Fox-Complaint 1-31-17F

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael Terry1607 Jason CourtRedlands, CA [email protected]

Plaintiff in Pro Per

The Superior Court of San Bernardino CountyState of California

__________________________________________

Michael Terry,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Fox Group,

&

Mr. Matt Nix,

Defendants.

))))))))))))))

Case No.: CIVDS1701203

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-COLLATERAL ATTACK ON VOID JUDGMENT

Exhibits 1-9

))

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings a first cause of action for injunctive relief from Defendants for

not citing or giving credit to Plaintiff in the infringing work such as a statement typically used

in Hollywood productions that properly secure the rights of authors as required by law. Plaintiff

also brings a second cause of action against Defendants for damages and profits under

California Civil Code §3344 due to obvious misappropriation of likeness in which Plaintiff’s

COMPLAINT-Collateral Attack - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

likeness was used without consent by Defendants to produce a television show. Finally, Plaintiff

brings a third cause of action against Defendants for blatant common law violations of his right

of publicity similar to second cause of action. Finally, the reason for this Independent Action is

the circus act put on by defense counsel and court that transpired in Los Angeles that led to

numerous acts that deprived plaintiff of due process. Enormous bias was achieved by Mr.

Hinkle unduly influencing the court, creating bias and encouraging a “Rush to Judge”, to deny

plaintiff from having a fair trial. Most people like the judge thought it was all over for the

plaintiff’s claim. Fortunately, the legal system has a remedy for this as a Collateral Attack.

Plaintiff just asks for an open mind and a fair trial in post-judgment proceedings.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a United States citizen who was born and raised in the USA and holds

degrees from UCLA and Regis University and attended Harvard. He is a serious Christian and

resides in Redlands, California.

3. The first Defendant is Fox Group, a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox who owns the

patent for the infringing work. Their headquarters mailing address is: PO Box 900, Beverly

Hills, California.

4. The second Defendant, Mr. Matt Nix is the creator and writer of the pilot and

subsequent episodes of the infringing work. His business address is: 9601 Wilshire Blvd,

Beverly Hills, California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Due to Plaintiff bringing a cause of action under California Civil Code Section

3344 for an unlimited damage amount, the California Superior courts have jurisdiction. Plaintiff


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

also brings a common law cause of action under California Right of Publicity law as well as for

recognition of his likeness being used.

6. Because this is an Independent Action, plaintiff may file in a county other than

the one where the original one was filed. The Plaintiff lives in Redlands, California in San

Bernardino County. While the original case was held in downtown Los Angeles, the court there

has stated that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear proceedings in this case (See ex. 9). After

filing the prior collateral attack in Los Angeles, it was suggested that I could file it in my own

county. So the best venue for this collateral attack would be at the San Bernardino Justice

Center in San Bernardino, California.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

7. Plaintiff collaterally attacks the dismissal and judgment based on several grounds

such as: fraud, court error; abuse of discretion; lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of due

process and surprise which make the dismissal and judgment void without time limit (CCP

§473(d)).

8. Additionally, the Plaintiff has been severely disabled per the Social Security and

medical records (See exhibit 1). He became disabled in 1995 after the events and activity that

garnered him his reputation and notoriety that are relevant to this lawsuit. Mainly he has had

significant concentration problems due to burnout.

9. Plaintiff’s diagnosis is schizophrenia, which is considered by the American

Psychiatric Association as "A serious mental illness." Finally, Plaintiff has been subject to years

of psychological abuse in public places, driving his stress levels to borderline violence and a

psychiatric emergency. This resulted in a decision to travel to Colorado in 2011. His disability

is the basis of a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) under the Federal Tort


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claims Act. In other words, Plaintiff has lived through hell and recovery has been slow, so he

could not sue in a timely manner. The slow recovery from all kinds of craziness in his life along

with being forced to do his own legal has required Plaintiff to take more time to get it together

than is allowed by the two year statute of limitation. Plaintiff pleads for equitable relief from

this requirement.

