Sophia Stewart to hear her side of the story? Madoff’s story did not get back yard coverage. Sophia Stewart’s story is the Bernie Madoff of Hollywood worth BILLIONS! Is the media paid off?
A band of corrupt Attorneys charged Sophia Stewart, Legal Owner of The Matrix & Terminator, $50,000.00 (U.S. dollars) only to sabotage her entire California civil case by withholding the submission of the most critical evidence. We know now why Sophia Stewart did not appear in California court: She was bared and gagged from doing depositions and appearances.
According to New York District Attorney Thomas Warnom, Bureau Chief, Special Prosecutions Bureau, Stewart’s former attorney Jonathan Lubell received “a sentence of One to Three Years in August of 2005”. Jonathan Lubell confessed to have forgered Stewart’s Admissions (among other documents), all by himself without anyone else's help. Not one of Sophia Stewart’s former lawyers had the integrity to inform Stewart of the fact that Jonathan Lubell was convicted and serving time, due to forgery and grand larceny, while working Stewart’s Billion dollar case. Jonathan Lubell’s confession & conviction is an Automatic Default judgment. Sophia Stewart has won both cases! Therefore, a convicted attorney Jonathan Lubell along with, Michael Stoller (indicted for fraud), Dean Webb (cited for rambling) and Gary Brown (indicted for fraud) represented a “cavalry of corruption” that rode in to sabotage Stewarts multi-Billion dollar Civil Case in California Courts. Again, since when did lawyers cease the desire to make money? Sophia paid her former lawyers $50,000.00 (U.S. dollars) to do their jobs as attorney’s & officers of the court, not “saboteurs” working as “the loyal opposition” behind their clients back.
If Sophia Stewart wasn’t telling the truth, there would be no reason for a “cavalry of corruption” to perpetrate over 30 counts of fraud & perjury. Judge Brooke C. Wells ruled that the 30 counts of Fraud and Perjury stand as of August 11th 2009. And as you know two sentences of fraud over turns & wins a case because a Judge can not aid & abet in a criminal scheme.
If you own something, you don’t need a “fake deed” because you have the real one.
Sophia Stewart has the real copyrights to the Matrix and the Terminator; therefore she is the legal owner.
Fraud is used to hide the truth, never to compliment it.

SOPHIA STEWART : THE CORRECT FACTS


Its one thing that life and the experiences of our trials and tribulations teach us all,and that is our Christ consciousness shall always prevail in what the purpose of true integrity means when we are honest within ourselfs.Below you shall see the email conversations between Sophia Stewart The Mother of the Matrix,Terminator and Mr Bruce Isaacs the defendants attorney from her first case that was intentionally frauded and Sabotage by the accused in this cover up that could actually become a blockbuster movie within the eventual outcome of the truth finally coming to the light for Sophia Stewart.

Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 6:07 PM

Bruce Isaacs,
I reserve the right to have a jail cell available for you, the Defendants, & my former lawyers for all the fraud and perjury you put in the California Court. My former lawyers had the evidence, hid it, and did not submit it.
This was the only way for you to get a phony judgment. Beside the fraud, my 81' copyrighted treatment wins the case period. This is the reason it was hidden from Judge Morrow, and never submitted.
The confession letter of Jonathan Lubell put all of you in jail. He has already done the actionable fraud. You reserved your rights by taking my rights from me!
Today, right now, I am taking my rights back!
Now " you have the right to remain silent, anything more you have to say will be held against you in a court of law. This is including your emails, your lying Declaration, the fraudulent liens ( with the phony $300, 000 dollar judgment ) which you entered illegally against me, the rightful owner & Writer of the Matrix & Terminator, in the California, Utah, & Nevada courts.
My emails are not lies, they are the truth, nothing but the truth so help me God!
I did not get my day in court because you , the Defendants, and my former lawyers fix the California Court by entering fraud, perjury, baring & gaging me, and hiding the evidence.
These are the correct facts.
I won both of my cases because of all the fraud & perjury. Two sentences of fraud over turns & wins a case. A Judge can not aid & abet in a criminal scheme!
Your emails are false, defamatory, & actionable.
The only rights that you can reserve now, are the rights to pay or go to jail!
The media have a right to examine the evidence and the people have a right to know the truth---
Sophia Stewart
Writer of Matrix & Terminator
The legal Owner
On Thu, 11/12/09, Bruce Isaacs wrote:

From: Bruce Isaacs
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART FLYER
To: "sophia stewart" , "David Bias" <biashdavid@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Jackie Hawthorne" , "Taaj" <secretary@diasporarestoration.org>, "Glenda Gill" , "Glenda Taylor" , "T Angelo" , "Jim Petzke" , "Kathy" , "Kate Chilton" , chuchu4444@aol.com, "Peter Mott" <mrpetermott@aol.com>, "Stanley Lewis" <3dmovies@gmail.com>, "Bruce Isaacs"
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:31 AM

Ms. Stewart:

This is my last e-mail to you.

Your e-mails are wrong.

You got your day in court. You lost.

Those are the facts.

Your e-mails are false, defamatory and actionable.

We reserve all rights.

I will have no more communications with you. This matter is over and done.

Bruce Isaacs

Bruce Isaacs,Esq.

