Copyrighting a Legal Case File with Reasons

[dee dee]

Jurisdiction

California

Hello,

I am writing up my own legal case file involving a governmental issue, unpaid services. My question revolves around copyright laws though.

Because of my past and having intellectual properties stolen from me by infringers a good many times for my creative works, art, music, and more, I am worried that when I file my court case, because of the content that another immoral type of opportunist will steal the contents for a another movie production, exploiting me again. They may try to use it for a book of their own without my consent. Certain opportunists do this repeatedly.

The contents of my case are so rare and unique, probably unlike most other life experiences, that I feel my content needs to be protected somehow. I am thinking of using my own court filing as the content possibly for my own autobiography at some point too. I don't want anyone else exploiting me for the profits as they have repeatedly in the past. I know it's not the norm, but can a person "copyright" their legal case filing? I searched online and couldn't find a copyright for a legal case filing. Is it possible I can simply take the legal case file when I'm hopefully finished writing it and copyrighting it as a nonfiction literary work?

As soon as you file any court case unless it is sealed of course, anyone can walk into the court & steal the story & make a movie, tv show, or even a song out of it, possibly to the harm of people involved with the case.

How do we deal with this legally or have we ever? Do I have a right to any privacy at all if not sealed?
How do I keep those types who may exploit me again out of my court filing?

I am posting under the government title, cause my case has to do with historical government wrong doing.

Also any information as to how to seal a case would be helpful please.

 

[flyingron]

I suspect you're in for a big surprise both in what is permissible, legal, and relevant for a case filing AND what is protectable by copyright.

Facts are not protectable by copyright. The details of your "life experiences" are not going to be protected. What can be protected is the expression of those facts, and you don't want to get creative in a legal filing. Now if you had something that was relevant to the case that was copyrightable (for example, if you were arguing a copyright issue on some legitimate work, you could attach that as an exhibit), but the case filing itself isn't likely going to qualify.

 

[adjusterjack]

As soon as you file any court case unless it is sealed of course, anyone can walk into the court & steal the story

You've answered your own question. Case files are public record unless sealed.

The procedure for sealing the case record is addressed by CA Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551:

California Rules of Court: Title Two Rules

California Rules of Court: Title Two Rules

Those rules refer to other rules so here is the main link to the CA Rules of Court:

California Rules of Court: Title Two Rules

 

[flyingron]

And to answer the next question, you're not getting it sealed because you're hoping to profit off the filing. In fact, stating the motive in the filing has a profit motive other than the relief being requested is going to get your case tossed for not being in good faith.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Hello,

I know it's not the norm, but can a person "copyright" their legal case filing?

The documents you file with the court may be protected by copyright, though you may need to register that work with the the U.S. Copyright Office before filing it with the court for best protection. Note that even though the complaint, answer, brief, motion, etc are protected by copyright, there are ways in which another person could use the document, or at least parts of it, without your permission, for example situations in which the fair use doctrine applies.

More significantly for you, copyright law does not protect the facts you put in your brief from being used by others. Copyright law protects the expression in the work. So if someone were to substantially copy the text of your document and publish it, that may infringe on your copyright. But if someone just uses the facts you put about your life in those documents and presents those facts using a different write up, that is not infringement. For example, a book describing the first flight of the Wright brothers would get protection for the specific way the author wrote up those facts. But the facts of that first flight itself are not protected by copyright and someone else can write a book about the Wright brothers first flight and as long as they use different text to do it rather than just copying the write up of another person there is no infringement.

So if what you want to do is to protect the facts about your life that would be exposed in the lawsuit from being written up by someone else in a novel or presented in a movie or screenplay, copyright law will not help you. All that is protected is the exact language you used to write up your document.

As soon as you file any court case unless it is sealed of course, anyone can walk into the court & steal the story & make a movie, tv show, or even a song out of it, possibly to the harm of people involved with the case.

If they are just using the facts and not copying the legal documents word for word then that is correct, as I explained above.

Do I have a right to any privacy at all if not sealed?