10. Alternatively, the statute of limitations does not start to run until the last showing

of the infringing work per the Uniform Single Publication Act. As a general rule California

cases have held that the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA) applies to Section 3344

claims. The court in Long vs. Walt Disney Co. also followed the single publication rule over a

claim for violation of the right of publicity. The single publication rule though does not shield a

defendant from claims that are based on a republication, which triggers the running of a new

statute of limitations period. The showing of reruns of the pilot and various episodes of the

infringing work, "Burn Notice", on public television constitute a rebroadcast per the Uniform

Single Publication Act (USPA). Broadcasts on a free public channel constitute a different

audience market and format from the original airings on USA Networks, a cable television

channel that requires a monthly fee. In a very similar case, a New York court has held that the

rebroadcast of a television show is a republication, even where there is no change in the content

of the show.

11. The USPA was enacted to protect publishers from mass media distributions of

defamatory information due to technology such as the printing press. Potentially liability could

have arisen from thousands of lawsuits from each newspaper sale. The USPA even went as far

as offering protections to different editions of a newspaper. While the Christoff vs. Nestle case

suggests modification is necessary for a republication to take place, it is because photographs on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the other hand, as in the Nestle case, can relatively easily be air brushed or modified, unlike

breaking out a whole costly television production team to modify a television show. Requiring

so would be unjust when television shows can profit without modification so nobody bothers to.

So modification of the infringing work should not be required for a republication (rebroadcasts)

to take place. Justice J. Werdegar wrote, "... according to the wording of the statute (§3425.3),

thus dictates that we treat as a separate publication, any rebroadcast, even though the contents

have not changed." (See 47 Cal. 4th 468). In the same case, Justice J. Moreno wrote, "...the

[USPA] rule applies to...any one broadcast over radio or television." (See 47 Cal. 4th 481).

Therefore, the Uniform Single Publication Act allows for the start of the running of the statute

of limitations as of Spring of 2015, when the pilot and series ended rebroadcasting reruns of

"Burn Notice" on free public television in southern California (KCOP My13).

COLLATERAL ATTACK

12. A judgment or order of a court of general jurisdiction can be attacked in a

collateral proceeding if the judgment or order be void. (Estate of Baldwin, 21 Cal. 2d 586, 593

[134 P.2d 259]; Hamilton v. Waters, 93 Cal. App. 2d 866,868 [210 P.2d 67]; 29 Cal.Jur.2d,

Judgments, § 180, p. 135.) [265 Cal. App. 2d 86]. Reasonably, this rule must be applied to a

dismissal of an action “with prejudice…” (see Palmquist v. Palmquist, 212 Cal. App. 2d 340,

343; Datta v. Staab, 173 Cal App. 2d 613, 620-621; Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty Co., Cal. App.

2d 878, 882). For the attack on the dismissal with prejudice to succeed, the invalidity of the

former dismissal must appear on the face of the record [see Palmquist v. Palmquist, 212 Cal.

App. 2d 340, 343; Milstein v. Turner (1948) 89 Cal. App. 2d 296, 298, 200 P.2d 799; Rico v.

Nasser Bros. Realty Co., Cal. App. 2d 878, 882; County of Fresno v. Robertson, M. & Co

(1954) 269 P.2d 252]. Such dismissal can be reversed if it is void, or invalid, on its face when


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

certain other intrinsic papers on file in the Judgment Roll are inspected and the dismissal is

invalid [Swain v. Swain (1967) 250 Cal. App. 2d 1, 10-11, 58 Cal. Rptr. 83]. The other papers

that should be considered are those on the Judgment Roll should include all intrinsic court

records such as the Reporter’s Transcript records of the April 5, 2012 hearing that show

intrinsically, that the dismissal with prejudice is invalid on its face.qq

13. It is understood that novels and fictionalized works are fiction. Defense Counsels

fails at facilitating this understanding when the infringing work purports to be non-fiction via

use of “spy monologues” for the purpose of ratings, thereby “cashing in” and discarding First

Amendment rights. Combined with the many misappropriated elements of likeness of a live

person, the defendants make one think that what they are viewing is, or could be, non-fiction.