Wyman & Isaacs, LLP

5757 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 475

Los Angeles, CA 90036

ph: (323) 648-4144; fax (323) 648-4133

bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com


From: sophia stewart [mailto:sophiastewart10@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:14 PM
To: David Bias
Cc: Jackie Hawthorne; Taaj; Glenda Gill; Glenda Taylor; T Angelo; Bruce Isaacs; Jim Petzke; Kathy; Kate Chilton; chuchu4444@aol.com; Peter Mott; Stanley Lewis
Subject: Fw: RE: SOPHIA STEWART FLYER



--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Eduardo Michon Small wrote:


From: Eduardo Michon Small
Subject: RE: SOPHIA STEWART FLYER
To: "'sophia stewart'"
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:07 AM

Sophia Stewart's crooked ass lawyers actually HAD THE EVIDENCE, HID THE EVIDENCE & DIDN'T SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE.

What evidence?

A Manuscript, Screen Treatment, Graphics, copywritten material 81', 83', & 84, Terminator and Matrix films where NEVER SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE BY SOPHIA STEWARTS ATTORNEY'S

What Pedigree lawyer on case worth Billions of dollars is going to fumble routine legal tasks such as submitting crucial evidence to win a case?

Since when did lawyers cease the desire to make money?

Her Lawyers "had it", 'hid it" and "didn't submit it".

Outright fraud committed.


From: sophia stewart [mailto:sophiastewart10@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:52 PM
To: Bruce Isaacs
Cc: Kathy; Taaj; E_Small
Subject: RE: SOPHIA STEWART FLYER

Bruce Isaacs,

Put me to the test! I dare you. File a lawsuit and prove your clients wrote it. All of your asses are going to jail for fraud and perjury. I will prove to the media with my evidence that you and my former lawyers fixed the California Court Case. You hid my 1981 copy written treatment from Judge Morrow and all of you ( Defendants ) lied under oath. You tried to prove independent creation by lying that James Cameron's 1982 movie treatment came before my 1983 book. He had no 1982 treatment, just assignments to the dubby company called Pacific Western Production which was part fraud and part law ,that dubby company produced the one minute and 45 seconds out of my 81 Third Eye movie treatment! One minute and 45 second is verbatim in the Terminator's & Matrix's introductions. I have all the names of the lawyers that created this shell company. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that James Cameron and the Wachowskis Brothers never wrote the Terminator nor the Matrix.

My former lawyer Jonathan Lubell have confessed in a letter that he forgered my Admissions ( among other documents ) , all by himself without anyone else's help. That fraud alone overturns the California Case and wins me the Utah.! Plus Lubell went to jail for fraud on another case while he was committing fraud on my case for over a year. You cannot fix fraud and perjury. Get over it... I want my credit and I want my money , or you damn sure going to jail , every last one of you and that is a promise.

Sophia Stewart

Writer of the Matrix & Terminator---

On Wed, 11/11/09, Bruce Isaacs wrote:


From: Bruce Isaacs
Subject: RE: SOPHIA STEWART FLYER
To: "sophia stewart"
Cc: "Kate Chilton" , "Kathy" , "Jim Petzke" , "Bruce Isaacs"
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 10:05 PM

Dear Ms. Stewart:

Your statements are false and actionable.

We reserve all rights.

bi

Bruce Isaacs,Esq.

Wyman & Isaacs, LLP

5757 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 475

Los Angeles, CA 90036

ph: (323) 648-4144; fax (323) 648-4133

bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com



From: Eduardo Michon Small [mailto:e_small@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Bruce Isaacs; 'Sophia Stewart'
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS

Mr. Isaacs will you be filing a lawsuit to prove Sophia Stewart’s email is “false, defamatory and actionable”?

From: Bruce Isaacs [mailto:bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:23 PM
To: Eduardo Michon Small; Sophia Stewart
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS


I do not know who you are.

Bruce Isaacs,Esq.

Wyman & Isaacs, LLP

5757 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 475

Los Angeles, CA 90036

ph: (323) 648-4144; fax (323) 648-4133

bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com

From: Bruce Isaacs [mailto:bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Eduardo Michon Small; Sophia Stewart
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS


I’m waiting for you to identify yourself. If you refuse to do so, I see no point to answering your question.

Bruce Isaacs,Esq.

Wyman & Isaacs, LLP

5757 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 475

Los Angeles, CA 90036

ph: (323) 648-4144; fax (323) 648-4133

From: Eduardo Michon Small [mailto:e_small@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Bruce Isaacs; 'Sophia Stewart'
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS

Mr. Isaacs, if you’re telling the truth, my identity is of no consequence.

Will you be filing a lawsuit to prove Sophia Stewart’s email is “false, defamatory and actionable”?

From: Bruce Isaacs
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS
To: "Eduardo Michon Small" , "sophia stewart"
Date:
Friday, November 13, 2009, 6:53 PM

Done. Goodbye. Bruce Isaacs

Bruce Isaacs,Esq.

Wyman & Isaacs, LLP

5757 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 475

Los Angeles, CA 90036

ph: (323) 648-4144; fax (323) 648-4133

bisaacs@wymanisaacs.com

From: Sophia Stewart [mailto:sophiastewart10@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:01 PM
To: Bruce Isaacs - Warner Brothers Attorney
Subject: RE: RE: SOPHIA STEWART: THE CORRECT FACTS

Bruce Isaacs, No this not done, it is just the beginning.

Sophia Stewart

Writer of the Matrix & Terminator, Legal Owner

This email is going to go around the world a billion times!



Thursday, November 12, 2009

Sophia Stewart Has Won Both Cases!