When you decide to go to court over something, you do that knowing that the dispute as presented in the filings with the court are going to be public record. If you really don't want that situation to be public record, then don't go to court in the first place. Sealing of court records is very uncommon; you have to meet specific criteria for a court to do that, and even then the court will only seal the minimum necessary to achieve the protection you seek. Importantly, you can't get a case sealed just because you don't want it to be public to preserve your chance to be the first out with a book or movie about it. Sealing court records generally only occurs when some serious harm would occur from the disclosure of the information in the court filings. For example, a court may seal certain documents in a case that would disclose documents that would harm national security or that would disclose a protected trade secret. Courts will not seal documents just because a litigant wants privacy or would be embarrassed by the disclosures.

Also any information as to how to seal a case would be helpful please.

I suggest you consult an attorney for assistance with your case. Unless this would be a small claims case, you'll likely need the help of an attorney to successfully litigate it, especially if the opposing party has a lawyer. Pro se litigants do not fare particularly well in courts other than small claims actions because they do not know the rules of procedure and evidence very well and they lack litigation experience.

 

[justblue]

Suing CIA and FBI, Two US Agencies

 

[Zigner]

Hello,

Hello.

Have you, since May of last year, had a mental health evaluation, as I suggested?

 

[dee dee]

I suspect you're in for a big surprise both in what is permissible, legal, and relevant for a case filing AND what is protectable by copyright.

Facts are not protectable by copyright. The details of your "life experiences" are not going to be protected. What can be protected is the expression of those facts, and you don't want to get creative in a legal filing. Now if you had something that was relevant to the case that was copyrightable (for example, if you were arguing a copyright issue on some legitimate work, you could attach that as an exhibit), but the case filing itself isn't likely going to qualify.

I really appreciate the fact that you answered and I never knew that "facts are not protectable by copyright". Wow. You are brilliant. Yes, surprised but sort of not so surprised when it comes to American laws. Thank you so for a reply and the information I needed!!

 

[dee dee]

The documents you file with the court may be protected by copyright, though you may need to register that work with the the U.S. Copyright Office before filing it with the court for best protection. Note that even though the complaint, answer, brief, motion, etc are protected by copyright, there are ways in which another person could use the document, or at least parts of it, without your permission, for example situations in which the fair use doctrine applies.

More significantly for you, copyright law does not protect the facts you put in your brief from being used by others. Copyright law protects the expression in the work. So if someone were to substantially copy the text of your document and publish it, that may infringe on your copyright. But if someone just uses the facts you put about your life in those documents and presents those facts using a different write up, that is not infringement. For example, a book describing the first flight of the Wright brothers would get protection for the specific way the author wrote up those facts. But the facts of that first flight itself are not protected by copyright and someone else can write a book about the Wright brothers first flight and as long as they use different text to do it rather than just copying the write up of another person there is no infringement.

So if what you want to do is to protect the facts about your life that would be exposed in the lawsuit from being written up by someone else in a novel or presented in a movie or screenplay, copyright law will not help you. All that is protected is the exact language you used to write up your document.



If they are just using the facts and not copying the legal documents word for word then that is correct, as I explained above.



When you decide to go to court over something, you do that knowing that the dispute as presented in the filings with the court are going to be public record. If you really don't want that situation to be public record, then don't go to court in the first place. Sealing of court records is very uncommon; you have to meet specific criteria for a court to do that, and even then the court will only seal the minimum necessary to achieve the protection you seek. Importantly, you can't get a case sealed just because you don't want it to be public to preserve your chance to be the first out with a book or movie about it. Sealing court records generally only occurs when some serious harm would occur from the disclosure of the information in the court filings. For example, a court may seal certain documents in a case that would disclose documents that would harm national security or that would disclose a protected trade secret. Courts will not seal documents just because a litigant wants privacy or would be embarrassed by the disclosures.



I suggest you consult an attorney for assistance with your case. Unless this would be a small claims case, you'll likely need the help of an attorney to successfully litigate it, especially if the opposing party has a lawyer. Pro se litigants do not fare particularly well in courts other than small claims actions because they do not know the rules of procedure and evidence very well and they lack litigation experience.

Thank you for all the information you posted here. Really appreciate this. Wish I would have been a lawyer. Great area to know and know how to research. I can't seem to find an attorney in my area. There are troves of attorneys for car accident issues and very easy cases though. My case is a rare case, not your everyday sort of case. I tried the few who do work in the area, one in DC and one in New York, but haven't gotten a response. I tried calling many lawyers though with various specialties and have spent much time explaining my points repeatedly and still I they claim they cannot handle the case. Thus; I decided to pursue my own, on my own for the sake of justice, a cause worth the effort, always.