And this is all it takes; because Burn Notice is no longer perceived by the viewer as being

fiction. Therefore, due to the combination of real life spy monologues: “When a spy gets

fired…”; “Being” a spy is like a trip to the dentist…” The underlined words “When” and

“Being” grammatically in English presume a truthfulness in the words that follow. (See lodged

DVD). Combined with the likeness of a real life person talked about in the media for several

years, Defendants do not allow for First Amendment protection for Burn Notice as a work of

fiction.

14. The very dismissal with prejudice means the case was heard on the merits. But

this was not the case. Heard on the merits means the parties are ready and prepared for a full

and fair adversarial contest, a hearing [Jorgensen v. Jorgensen (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 13, 18, 193

P.2d 728)]. Plaintiff having just nine days to prepare for the hearing, asked for a continuance

but was denied (See ex. 8, “RT 303”). The Opposition to Motion to Strike motion was struck

down in its entirety due to it being filed “outside the briefing schedule”, citing “There are


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

rules!” (see ex. 8). What took place after that was a mean and unfair hearing. The attempt by

plaintiff to salvage the situation was not a “Full and fair hearing” that is a requirement of the

law (Klugh v. U.S. D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901)). This makes the dismissal with prejudice

inconsistent with due process so is invalid for these two reasons (Id). As a result of the unfair

hearing, the special motion to strike was granted. This is a clear and obvious abuse of

discretion. Plaintiff hereby requests that the dismissal with prejudice be reversed due to it being

invalid.

15. These events in this case are explained and proven in the rest of this pleading.

Certain other papers on file in the case come from the Reporter’s Transcript (RT), produced for

the appeal show: the hearing on reconsideration without giving notice (Ex. 3-RT 604); and

abuse of discretion by the court (Ex. 8-RT 303). These “certain other papers” are permitted to

be on the Judgment Roll because they are intrinsic evidence that avoids the dangers of extrinsic

evidence (Swain v. Swain, 250 Cal. App. 2d, 10-11). The reason why the invalidity of a

judgment with prejudice can be reversed is so that justice may prevail at the end of the day.

16. In the matter of reconsideration, the judge entered judgment prematurely by

offering to hear it at a later date but she did not give any notice of her plans to plaintiff which

caused a surprise hearing on the matter. She said, “That’ why I’m ruling on it right now, in case

—if it was sent in before I signed the judgment and I wasn’t aware of it, then your situation may

be different.” (See ex. 3, RT 604). The law says, “…when proper notice is not given to all

parties by the movant”, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction so the judgment that

resulted is void due to surprise (Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist.

(1973)) (CCP §473(b). When the court offered to hear reconsideration, she became movant.

The judgment is also void because the surprise, which directly led to denial reconsideration and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an unfair judgment, lacked due process (In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N. E 2d 509; ex. 3, RT

604).

17. Catching plaintiff by surprise and holding him to whatever he could think of

unprepared at the time is “an inconsistency of due process” that makes the judgment void

because the court did not allow a full and fair hearing (FRCP, 60(b)(4); 38 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A.

Const Amend 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 882 (D.S.C.); Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E 2d 741

(Ill. App. Dist (1993)); Matter of Hampshire, 869 P.2d 58 (Kan. 1997)). With a [Proposed]

Judgment in the waiting, a failure at reconsideration meant judgment for the defense counsel.

18. So for the many reasons given above, the circus act must be put to an end. All

courts have a duty to vacate void orders (Jordon v. Gilligan, 3500 F.2d 701, 704 (1974)).

Therefore, “the inherent power of the court to expunge from its records void acts of which it has

knowledge" applies to this case here in California, (Irving v. Rodriquez (1960), 27 Ill.App.2d

75, 79, 169 N.E.2d 145); People v. Childs, 278 Ill.App.3d 65 ("The duty to vacate a void

judgment is based [on this] duty”) 663 N.E.2d 161 (1996). A trial court has wide discretion to

grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal.