Sophia Stewart uncovered the fraud in both cases. As you know two sentences of fraud overturns or wins the court case, because a judge cannot aid or abet in a criminal scheme. Sophia Stewart has proven she wrote the Matrix & Terminator. Judge Brooke C. Wells ruled that the evidence (30 counts of fraud & perjury) stand August 11, 2009. Sophia Stewart won both cases and media is welcome to look at the evidence!



Thursday, October 1, 2009

MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION


SOPHIA STEWART
P.O. BOX 31725
Las Vegas, NV 89173

In Propria Persona
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH
SOPHIA STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN and JOHN DOES I through X, individuals whose identities are not yet known,

MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR AN EXPEDITED JUDGMENT DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, AND PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Case No. 2:07cv00552
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells


COMES NOW PLAINTIFF SOPHIA STEWART, brings forth this Motion and Request Reconsideration For An Expedited Judgment Due to Fraud Upon The Court, Perjury, Contempt, and Subverting the Due administration of Justice of the California and Utah Courts, as well as, the business of the Federal Branches of Government in Violation of Plaintiff’s Civil and Constitutional Rights in Contravention to 18 U.S.C. 241 to be heard on the ______ day of September, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter, as counsel maybe heard in the above-entitled courtroom, located at U.S. District Court, District of Utah 350 South Main Street, Room 150, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 against Co-conspirators Michael T. Stoller, Jonathan Lubell, Dean Webb, and Gary Brown. This movement is filed in conjunction with Stewart’s Objection To Court Order and Ruling dated September 9, 2009, Denying Plaintiff Judgment Against Defendants. Plaintiff hereby Request to pick “A Jury Trial” pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants have left the battlefield warranting Judgment. Plaintiff asserts the Defendants totally lost their case when the Court issued a Ruling on August 11, 2009, and there is no need for Stewart to hire an attorney after the smoke has cleared.
COGNIZABLE FACTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars for “Non-legitimate” legal services to “Gather” and “Enter” all Probative Evidence on the issue of “Legal Rights of Ownership” into Court Record which affirmed the “Fraudulent Assignment Copyrights” for the Terminator and Matrix Movies, screenplays, and no less than 600 pages of Probative Evidence, and the Defendants with “Wanton / Malice Intent” deliberately did not enter “Any Evidence” (“Emphasis Added”) that was “Within their Possession” into Court Record, thus constituting “Intrinsic Fraud” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
WANTON / WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE

Gary Brown:

“And I’m happy to also voice the fact, that “I haven’t seen” (“Emphasis Added”) the “Terminator” or “Matrix” movies. They are sitting on my “Shelf” (“Emphasis Added”) at home for me to “View.” (Exhs. 190, 191, Reporter’s Transcript Proceedings “Sept. 27, 2004”)

What is sitting on the “Shelf” (Emphasis Added”)?

Jonathan Lubell:

“I sent you “600 Pages of Documents” along with a listing describing the documents and, where “APPLICABLE” (“Emphasis Added”) the SIGNIFICANT.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Exh. 240, dated “May 3, 2005” (Emphasis Added”))
Jonathan Lubell:

“From what I understand, “No one Else” “sent documents to be produced” (“Emphasis Added”) in response to the defendants’ Rule 34 demands.” (Exh. 240)

MALICE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION OF DEPOSITIONS
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars to for non-legitimate legal services and “Blocked” Stewart from attending her depositions, while operating in consort to misrepresent the “True Nature” of judicial proceedings for the times and dates of said deposition, of which, resulted in Stewart being procedurally “Bared/Gagged,” from timely Entering Any Evidence, for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
GARY BROWN: “We are going to postpone it.” (Exh. 316)

W.B. Attorney David Boren:

“Therefore, both Lubell and Brown “Unilaterally” cancelled Ms. Stewart’s deposition one business day before it was scheduled to take place.” (Exhs. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, Declaration David H. Boren, dated March 28, 2005)

“On Monday, February 21, 2005, (President Day), Bruce Isaacs received a call from an associate of Ms. Stewart, who stated that he was calling on behalf of Ms. Stewart. The associate (Lawyer) left a VOICEMAIL MESSAGE (“Emphasis Added) stating that Ms. Stewart was “unsure whether her deposition was going forward” and she was “unsure whether she should BOARD AN AIRPLANE (“Emphasis Added”) and FLY to Los Angeles to attend her DEPOSITION.” “The associate asked that Bruce call him to let him know whether Ms. Stewart should board and Airplane to fly to Los Angeles for her Deposition. This phone message showed that Ms. Stewart was “Indeed Available” to attend her deposition on February 22, 2005.” “Therefore, we were “Mystified” why Jonathan and Gary “Unilaterally Cancelled” Ms. Stewart’s “Deposition” when she was “Clearly Available” to be “Deposed.” (Exhs. Declaration of David H. Boren, pg. 7, dated March 28, 2005) (Exhs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, Letter, March 18, 2005, pg. 3, lines 3-11); (Exh. 29, Gary Brown Dep. Cancellation, dated Feb. 18, 2005);