 

[zddoodah]

I am writing up my own legal case

It would be helpful if you were clear about what "writing up [a] legal case" means.

I am worried that when I file my court case . . . [someone] will steal the contents for a another movie production . . . [or] for a book of their own without my consent.

Huh? Are you saying that you intend to file a lawsuit, and you think someone will take your lawsuit and make a movie or book out of it?

Certain opportunists do this repeatedly.

I've been a lawyer for over 20 years and a legal professional for over 30 years, and I've never once heard of anyone doing that.

can a person "copyright" their legal case filing?

For starters, "copyright" is not properly used as a verb.* A copyright comes into existence the moment an "original work[] of authorship [is] fixed in any tangible medium of expression." A complaint filed with a court would contact, primarily, facts, and facts are not the subject of copyright protection.

* - Often, when folks use "copyright" as a verb, they are referring to the registration of a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. Registration, while useful, is not a prerequisite to the existence of a copyright.

Is it possible I can simply take the legal case file when I'm hopefully finished writing it and copyrighting it as a nonfiction literary work?

No.

As soon as you file any court case unless it is sealed of course, anyone can walk into the court & steal the story & make a movie, tv show, or even a song out of it, possibly to the harm of people involved with the case.

How do we deal with this legally or have we ever?

This has never been an issue because legal filings are generally BORING and, even when they're not, the facts embodied in them are not protectable by copyright law.

Do I have a right to any privacy at all if not sealed?

You have a right to privacy, but not in anything contained in an unsealed court filing.

 

[adjusterjack]

I tried the few who do work in the area, one in DC and one in New York, but haven't gotten a response. I tried calling many lawyers though with various specialties and have spent much time explaining my points repeatedly and still I they claim they cannot handle the case.

This is how you hire a lawyer.

"Hi, Joe Lawyer, I have a copyright case I want you to handle. I'll bring you a $5000 retainer against your hourly rate. Do you have an opening to see me this week?"

 

[dee dee]

It would be helpful if you were clear about what "writing up [a] legal case" means.



Huh? Are you saying that you intend to file a lawsuit, and you think someone will take your lawsuit and make a movie or book out of it?



I've been a lawyer for over 20 years and a legal professional for over 30 years, and I've never once heard of anyone doing that.



For starters, "copyright" is not properly used as a verb.* A copyright comes into existence the moment an "original work[] of authorship [is] fixed in any tangible medium of expression." A complaint filed with a court would contact, primarily, facts, and facts are not the subject of copyright protection.

* - Often, when folks use "copyright" as a verb, they are referring to the registration of a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. Registration, while useful, is not a prerequisite to the existence of a copyright.



No.



This has never been an issue because legal filings are generally BORING and, even when they're not, the facts embodied in them are not protectable by copyright law.



You have a right to privacy, but not in anything contained in an unsealed court filing.

Thank you so much for your time & response, really! I am awestruck at the wonderful people here and never knew people like you even existed!

To answer:
"It would be helpful if you were clear about what "writing up [a] legal case" means."

I have to conduct my own case; my case is extremely rare and very unique. Regular cases are difficult I heard, but this one no lawyer thus far could or would take, considering most law firms do not handle cases in my area of expertise. I researched so many law firms across the country and only found two lawyers that have ever taken on any court case in the area I need to pursue justice in, and even then they only handled male cases; I am female, another oppressive factor in the general patriarchal consensus found within our sociopolitical system. Both did not answer me at all after contacting them. There is a 3rd though, I tried, a female lawyer who only became a lawyer to pursue her own case. She did not answer me either, so I took that for a "no, will not take on your case" answer. I tried DC, where there is only one lawyer I know of that has ever taken on a case in my area of expertise, and no response. This means, I am simply writing my own case and will have to pursue justice on my own behalf (and ultimately, that of other potential victims of the same unethical policies) I've encountered. I have to be my own lawyer if I want to pursue justice. So, I am writing my case currently and can only do my best of best.