App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417). Liberal Construction of Statute is correct. Code of Civil

Procedure Section 473(b) is a remedial measure to be liberally construed (Id at 900, 910).

THE COMPLAINT

19. Plaintiff’s identity is described in his memoir, The Setup: Memoirs of an NSA

Black Operation © 2007 in which he wrote about a period of his life overseas from 1991-1995.

He developed notoriety and a reputation due to the many dangerous and tragic events in his life

which made him look like a burned spy. He got setup, fired, blacklisted, offered his job back;

believes his employer tried to kill him; was mistaken for a CIA agent; and finally got sent back


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

broke to his hometown in the USA. All of these exact events and many others were

misappropriated just 3-5 months after a January 2007-March 2007 distribution of Plaintiff's

draft of his memoir, to various literary agents while in search of a book deal. The infringing

work by Defendants, which aired on June 28, 2007, was the debut of the "Burn Notice" pilot

and the various episodes in the series that followed. Plaintiff preserved his manuscript of "The

Setup" in a fixed medium of expression that shows the “last modified” date as early as a 2003

draft proves that the Plaintiff did not write or modify his manuscript after viewing the infringing

work, but many years before, so is the original "Michael" identity.

A. Defendant Knowingly Misappropriated Plaintiff's Likeness

20. The cause of action for this lawsuit is California Civil Code §3344 that reads as

follows: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or

likeness in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods..." Citing The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it was determined that, a knowing use of likeness can be proven

by a combination of unique and number of elements. This is shown in Burn Notice advertising

(See ex. 4 & 5). Therefore, Mr. Nix knowingly copied and knowingly used (misappropriated)

Plaintiff's likeness in the infringing works. And Plaintiff never gave consent to Defendant or

anyone to use his likeness or identity.

21. The above stated statute prohibits misappropriation of likeness among other

aspects of identity. The choice of the word "Likeness," as a legal element, is purposely abstract

so that it may apply to "A wide variety of possibilities" (P. Bergman, 2010, p. 190). In regard to

this choice of words decided upon by the California legislature: “The courts may not speculate

that the legislature meant something other than what it said. Nor may they rewrite a statute to

make it express an intention not expressed therein.” (45 Cal.Jur.2d, “Statutes,” §128. P. 636).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, the courts should interpret the word “Likeness” according to a dictionary. Plaintiff

turned to Black’s English dictionary. It is defined as: 1. An image, or picture, or; 2. Like or

similar. While common law cases have used the first definition, "picture", the Plaintiff should

not be restricted to just that particular narrow definition as the wording in the statute does not

use the word: "picture", but rather "likeness" which includes the second definition: "Like." By

limiting the court’s meaning for likeness to only pictures, would be at clear odds with the

language of §3344 and case law. Plaintiff feels that due to both the use of a standard English

dictionary, and abstract wording that allows for "A wide variety of possibilities" as mentioned

above, suggests that the court should permit the use of the second definition: Like or similar,

Dean Prosser recognized such need for a wider net to catch all methods of invoking someone's

identity when he recognized that right of publicity cases involved one of these factual scenarios:

name appropriation, and picture or other likeness appropriation. (See Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev.

at 401-02, nn. 156-57).

22. Plaintiff strongly believes that the Michael Westen character is a

misappropriation of his likeness and identity for commercial advantage, currently estimated at

over $500 million, due to the character being very much like the Plaintiff's identity by virtue of

reputation, notoriety and activities. The infringing work, the Michael Westen character is

derived from Plaintiff's unique and distinctive life events/activity. Plaintiff was setup, fired,

blacklisted; sent back broke to his hometown in the USA and nearly killed, et al, all within the

CIA spy context. i.e. "A man known by his reputation."