“Bruce and I called Stoller back at 4:30 PM to find out why we had not received the “Production of Documents” which were promised to be delivered that day, as well as, the other discovery responses.”
ABANDONMENT OF CASE
Right after Judge Morrow’s ruling of the dismissal of the RICO claims without prejudice with leave to amend, Dean Webb immediately abandoned the case after he sabotaged the Amended Complaint, and all Defendant Attorneys had “Knowledge of it, and operated in consort to conceal Webb abandoning the case, while simultaneously “Padding Their Bills,” thus constituting “Civil Conspiracy” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
JONATHAN LUBELL:
“Dean abandoned his representation of Sophia Stewart in the fall of 2004. He was responsible for Sophia’s RICO Claims and the First Amended Complaint which mainly focused on the seven RICO causes of Action.” (Exh. 240)
FRAUD / IMPEACHED TESTIMONY
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars and with “Malice Aforethought” did not perform “Any” legitimate legal services and through the use of the federal mails and federal interstate wires the defendants have fraudulently and wrongfully gained access to, acquired, feloniously absorbed, misappropriated, and / or tortuously and/or criminally obtained, by and through “False Pretenses” encroached upon Stewart’s Inalienable Rights of Ownership / Property; in order, to “Fraudulently Convert” her “Protected Literary” work, for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
Gary Brown:

“Further, she “Never Paid” me “Anything.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Docket 73, Gary Brown Opposition to Application For Default of Judgment and Request for Judicial Notice, pg. 2); (Exhs. 44.1, 44.2, Padded Bill Gary Brown)

“Our “Main Job” (“Emphasis Added”) now is “carefully assembling evidence” (“Emphasis Added”) and helping you prepare for a deposition.” (Exh. 225, Brown Memo, dated “October 30, 2004”)

“I don’t want us to become “Discredited” (“Emphasis Added”) by an “Unauthorized Move.” (Exh. 225)

FRAUD, FRAUD AND MORE FRAUD

“Thanks for sending money.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Exh. 225, Brown Memo, dated “October 30, 2004”) ; (Exhs. 217, 218, T-Shirt - “Slogan” (“Emphasis Added”); (U.S. TAX CODE TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART IX, Sec. 269A - Personal service corporations formed or availed of to avoid or evade income tax); (“Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Government Functions,” prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §371 falls under guideline 2C1.7., See id. App. a, § 2C1.7”); (U.S. TAX CODE - TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 68, Subchapter B, PART II, Sec. 6723, Added Pub. L. 99-514, title XV, Sec. 1501(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2733; amended Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Sec. 7711(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2390); (Exh. 44.10, 44.11, Padded Bills)
“PREPARATION OF FRAUDULENT ADMISSIONS”
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars and did not perform “Any Legitimate Legal” Services and through the use of the federal mail and federal interstate wires, all of the Defendants were “Aware” that Jonathan Lubell with Wanton Malice Intent “Prepared” a plethora of “Fraudulent Admissions” having “Forged” his Clients Signature” that the Co-conspirators entered into the California Judiciary without Stewart’s knowledge while concealing the same; in order, to Fraudulently Convert “Inalienable Rights Of Ownership,” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
JONATHAN LUBELL:
“Furthermore, after I completed the responses to all “Eight” (“Emphasis Added”) Requests for Admissions and to two of the Special Interrogatories “Without” substantive assistance of “Anyone Else.” (“Emphasis Added”)
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars to for non-legitimate legal services and through the use of the federal mails and federal interstate wires Gary Brown interfered and encroached upon Stewart’s Civil and Constitutional Rights by “Scaring off” and/or “Threatening” Stewart’s attorney Ted McBride while providing “Material Instructions” (“Emphasis Added”) to McBride to “Fix” the current case now before the court by specifically cutting out the “Fraud Claims” stated in the Amended Civil Complaint to be solely replaced with a “Malpractice Claim,” because the Co-conspirators are “Aware” that a “Malpractice Claim” by itself cannot “Overturn” the initial U.S. District Court of California Case, thus the Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
GARY BROWN:
“the fundamental legal theory to be applied is about “legal malpractice” and not breach of contract, “FRAUD” (“Emphasis Added”) or “Conspiracy.” (Exh. 312)
“The applicable statute…for “Legal Malpractice” in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.6, which “Limits Actions”…(“Emphasis Added”)…. “Discovery of the Wrongful Conduct” (“Emphasis Added”) and “DAMAGE” (“Emphasis Added”) by the Plaintiff. (Exh. 312)
TERRORIST THREATS AGAINST LEGAL COUNSEL
18 U.S.C. 241 / RICO
Gary Brown:
“I also assure the Court that I have never “Intended” (“Emphasis Added”) to bother Mr. McBride about his representation of Ms. Stewart.” (Exh. 121)

SUBVERTING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS /ASCENTING IN CONSORT TO FRAUDULENT “EXTORTION LIENS” WITH CALCULATED FORETHOUGHT TO SCARE OFF ATTORNEYS

Jonathan Lubell:

“Affiant has not been involved in any activity which would have compromised or scared off attorneys.” (Docket 72, pg. 13); (Exhs. 21, 22, 63, 115, 116) (Uwe Geertz, Steven Fishman vs. Johnathan Lubell, Margaret M. Morrow, Judge, No. BC 122 468, dated 25 Dec 1995, Super. Crt., Cal., Cty., LA) - “Malicious Prosecution Complaint / Deprivation of Right to Counsel”)

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff graciously requests that the Court host a hearing to Authenticate the “Signatures of the Fraudulent Admissions Jonathan Lubell forged and concealed the same on behalf of his client Sophia Stewart? The Court has acknowledged that the Plaintiff has submitted overwhelming evidence. In light of the above, Rule 60 Fed.R.Civ.P. permits the Court to impose disciplinary measures from its judgments or orders for certain reasons and more than “Two Sentences of fraud in this case are Obvious including “Forgery.” (“Emphasis Added”) Among those reasons are (b) (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, “Forgery” or excusable neglect. And (b)(3) actual fraud (whether heretofore denominated Intrinsic or Extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. As such Plaintiff by this liberally construed Objection brings Requests Judgment and/or Motion Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60, because the Defendants have left the battlefield. (TCBY Sys. Inc. v. EGB. Assoc., Inc. 2 F.3d 288, 290-91 [8th Cir. 1993]. For the reasons stated above, plaintiff hereby prays for relief.
I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: 09/16/09 Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________













CERTICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this __16____ day of September 2009, I caused to be mailed via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing S. Stewart Objection + Memorandum to the following:

Jonathan Lubell
1325 6th Ave.
28th Floor
N.Y., New York 10019
212-763-8550
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Michael Stroller
Attorney at Law
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, California 90212

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Gary Brown
One Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 301
Pasadena, California 91105

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Kathleen Liuzzi
DUNN & DUNN, PC
505 East 200 South 2nd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
c/o Court Clerk
United States District Court, District of Utah
350 South Main Street, Room 150,
Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
(1 Original & 2 Copies)
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Utah that the above is true and correct.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: 09/16/09



Sophia Stewart

DONE,DONE,DONE, SOPHIA'S CASE







IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH

SOPHIA STEWART,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN

LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN

and JOHN DOES I through X,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 2:07-cv-00552

ORDER & RULING

JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C.

WELLS

_____________________________________________________________________

On July 2, 2009, Defendant Michael Stoller filed his Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s

Pleadings 1 In response, Plaintiff Sophia Stewart filed an objection and response to the

motion.2 Upon review of the pending motion, the Court now rules as stated herein and

denies defendant’s Motion To Strike.

1Initially, it appears that Mr. Stoller’s motion was actually filed as part of

defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. See,

Docket Number 74. However, at the request of the court clerk’s office, Mr. Stoller filed

his motion to strike separate from his affidavit. Docket Number 76.

2Docket Number 78 and 79. Pleading entitled “Objection And Response To

Jonathan Lubell, Gary Brown, Dean Webb, and Michael Stoller’s Objection To Motions

And Memorandums For Default Of Judgment And Motion To Strike.” See also, Docket

Number 82 pleading entitled “Objection To Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion To

Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings; Points And Authorities.”

In his pending motion, Mr. Stoller addresses plaintiff’s failure to follow rules and

procedures, ultimately requesting that this Court “strike the sham pleadings filed by the

Plaintiff.”3 Defendant’s motion, however, is unclear as to which of plaintiff’s pleadings

he seeks to strike. Specifically, the Court is uncertain whether Mr. Stoller’s motion

seeks to strike all of plaintiff’s pleadings, those pleading’s most recently filed, or is in

fact a motion to dismiss the entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

If Mr. Stoller’s motion is characterized as a motion to dismiss, on August 28,

2008, Judge Waddoups issued a Memorandum Decision and Order 4 denying Mr.

Stoller’s previously filed motion to dismiss.5 Moreover, if plaintiff’s motion is in

reference to plaintiff’s recently filed pleadings, on June 14, 2009, this Court entered an

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, motion for default judgment and

motion to amend.6 Absent additional information from defendant as to the substance of

his motion, the courts’ prior rulings appear to moot the pending matter.

Thus, given both the amorphous nature of the motion and the previous rulings

issued by both Judge Waddoups and this court, the court hereby denies defendant’s

motion to dismiss.

3Docket Number 76. Defendant Stoller’s Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings;

Points And Authorities.

4Docket No. 35.

5Docket No. 20.

6Docket No. 75.

2

DATED this 11 day of August, 2009.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

Brooke C. Wells

United States Magistrate Judge

3--
GUILT-LESS NESS, JOY YES-NESS, FREEDOM!!!!!!

Saturday, August 15, 2009

GUILT-LESS NESS, JOY YES-NESS, FREEDOM!!!!!!



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH

_____________________________________________________________________

SOPHIA STEWART,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN

LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN

and JOHN DOES I through X,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 2:07-cv-00552

ORDER & RULING

JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C.

WELLS

_____________________________________________________________________

On July 2, 2009, Defendant Michael Stoller filed his Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s

Pleadings 1 In response, Plaintiff Sophia Stewart filed an objection and response to the

motion.2 Upon review of the pending motion, the Court now rules as stated herein and

denies defendant’s Motion To Strike.

1Initially, it appears that Mr. Stoller’s motion was actually filed as part of

defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. See,

Docket Number 74. However, at the request of the court clerk’s office, Mr. Stoller filed

his motion to strike separate from his affidavit. Docket Number 76.

2Docket Number 78 and 79. Pleading entitled “Objection And Response To

Jonathan Lubell, Gary Brown, Dean Webb, and Michael Stoller’s Objection To Motions

And Memorandums For Default Of Judgment And Motion To Strike.” See also, Docket

Number 82 pleading entitled “Objection To Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion To

Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings; Points And Authorities.”

In his pending motion, Mr. Stoller addresses plaintiff’s failure to follow rules and

procedures, ultimately requesting that this Court “strike the sham pleadings filed by the

Plaintiff.”3 Defendant’s motion, however, is unclear as to which of plaintiff’s pleadings

he seeks to strike. Specifically, the Court is uncertain whether Mr. Stoller’s motion

seeks to strike all of plaintiff’s pleadings, those pleading’s most recently filed, or is in

fact a motion to dismiss the entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

If Mr. Stoller’s motion is characterized as a motion to dismiss, on August 28,

2008, Judge Waddoups issued a Memorandum Decision and Order 4 denying Mr.