"Huh? Are you saying that you intend to file a lawsuit, and you think someone will take your lawsuit and make a movie or book out of it?"

Frankly, a movie company had already taken my PERSONAL work and story and has made over a hundred million dollars in profits with it without my consent. This is also because I was in the film industry and contacted moguls when I was doing this "other" work or service and they turned the story into a sensationalist fabricated movie, changing facts, lying, and putting out lies as "press releases" to make the public believe fabrications. With my additional story, facts already contained in my lawsuit, I do have this distaste and certain fear that some unethical writer or type of opportunist will go into my files and create another version. I've endured decades of certain types of thieves though because of my entertainment history and creations. Thefts by huge celebrities who look at my products then steal them, stamp their names on them knowing that I am weak due to "lack of legal funds" an easy way for celebrities to steal songs, scripts, stories, fashion designs, choreography, and much more. I've gone through it multiple times, repeatedly. To take on big corporations or huge wealthy celebrities costs much, some of the time, unless they need to settle due to "very bad publicity" and creating mistrust in the entertainment industry. Lawyers want much more monies I found than simpler cases. I never had that much money unfortunately. It's very rare to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency and even then, you have a trove of contingency lawyers who will promise the client that they will demand so and so amount to lure the client in, then, after signing the legal agreement, the lawyer changes their attitude, destroys the case, gets a fast out as to not spend much monies and the client has to settle for piddly winks.

My story or the facts are possibly interesting, obviously, because the motion picture did and is making profits off of it still, which I do not like at all. The added info in my court case though, may just add fuel to the profits somehow. If there is nothing I can do, then so be it. I just have to grin and bear it as I have done over my other great works, stolen by famous celebrities over the decades.

Thank you for even caring either way.

"This has never been an issue because legal filings are generally BORING and, even when they're not, the facts embodied in them are not protectable by copyright law."

I understand, people like tv or movie action, fun, and excitement. Analysis and law makes people sit still, while nature tells people to move around and do things. You may be awestruck by the amount of "facts" that make extremely profitable movies though or even television series, where producers live in huge extravagance and earn life long profits off of classic entertainment. That's why some say to watch a Hollywood film with a grain of salt, cause sensationalizing, changing details, or over dramatizing incidents is sometimes key to a great Hollywood picture.

One film company even had the audacity to take the real life recordings of victims during the 9-11 Twin Towers incident screaming and used a factual soundtrack in one of their films. The victims' families were appalled and hurt by this.

What's even more "boring" than law and the hard work that goes into our legal system, is watching a slew of haughty celebrities or a film company live in luxury, wealth, and constant profits after they rob a person their creations, their life story and have to endure and witness these spin offs while living in poverty without having a college degree in law or real legal backing. Now that can get really boring.

The other area of what can absolutely "boring" is talking to lawyers who just can't accept or understand that a "woman" did and accomplished all the work I did, instead of a man. Society is just not used to it just as they have never had a female as the President of the US. One male lawyer mocked and berated me, doubted me in a cruel way one day, while asking for assistance, but he couldn't understand how I had to silently laugh at his lack of conscience as first a lawyer and a male living in the 21st Century.

Additionally, if it gets too boring for you which should not happen, maybe make a few cases into sensational Hollywood screenplays; and better yet, cut the client in so their suffering is alleviated. Clint Eastwood, famous Hollywood producer, director, and talent is one of the very rare few ethical producers who actually gave credit and monies to the person's life story he produced for the silver screen; other companies are just into unethical stealing, whatever they can get away with, according to the loopholes of law. He could have just taken the entire facts, made his own movie and kept everything for himself as all the others have done.

Thanks again!! Really.

 

[Zigner]

@dee dee

Have you, since May of last year, had a mental health evaluation, as I suggested?

 

[Tax Counsel]

He could have just taken the entire facts, made his own movie and kept everything for himself as all the others have done.

And that's the reality of it. Facts about you are not protected by copyright or any other intellectual property right. Someone learning the facts of your life could write a book or make a movie biography of your life without your permission and without giving you a penny. The key thing with doing that is that biographer has to take care to get the facts right to avoid being liable for defaming you. This is one reason why a lot of biographers wait until after the person they wish to write about has died. Dead people can't sue for defamation. But there are still plenty of biographers who release their works before their subjects die, especially if their subject is a public figure, since public figures have a harder time successfully suing for defamation. As long as they get their facts right, though, they can produce their work and not owe the subject of the biography anything, nor do they need the permission of the subject to do it.