B. Reputation Actionable

23. Reputation that was garnered by life activities that created Plaintiff's reputation is

actionable. Citing Matthews vs. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 437, 439 (5th Cir. 1994), the justice


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wrote, “Biographical works are not actionable, unless appropriated for the reputation, prestige,

social standing or other values of the Plaintiff." So I stand by my Christian values and

reputation. The reason for misappropriation was due to the value of his likeness and identity by

virtue of his notoriety and reputation as told in the infringed work, "The Setup." In a similar

case, it was found, "Years of labor may be required before one's skill, reputation, notoriety or

virtues are sufficiently developed to permit an economic return through some medium of

commercial promotion. For some, the investment may eventually create considerable

commercial value in one’s identity." (Lugosi, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 834-835 (dis. opn. of Bird, C. J.).

This tells how any person's reputation can be something of commercial value, as told in "The

Setup" that was earned by Christian living while Plaintiff lived overseas. The Evidence

Schedule matches up to show and shows how Plaintiff’s attributes of identity/likeness were

misappropriated to cash in to produce "Burn Notice." Due to Plaintiff being discredited like the

Michael Westen character, I cite a relevant case, the judge wrote, "Thus, in this case, Ohio has

recognized what may be the strongest case for a "right of publicity" -- involving, not the

appropriation of an entertainer's reputation to enhance the attractiveness of a commercial

product, but the appropriation of the very activity by which the entertainer acquired his

reputation in the first place.” (Zacchini, 433 U.S. at p.576.) This applies in the matter of the life

events/activity in the life of the Plaintiff from 1993-95 as told in the infringed work, “The

Setup.” So misappropriating Plaintiff’s reputation, notoriety and life activities, are actionable in

this lawsuit.

C. Identity Readily Identifiable

24. In the case of White vs. Samsung, 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), the justice

ruled on appeal that: Any method of invoking another's identity without consent is a violation of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their right of publicity. This is an example of "other likeness appropriation" mentioned above by

Dean Prosser that can be seen as plugging all the loopholes in the law that any advertiser, with

some creativity, could otherwise exploit to misappropriate another's identity. A test for this

cause of action is whether Plaintiff's identity is infringed by the work in question is whether an

individual's identity is implied (readily identifiable) from the context, even when his/her name is

not used (L.Rich, 2000). A true story of such occurred when a friend who read Plaintiff's work

when it first came out then later viewed an episode of "Burn Notice" exclaimed to Plaintiff,

"They ripped off your book!!!" This is a witness to Plaintiff's likeness and identity being readily

identifiable as could be expected with 20-30 copied attributes of likeness and identity of which

17 can be currently proven. (See Evidence Schedule, exhibit 6). Plaintiff was later shocked and

felt the same way after his first viewing of the "Burn Notice" pilot and various episodes.

Plaintiff knew he had to sue; it was very personal and serious. Defendants had a duty to pay for

the use of Plaintiff’s likeness. They should have contacted Plaintiff to secure a release for his

likeness. Plaintiff estimates that he would have wanted $25 million plus royalties. This amount

is his damages.

25. The sheer number of misappropriated attributes of identity are greatly more than

the few that were needed for the successful appeal in the White vs. Samsung Electronics case,

(971 F. 25 1395 (9th Cir. 1992)). The Evidence Schedule links the 17 copied attributes in the

infringing work and advertisements to the evidence such as specific page and chapter numbers

in "The Setup." (See online ad, exhibit 4 and 5). As a typical advertisement, exhibit 4, like

nearly all marketing for "Burn Notice", Defendants made use of Plaintiff's likeness and identity,

or activities. Many of the attributes are unique and if viewed together, they identify the Plaintiff

and, therefore, raise a triable issue as to the appropriation of his identity.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. First Amendment Issues

26. As a matter of the First Amendment, there could also arise from a question of

who created the value in "Burn Notice." While the main character, Michael Westen may

demonstrate some transformative elements, courts may find useful a subsidiary inquiry to

answer the question: “Does the marketability and economic value of the challenged work derive

primarily from the [depicted person’s] fame.” (See Comedy III Productions vs. Saderup,

paragraph 49, 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001)). The show's value has been shown in marketing and

advertising efforts to be based on the "Burn Notice" main character Michael Westen in which