Stoller’s previously filed motion to dismiss.5 Moreover, if plaintiff’s motion is in

reference to plaintiff’s recently filed pleadings, on June 14, 2009, this Court entered an

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, motion for default judgment and

motion to amend.6 Absent additional information from defendant as to the substance of

his motion, the courts’ prior rulings appear to moot the pending matter.

Thus, given both the amorphous nature of the motion and the previous rulings

issued by both Judge Waddoups and this court, the court hereby denies defendant’s

motion to dismiss.

3Docket Number 76. Defendant Stoller’s Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings;

Points And Authorities.

4Docket No. 35.

5Docket No. 20.

6Docket No. 75.

2

DATED this 11 day of August, 2009.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

Brooke C. Wells

United States Magistrate Judge

3--
GUILT-LESS NESS, JOY YES-NESS, FREEDOM!!!!!!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

SOPHIA STEWART OBJECTION AND RESPONSE

SOPHIA STEWART
P.O. BOX 31725
LAS VEGAS, NV 89173

IN PROPRIA PERSONA
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH

SOPHIA STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN and JOHN DOES I through X, individuals whose identities are not yet known,

Defendants.
SOPHIA STEWART OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO JONATHAN LUBELL, GARY BROWN, DEAN WEBB, AND MICHAEL STOLLER’S OBJECTION TO MOTIONS AND MEMORANDUMS FOR DEFAULT OF JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE


Case No. 2:07cv00552
MAGISTRATE BRUCE C. WELLS


COMES NOW Plaintiff, Sophia Stewart (“Stewart”) bringing forth this “Objection and Response” To Defendants’ Jonathan Lubell, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Michael Stoller’s Opposition to Motions and Memorandums for Default of Judgment, and Objection for Motion To Strike Pleadings. The Defendants have committed “predicate acts’ of Fraud upon the court via mail and wire, while “Impugning” the “Integrity” of the Court.
The padded bills alone are sufficient to disbar all of the defendants, and the Court in examination of the “Perjury,” “Slanderous,” “Libel” statements, and Fraud, should issue an “Order” rendering “Default of Judgment,” and “Contempt of Court” for said Criminal Offenses and Intimidation of Stewart’s Civil and Constitutional Rights. It is “Gross Miscarriage of Justice” how said Defendants have been allowed to commit Perjury with impunity, while submitting Fraudulent, Slanderous and Libel Statements in utter “Contempt of the Federal Court System” as the Defendants’ “Willfully” violated Stewart’s Due Process, Equal Protection, and Rights to a Fair Trial availed by the her U.S. Constitutional and Civil Rights which have been trampled upon in this case. In addition, the Defendants being officers of the court have subverted the “Due Administration of Justice and Government Business,” due to discrimination based on “Gender and Race” because Stewart is an African American female compared to “Similar Situated” Jews and/or Whites as the Court System was utilized as an “Extortion Arena.” (Exh. T, Terminator DVD); (Exh. T2, Terminator II); (Exh. T3, Terminator (Exh. M, Matrix DVD); (Exh. M2, Matrix Reloaded,); (Exh. M3, The Matrix Revolution DVD); (Exh. M4, Matrix DVD)
Stoller, Brown, Webb, and Lubell received nearly $50,000.00 dollars from Stewart, and the Defendants “Willfully” in a “Premeditated Fraudulent Scheme” set-out to “Under Prepare” and “Ignore” the “Exculpatory Probative Evidence” on the “Issue of Guilt” against James Cameron, Gale Ann Hurd, Hemdale Films, Pacific Western Productions, Carolco Pictures, Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski; thus, said Defendants must be held accountable for violations of Fraud, Conspiracy to commit perjury upon the court, Civil and Constitutional violations of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 241 against Stewart as a member of the Minority Community. The Plaintiff asserts Lubell, Brown, Webb, and Stoller in a “Premeditated Diabolical Scheme” “Operated in Consort” to conceal from the U.S. District Court the establishment of “Access” to The Third Eye, six page movie treatment and the 45 page manuscript, as said Defendants intentionally “Cut Out” the “Operative Claims” and/or with “Malice” drafted an amended complaint intentionally “Riddled” with “Tortfeasor Errors” that specifically failed to state claims or liability against “Pacific Western Production” as the conduit of the “Constructive Trust.” The Defendants with “Malice” set out to “Under Prepare” and “Ignore” obvious facts and/or shelf “Probative Evidence” on the issue of guilt by concealing the actual six film DVDs to affirm “Access, Direct Copying Verbatim, and Substantial Similarity” to Stewart six page movie treatment, including but not limited to the 45 page manuscript of “The Third Eye.” Lubell was paid $1500 dollar to go to Washington to the U.S. Copyright Office and “Expedite the Fraudulent Copyrights filed by James Cameron, Gale Ann Hurd, Pacific Western Productions, Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowksi and failed to carry out basic and/or any form of “legitimate” legal services as cited by the obvious fraudulent statements listed below with receipts. (Exhs. 130, 131, Contract by Bruce Isaac, dated 2007)
“J. Cameron “Assigned” to “Pacific Western Productions and Pacific Western Productions assigned to Hemdale Film…” (Exh. 11); (Exh. B, “The Third Eye, 45 Page Manuscript)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT “PERJURY” / PREMEDIATED FRAUDLENT SCHEME UPON THE COURT
Jonathan Lubell:
“Similarly, Affiant had no “Knowledge” or “Information” of “Pacific Western Article of Incorporation.” (Docket 72, pg. 5, Lubell Memorandum in Opposition Regarding the Motion For Judicial Notice); (Exhs. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, Notice of Deposition of Cora Lee, dated March 25, 2005 and “Signed by Lubell, Stoller, Brown, and Webb); (Exh. A, Sophia Stewart Civil Complaint in the United State District Court of California, dated); (Exh. , Affidavit from Cora Lee with Jonathan Lubell’s name on the front)
“Affiant had no knowledge of or participation in any of the events or subjects referred to by Stewart in the paragraph.”( Docket 72, pg. 5)
“Affiant is the undeniable fact that Affiant had no “knowledge,” communications, agreements, negotiations, “Involvement” or “Any other relationship” with “Pacific Western Productions” or it’s representatives.” (Docket 72, pg. 7); (Exh. 11,12);
“Affiant was not involved in drafting any complaint against “Pacific Western Productions” or in considering the making of such claim. There is “no evidence” that Stewart “said anything about making such a claim” or the “failure to make such a claim.” More over, she produces not a scintilla of evidence that affiant and the three other lawyers were involved in a “Premeditated Fraudulent Scheme” when they drafted the Amended Complaint. (Docket 72, pg. 10); (Exh. A, Stewart’s Civil Complaint dated)
“Affiant has no knowledge or information regarding “Assignments” (“Emphasis Added”) or “Conspiracies” which Stewart puts in her Affidavit.” (Docket 72, pg. 11) ; (Exh. 11)
“Affiant has no knowledge of concealment from the Court of the February 15, 1994 copyright.” (Docket 72, pg. 15)
The first minute and 45 seconds of the first film produced by Pacific Western Productions, Inc. began with video dialogue that reads on her treatment, but appears nowhere in the screenplays of James Cameron from July of 1982 through February 3, 1984 when its written version was registered under Pau-584-564. The evidence that counters these representations was in the first minute and 45 seconds. The court sanctioned Petitioner for not putting forth evidence of infringement. Yet, the evidence was in the DVDs, the script, the draft, and the work product, in possession of Plaintiff’s Counsel and “obstructed and/or sitting” somewhere on the “Shelf” next to “Purchase Receipts." Neither James Cameron nor Hurd claimed authorship of that subject matter in the production.” (Exhs. 130, 131)
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE / INTRINSIC FRAUD
“The liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated.” (Exhs. 13, 14, 14.1, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, Power of Attorney/Gagged Order/Concealment Judge Margaret M. Morrow/Fraudulent Concealment of Constructive Trust)
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE / INTRINSIC FRAUD / PERJURY
“Affiant has “no knowledge of or participation” in any attempt to “conceal evidence” or “dupe” Judge Morrow. (Docket 72, pg. 6, Line K); (Exhs. 130, 131)
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH GOVERNMENT DUTIES
“I have no ongoing inconsistent agreements with any other persons other than Phil Banks for this purpose. Phil Banks has agreed not to “Inform” (“Emphasis Added”) Judge Margaret Morrow of the “Subject Matter” (“Emphasis Added”) of his findings should the parties pay the amount previously offered which was authorized by me.” (Exhs. 14.6, 14.7, 14.8; Bruce Isaac Contract);
“CONSPIRACY” TO COMMITT PERJURY / MAJOR FRAUD
UPON THE COURT
Gary Brown:
“Brown denies that “Any Attorney” prevented Ms. Stewart from presenting her evidence and particularly denies that Brown committed malpractice.” (Docket. 39, Brown’s Answer to Complaint, Line 25, Sept. 23, 2008)
“Brown denies that he canceled Ms. Stewart's deposition and is not informed that “Anyone else Canceled” it and so must deny all of the allegation.” (Docket. , Line 46, Gary Brown Answer to Complaint dated July 30, 2007); (Exhs. 142, 143, Bruce Isaac dated March 24, 2005)
Jonathan Lubell:
“Affiant had not entered into any conspiracy with other attorneys for any purpose, including concealing information from Judge Morrow.” (Docket 72, pg. 5, Lubell Memorandum in Opposition Regarding the Motion For Judicial Notice) ; (Exhs. 130, 131)

PERJURY UPON THE COURT/ INTRINSIC FRAUD / INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT DUTIES
Gary Brown:
“I conferred with Jonathan Lubell. He is not able to be here for the deposition of Sophia Stewart on February 22, 2005, and is the “One” to prepare her. We suggest that the “discovery be postponed” until after the hearing on March 21, 2005” (Exhs. 29)
“With respect to your complaint that the attorneys failed to respond to the discovery requests, the attorneys stated that Messrs. Lubell, and Webb handled the discovery. Mr. Brown stated that he was “removed from your case on or about May 18, 2008, due to his health problems,” and that your complete file was turned over to Mr. Stoller. Mr. Stoller stated that, by the time he joined your case, prior counsel had already addressed the discovery matter.” (Exh. 50, 51, California Bar Association Letter, October 28, 2008); (Exh. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, Declaration David H. Boren, dated March 28, 2005); (Exh. 170 Reporters Transcript); (Exhs. 175, 176, 177, P.O. Box 165153, Salt Lake City Utah 84116 Padded Bill dated “July 31, 2004”)

FRAUD / IMPEACHED TESTIMONY

“Ms. Stewart pretends to be a resident of Utah…. “That is where we “Always” contacted her. It was always my understanding that Ms. Stewart had immigrated from Utah to Nevada.” (Docket 73, Gary Brown Opposition, Pg. 5); ((Exhs. 175, 176, 177, P.O. Box 165153, Salt Lake City Utah 84116 Padded Bill dated “July 31, 2004”)


CONPSPIRACY TO COMMITT PERJURY UPON THE COURT

“On the road again, we are on the road again ...” (dated July 16, 2004, 11:14 PM Memo From Gary Brown to Jonathan Lubell); (Exhs. 180, 181, Letter from Lubell to Brown, dated “Feb. 22, 2005”)

In the process of Stoller blaming Webb and Brown, and Brown and Webb blaming Stoller, while Lubell erroneously denies “involvement” and/or “responsibilities of the other three, the Defendants have affectively affirmed “Intrinsic Fraud” by their efforts to have collected nearly $50,000 dollars and not performed “Any” legitimate legal service.”