For example, the Andrew Morton wrote an unauthorized biography of the actor Tom Cruise. Cruise and the Church of Scientology (which also featured prominently in the book as Cruise is the most famous member of the Church) were not thrilled by this and threatened to sue to hold up publication of the work and when that failed, they tried hard to discredit the book. They could not prevent the publication of the book; Morton didn't need their permission. They didn't get a penny from Morton or his publisher out of it either as Morton didn't infringe any IP rights of either of them and they didn't try to sue for defamation (either because the facts in the book were true or because they didn't want to bring even more attention to the book via a lawsuit).

If you put facts about your life out in the public in a lawsuit there is nothing that prevents anyone from taking those facts and using them as the basis for a book or screenplay. So long as they don't defame you there is not much you can do about it.

 

[dee dee]

I don't understand what you are saying or what that has to do with facts, laws, or justice? I do understand that Psychiatry was used by the CIA ritually during the MKUltra Era (1953-1985) as a weapon to discredit perfectly normal government employees, soldiers, citizens, and even children who they suspected as prone to refute the unethical experiments conducted on American citizens.

Psychiatry also has a long history of male perpetrators, such as the lobotomists who used to stick ice picks into people's brains, disabling them, or rendering human beings as vegetables; this was especially prevalent with women who were once considered the chattel of their husbands. Unworthy husbands could simply rid of his spouse without paying alimony or hiring lawyers by calling up the local psychiatric institution and committing his wife to the facilities, where all male psychiatrists would gladly and easily have a load of mad scientist fun with, whether through unethical druggings and experimentations, lobotomies, molestations, combined with control & dominance tactics, also what psychiatry is used for and has been since it's inception.

Mental health has nothing really to do with my case unless I sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other factors that cause emotional distress including "injustice"; or how psychiatric oppression and practices can be used as a weapon to hinder justice, success, and progress in our country. I don't feel this would be anyone's business as well pertaining to my mental health at this point. Obviously, I have been emotionally distressed and endured punitive damages due to injustice; otherwise I wouldn't be pursuing justice.

I don't understand what you absolutely mean though so you can tell me:
Do you mean that you endured a lot of stress and hurt, were robbed, or wronged somehow and suffered yourself, so you want others to to have someone to discuss things with? Or, do you intend to use "psychiatry as a weapon" to hurt feelings and cause someone to discredit someone's FACTUAL experience?

First, if you'd like to know me somehow, I'd like you to do some studies please so you can progress and be informed about the area you want to post with, if you have the time please:

This website will give you a history of psychiatry, how it was invented, and also a huge history of the ineffectiveness/effectiveness of the practice. Contained are factual dialogues by real people (not actors) who have experienced psychiatry first hand. Contained also, is a factual legal case regarding the unethical psychiatric druggings of children and a human rights lawyer who took on a very good legal case.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR: Watch Hard-Hitting Documentaries & Videos From CCHR.
Quick Facts About Psychiatry

I would suggest you study The Atlantic Article, "How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the use of Psychiatry"
How Victorian Women Were Oppressed Through the Use of Psychiatry

There is much more you can study to be fully informed concerning "mental health" and psychiatry though.

May I note, that most of our massive gun shooters in America were on some type of psychiatric brain altering drugs in case studies. You can research this also to consider facts. I have not found one massive gun shooter yet (outside Islamic Jihadists) who weren't on psychiatric drugs.

Just wondering, do you get mental health checks for yourself on a regular basis in your field? I'm not condemning talking with someone at all though; but I'm a little leery of discussing any benefits of the drugs they stuff into people that rake in billions upon billions in profits, while forcing people to take unnecessary drugs that cause them ill health and other issues.

What is your point, clearly or real intention? Friend or foe?

 

[dee dee]

@dee dee

Have you, since May of last year, had a mental health evaluation, as I suggested?