Plaintiff’s identity and reputation are dominant and nearly all copied, or like, the Plaintiff's

description of his life events in his 2003 draft, and 2007 finished memoir, "The Setup." (See

online advertisement, exhibit 4 and 5). Therefore, the value of "Burn Notice" pilot and series,

which have estimated accumulation of profits of $500 million to $700 million, was derived

from Plaintiff's book, "The Setup." Defendants therefore appropriated Plaintiff’s likeness and

identity for their advantage. After several attempts to secure a settlement, Defendants refused to

acknowledge liability forcing Plaintiff to seek damages and profits under California Civil Code

§3344 (a).

27. The cause of action in this lawsuit, a Right of Publicity law violation, is concerned

with the unconsented use of someone’s identity/likeness i.e. Identity theft was used to sell a

product, or in this case advertising for a television show. Burn Notice got its start by

misappropriating Plaintiff’s likeness in the pilot and in advertising for the show as well as in the

series. And due to it being foreseeable that Defendants could profit by turning the pilot into a

series, they are liable for the profits of the series. In marketing and advertising efforts, Plaintiff’s

likeness was merely used to attract viewers to the entertaining message of the private


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investigator’s many adventures so Defendants are liable under right of publicity laws. (L.L. Rich,

2000). In the series, valuable elements of Plaintiff’s identity were synthesized from the original

work and another work, the McGyver series. Therefore due to all of the misappropriations from

The Setup and McGyver, analysis of Burn Notice shows few creative (original, not

misappropriated) elements of value and so is not transformative. The similarities between

infringed work and infringing work would is readily apparent from just watching and reading the

works in question. This is not a copyright infringement lawsuit in which plot or storyline is the

issue. The lawsuit is a matter of details which can be seen when the elements of identity or

likenesses are made clear by marketing efforts (See exhibits 4 and 5). Decision making in right

of publicity cases is based on where of the value in the show comes from. The value of “Burn

Notice” is 80%-90% based on the Michael Westen character. Like in The Setup, the Michael

character produces value from his activity. His private investigations job and CIA special ops

skills together constitute only several original, and not copied or similar, transformative

elements. “The issue is more quantitative…asking whether the literal and imitative or the

creative elements predominate in the work” (Comedy III Productions, Supra, par. 48). The

question is over authorship of the predominate number of valuable attributes of identity or

transformative elements that determine the value of the character/identity and thus the show

Burn Notice.

28. As you can see from the ad, Burn Notice got its start based on a minimum of

about five valuable attributes of identity lifted from Plaintiff’s book. Therefore, Burn Notice

does not warrant First Amendment protections despite “…the many creative and valuable

elements of the character.” Therefore, while there may exist “many creative elements of the

character” by the Defendants, in considering the source of value of Burn Notice, Defendants’


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

creative elements did not predominate so did not meet the legal requirement of containing

"Significant transformative elements" per the definition of significant. (See Comedy III

Productions, supra, paragraph 50, 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001)). Therefore, the Michael Westen

identity is not transformative and so does not warrant First Amendment protections.

29. An inquiry of these transformative issues is: “Whether the [depicted person’s]

likeness is one of the “raw materials” from which an original work is synthesized …” (See

Comedy III Productions, Supra, paragraph 47, 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001)). A synthesis is a

combination of two or more works to produce a new work. Looking at the infringed work

preserved on computer files, Chapter 5, page 2, we see an example of the use of plaintiff’s raw

materials in which Plaintiff describes how he was blacklisted overseas.

"In a country where reputation is everything, UBS was giving me a bad reference,

and were even spreading rumors. This really hit me hard because not only had

they violated my civil right[s], but also they had fired me; then to make it worse

they were slandering me."