INTRINSIC FRAUD UPON THE COURT IN VIOLATION
OF INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE ACT

“Affiant was not involved in the issue of whether the six films should have been lodged in the Court.” ((Docket 72, pg. 12)

W.B. Attorney David Boren:

“Therefore, both Lubell and Brown “Unilaterally” cancelled Ms. Stewart’s deposition one business day before it was scheduled to take place.” (Exhs. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, Declaration David H. Boren, dated March 28, 2005)

“On Monday, February 21, 2005, (President Day), Bruce Isaacs received a call from an associate of Ms. Stewart, who stated that he was calling on behalf of Ms. Stewart. The associate (Lawyer) left a VOICEMAIL MESSAGE (“Emphasis Added) stating that Ms. Stewart was “unsure whether her deposition was going forward” and she was “unsure whether she should BOARD AN AIRPLANE (“Emphasis Added”) and FLY to Los Angeles to attend her DEPOSITION.” “The associate asked that Bruce call him to let him know whether Ms. Stewart should board and Airplane to fly to Los Angeles for her Deposition. This phone message showed that Ms. Stewart was “Indeed Available” to attend her deposition on February 22, 2005.” “Therefore, we were “Mystified” why Jonathan and Gary “Unilaterally Cancelled” Ms. Stewart’s “Deposition” when she was “Clearly Available” to be “Deposed.” (Exhs. Declaration of David H. Boren, pg. 7, dated March 28, 2005) (Exhs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, Letter, March 18, 2005, pg. 3, lines 3-11); (Exh. 29, Gary Brown Dep. Cancellation, dated Feb. 18, 2005);

“Bruce and I called Stoller back at 4:30 PM to find out why we had not received the “Production of Documents” which were promised to be delivered that day, as well as, the other discovery responses.”

PREMEDIATED MAJOR FRAUD SCHEME / PERJURY / CONSPIRACY
AGAINST CIVIL &
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS / 18 U.S.C. 241
Gary Brown:

“And I’m happy to also voice the fact, that “I haven’t seen” (“Emphasis Added”) the “Terminator” or “Matrix” movies. They are sitting on my “Shelf” (“Emphasis Added”) at home for me to “View.” (Exhs. 190, 191, Reporter’s Transcript Proceedings “Sept. 27, 2004”)

Jonathan Lubell:
“With reference to the actual movie source that was not submitted to the court, Affiant was “Never Involved” (“Emphasis Added”) with “that issue” (“Emphasis Added”) and “Never Discussed” with anyone at that time.” In fact, at the time that the movies would have been submitted, “Affiant no longer represented as a month before in “May of 1995,” she terminated his services.” (Docket 72, pgs. 10-11)

“Affiant has no relationship, knowledge or information regarding the alleged event. The response to the alleged concealment of evidence from Judge Morrow, is set forth is supra, II G.” (Docket 72, pg. 12)

“Affiant had not aided and abetted in the theft of the “Bereaved parties money.” (Docket 72, pg. 14)

“The Court has precluded Stewart from offering “testimony” in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Thus, none of the evidence that she has submitted maybe considered.” (Exh. 194, Pg. 17, Lines 5-7, Judge Morrow, Court Order); (Exhs. 195, 196, Judge Morrow Crt. Order, Pg. 23, Lines 20 – 22); (Exh. 197, Judge Morrow Crt. Order, Pg. 32, Lines 22-23)
CONCLUSION
The Defendants’ Webb, Brown, Stoller, and Lubell, have not diligently defended their case for more than two years. In April of 2009, the Plaintiff filed her Default of Judgment, and to date said Defendants’ have “Unmercifully” committed Perjury upon the Court. For this reason, the Plaintiff is graciously requesting that the Court Issue an Order granting Default of Judgment.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing are true and correct.
DATED: July 13, 2009 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,


____________________________


CERTICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this __13____ day of July 2009, I caused to be mailed via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing S. Stewart Objection & Response + Memorandum in Support + Declaration in Support of Objection + Exhs. A, B, T, T2, T3, M, M2, M3, M4, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 190, 191, 194, 197, 200, 209, 205, 206, 215, 216, 217, 218, 225230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, to the following:


Jonathan Lubell
1325 6th Ave.
28th Floor
N.Y., New York 10019
212-763-8550

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other

Michael Stroller
Attorney at Law
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, California 90212


__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other

Gary Brown
One Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 301
Pasadena, California 91105


__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other

Kathleen Liuzzi
DUNN & DUNN, PC
505 East 200 South 2nd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
c/o Court Clerk
United States District Court,
District of Utah.
350 South Main Street, Room 150,
Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
(1 Original & 2 Copies)

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Utah that the above is true and correct.
Respectfully Submitted,


Sophia Stewart