For the easy linear answer: "Just money will do, I'll do fine and thank you"

For an upgrade in ethics, which so many can learn here is another:
I don't understand what you are saying or what that has to do with facts, laws, or justice? I do understand that Psychiatry was used by the CIA ritually during the MKUltra Era (1953-1985) as a weapon to discredit perfectly normal government employees, soldiers, citizens, and even children who they suspected as prone to refute the unethical experiments conducted on American citizens. Please study the history and usage of the MKUltra Experiments and not in a one paragraph brief. Once you learn the entire history, you'll be much more cautious concerning anyone's "mental health" and if you stand on the ethical side of law.

Psychiatry also has a long history of male perpetrators, such as the lobotomists who used to stick ice picks into people's brains, disabling them, or rendering human beings as vegetables; this was especially prevalent with women who were once considered the chattel of their husbands. Unworthy husbands could simply rid of his spouse without paying alimony or hiring lawyers by calling up the local psychiatric institution and committing his wife to the facilities, where all male psychiatrists would gladly and easily have a load of mad scientist fun with, whether through unethical druggings and experimentations, lobotomies, molestations, combined with control & dominance tactics, also what psychiatry is used for and has been since it's inception. (Freud was a sex addict, with a a cocaine drug addiction by the way--not someone considered worthy of any equilateral gender based philosophies or sciences that would uphold the rights of girls or women; therefore, uphold the mental health and well being of men). If you oppress and harm one segment of society, somehow this can affect an entire society; i.e., depriving women University educations throughout America's history also possibly deprived America of medical cures for serious illnesses; depriving women of legal University educations throughout America's history caused undue strife, unnecessary torture and sufferings, and also slowed a body of law down, where conscience of the highest order seems to still be a struggle, etc ... etc ... etc ...

Mental health has nothing really to do with my case unless I sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other factors that cause emotional distress including "injustice"; or how psychiatric oppression and practices can be used as a weapon to hinder justice, success, and progress in our country. I don't feel this would be anyone's business as well pertaining to my mental health at this point. Obviously, I have been emotionally distressed and endured punitive damages due to injustice; otherwise I wouldn't be pursuing justice.

I don't understand what you absolutely mean though so you can tell me:
Do you mean that you endured a lot of stress and hurt, were robbed, or wronged somehow and suffered yourself, so you want others to to have someone to discuss things with? Or, do you intend to use "psychiatry as a weapon" to hurt feelings and cause someone to discredit someone's FACTUAL experience?

First, if you'd like to know me somehow, I'd like you to do some studies please so you can progress and be informed about the area you want to post with, if you have the time please:

This website will give you a history of psychiatry, how it was invented, and also a huge history of the ineffectiveness/effectiveness of the practice. Contained are factual dialogues by real people (not actors) who have experienced psychiatry first hand. Contained also, is a factual legal case regarding the unethical psychiatric druggings of children and a human rights lawyer who took on a very good legal case.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR: Watch Hard-Hitting Documentaries & Videos From CCHR.
Quick Facts About Psychiatry

I would suggest you study The Atlantic Article, "How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the use of Psychiatry"
How Victorian Women Were Oppressed Through the Use of Psychiatry

There is much more you can study to be fully informed concerning "mental health" and psychiatry though.

May I note, that most of our massive gun shooters in America were on some type of psychiatric brain altering drugs in case studies. You can research this also to consider facts. I have not found one massive gun shooter yet (outside Islamic Jihadists) who weren't on psychiatric drugs.

Just wondering, do you get mental health checks for yourself on a regular basis in your field? I'm not condemning talking with someone at all though; but I'm a little leery of discussing any benefits of the drugs they stuff into people that rake in billions upon billions in profits, while forcing people to take unnecessary drugs that cause them ill health and other issues.

What is your point, clearly or real intention? Friend or foe?

 

[dee dee]

And that's the reality of it. Facts about you are not protected by copyright or any other intellectual property right. Someone learning the facts of your life could write a book or make a movie biography of your life without your permission and without giving you a penny. The key thing with doing that is that biographer has to take care to get the facts right to avoid being liable for defaming you. This is one reason why a lot of biographers wait until after the person they wish to write about has died. Dead people can't sue for defamation. But there are still plenty of biographers who release their works before their subjects die, especially if their subject is a public figure, since public figures have a harder time successfully suing for defamation. As long as they get their facts right, though, they can produce their work and not owe the subject of the biography anything, nor do they need the permission of the subject to do it.