This resulted in the "Burn Notice" pilot, the statement, “You’re blacklisted !” This is just one of

many examples of a synthesis and use of Plaintiff's attribute of likeness and identity (See The

Setup, p. 32). The anti-thesis is “McGyver” a television show about a very resourceful agent

who fights crime. The combination of McGyver and The Setup were synthesized to produce

value for Burn Notice which produced few original (creative) elements of likeness to claim as

their own.

E. Transformative Use Test

30. This test is the most often used one for deciding Right of Publicity cases

like this one. It was derived from the case, California Supreme Court’s landmark, Comedy v.

Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001). The Court found that expressive works that merely use the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

celebrity likeness as “raw materials” from which an original work is synthesized… are not

protected [by the First Amendment].” Raw materials is the best way to describe the use of the

plaintiff’s likeness. While defendants used his valuable elements of likeness ie fired overseas,

blacklisted, believed by be a CIA agent, nearly killed, offered his old job back, left with no

money; modern spy story. These uses were listed on the Evidence Schedule (ex. 6). (See lodged

copy of pilot and plaintiff’s book: The Setup: Memoirs of a Black Operation). The defendants’

only used his first name, airline instructed to fly him home that were not valuable. Therefore, in

every aspect of law, we can see an misappropriation of likeness and plaintiff pleads for justice.

First Claim for Relief-Injunctive Relief

31. The Plaintiff asks for the court to order the Defendants to give credit where credit

is due and state on all future episodes or other works involving the Michael Westen character,

the following credit: "The Michael Westen character is based on the life of Michael Terry as

written in his memoir, The Setup: Memoirs of an NSA Black Operation."

Second Claim for Relief-Monetary Recovery

32. The Defendants produced a very popular television show now in its fifth season

with sales and distribution in over 56 foreign countries and all across the USA. According to

California civil code §3344, Plaintiff is entitled to all profits (Sales revenues minus deductible

expenses) roughly estimated at well over $500 million. Sales revenues will be determined by

the expert witness and deductible expenses will be provided by the Defendants. Considering the

years it took the Plaintiff to develop his notoriety and reputation (Before being thoroughly

discredited like the Michael Westen character in Burn Notice). Plaintiff's work "The Setup" is

listed as additional reference material for a U.S. Foreign Policy course (See exhibit 6), "INTS


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4700", at the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies. It is a school

that actively trains U.S. diplomats such as the former Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice

who earned her PhD there.

33. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants for $25 million

in common law damages, and statutory damages and punitive damages of $5 million for bad

faith and frivolous tactics that harassed and defamed plaintiff and led to an injustice over the

span of four years. Finally, Plaintiff asks for recognition of "The Setup" as being the basis of the

Michael Westen character.

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the allegations in this complaint are true."

__________________________________ Michael Terry, Plaintiff in Pro Per


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

State of California, County of San Bernardino

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am a

resident of San Bernardino County. On January ___, 2017, I served the following with U.S.

Postal Service tracking number 9114-9010-7574-2357-1671-71:

1. Exhibit 1 Psychiatrist evaluation2.3. Exhibit 3 RT 604 MFR4. Exhibit 4 Online ad #15. Exhibit 5 Online ad #26. Exhibit 6 Evidence Schedule7. Exhibit 7 Fox letter8. Exhibit 8 RT 303 Abuse of discr9. Exhibit 9 Court Counsel letter10. Complaint-collateral attack11. Summons12. Acknowledgment of Receipt13. Proof of Service

on the interested party that appeared in the action of Michael Terry v. Fox Group and Matt Nix.

The party served is:

Fox Group Mr. Matt NixAttn: Legal Dept. c/o William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

P.O. Box 900 9601 Wilshire Blvd., 3rd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Service By Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope and addressed as above and

mailed it at a U.S. Post Office facility with postage fully paid.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is correct and true.

Executed on January ___, 2017 at Redlands, California.

___________________________ Chieko Terry


Fox-Complaint 1-31-17F

Documents

Transcript of Fox-Complaint 1-31-17F