For example, the Andrew Morton wrote an unauthorized biography of the actor Tom Cruise. Cruise and the Church of Scientology (which also featured prominently in the book as Cruise is the most famous member of the Church) were not thrilled by this and threatened to sue to hold up publication of the work and when that failed, they tried hard to discredit the book. They could not prevent the publication of the book; Morton didn't need their permission. They didn't get a penny from Morton or his publisher out of it either as Morton didn't infringe any IP rights of either of them and they didn't try to sue for defamation (either because the facts in the book were true or because they didn't want to bring even more attention to the book via a lawsuit).

If you put facts about your life out in the public in a lawsuit there is nothing that prevents anyone from taking those facts and using them as the basis for a book or screenplay. So long as they don't defame you there is not much you can do about it.

Thank you so yet again! Law is such a fascinating area actually. A regret I have is not going to law school out of high school. Cruise doesn't usually use a court of law though, even with Katie. It may get in the way of his film productions, which make much more monies. When you have that much money and are busy making more, sometimes it is just easier to let it go for economic purposes.

I'm interested in "defame" though, cause twisting the truth or lying about someone is not nice.

 

[Zigner]

Frankly, you sound like have serious mental issues relating to your perception of reality. I am suggesting that you seek a mental health evaluation now so that you have proof that you don't have mental health issues. That will be invaluable down the road when they try to discredit you.

 

[army judge]

Frankly, you sound like have serious mental issues relating to your perception of reality. I am suggesting that you seek a mental health evaluation now so that you have proof that you don't have mental health issues. That will be invaluable down the road when they try to discredit you.

 

[dee dee]

In all reality, it appears that you are not studied enough in the field of mental health to make any qualified "diagnosis" which is what you are doing, highly unethical, and I believe also unlawful.
You stated, " you sound like have serious mental issues relating to your perception of reality." This is an abuse tactic actually and you in fact guilty of abuse.

Additionally, many people with purported, "mental health" issues have every right to justice when wronged. A perpetrator would love nothing more than to claim his victim was "out of her mind" or "imagining things" so he could waggle out of being vindicated.

Define "mental issues" though, cause you actually sound like someone who knows nothing about ethics, morality, justice, law cause that is the type of lingo people on the streets may use, those without any educations or healthy upbringings.


Abusers have no place in my life. I suggest you get some anger management and help though for your misogynistic need to abuse women though. My hunch is you are male, angry at something during your childhood, or have early childhood training from your father or community signaling to you that is ok to abuse or hinder women's rights and justice.

You seek to cause distress and to harm I realize which has no effect. My case has "facts" and "files" of proof and evidence something no one can deny what so ever.

You also need to upgrade your legal studies if you have any interest, since you are here on a legal website to understand and learn that anyone, including those with any mental health issues or inflicted issues, has every right to justice in America, has a voice, a right to amends if wronged, a right to address a court of law and pursue justice and simply having a "mental health" issue is not enough to excuse any court of law in America from establishing justice.

You seem to have a deranged perception that women have no rights or you attempting to push some buttons? You'll earn yours, your brownie button when you humble yourself, behave in an ethical upstanding manner, and discuss other people's serious issues with courtesy, empathy, honesty, and integrity. For your own sake try to learn those things which will bring you back happiness.

I've won over much more serious abusive, hateful, evil people in my life and have no issues with "perception" as you put it and who I am or have dealt with. I know my enemies well enough.

Try to read, study, progress and learn though cause you sound like a really unhappy person surrounded by unhappy people. Did you read and study the websites I gave you yet? You are missing out if you don't.

How do you know anyone is going to try to use "psychiatry as a weapon" though? Is that your strategy? It doesn't work any longer if you haven't heard. That only applies if someone needs to get out of a murder charge these days.

The world is filled with abusive deranged misogynists, backwards thinkers, uneducated derelicts, terrorists, bigots, and the like. I'm giving you valuable suggestions: Study about women's rights and psychiatry please. Or stay in the dark ages in your cave and go have a bologna sandwich with Bin Laden's second right hand man if you like.

I'm not using this legal platform any longer to toy with history, facts, lives, or play senseless tit for tat games. Now bug off.