Home | Bio | Diary | News | Music | Video | Film | Books | Poetry | Art | Info | Interact | Tour | Links | Press | Contact


Your Ad Here

...

Your Ad Here

 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPEAL DOCKET NO: 06-11760-E 

AISHA ET AL,

       Plaintiffs-Appellants 

v.

MADONNA ET AL

       Defendants-Appellees

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: CIV 05-22618 COOKE 

 APPEALS BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

                                                                                                              Tab no.:

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………….……1

MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL/COVER LETTERS…….……....…..2

BRIEF……………………………………………………………………...….3

Certificate of Service ………………………………………………Page 1

Certificate of Interest ………………………………………………Page 1

Table of Authorities…………………………………………………Page 2

Jurisdictional Statement…………………………………………….Page 3

Assertion …………………………………………………………….Page 5

Statement of Issues……………………....…………………………..Page 5

Statement of Case …………………………………………………....Page 8

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………Page 25

Summary of Argument………………………………………………..Page 26

Certificate of Compliance ……………………………………………Page 30

  

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APPEAL DOCKET NO: 06-11760-E 

AISHA ET AL,

       Plaintiffs-Appellants 

v.

MADONNA ET AL

       Defendants-Appellees

 

 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: CIV 05-22618 COOKE

 

BRIEF OF AISHA GOODISON AS APPELLANT, PRO SE

 

Certificate of Service  

1. I certify that I have sent a copy of this appeal to the Defendants-Appellees by first class U.S. Mail:

Lions Gate Films, c/o Ira Gutt, Behar, Gutt & Glazer, 2999 N.E. 191 Street, Fifth Floor
Aventura, Florida 33180 

Buena Vista/Disney, c/o Paul J. Scheck, Shutts & Bowen LLP, 300 South Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32802

Jive Records and Warner Bros Records, c/o Akerman Senterfitt, Suite 2800, One Southeast Third Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131 

Robert A. Jacobs, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036

Certificate of Interest

2. Each of the Defendants-Appellees, entertainment industry members and book publishing entities, sued in Aisha v. Madonna criminally profited from plundering copyrighted works solely belonging to the Plaintiff-Appellant. These willful acts constituted serious civil and criminal violations of U.S. and U.N. laws. They collectively gained ill-gotten wealth to the tune of $500,000,000 in criminally stealing copyrighted intellectual property protected by domestic and international law that they procured most of via commissioned criminal means. They further commissioned acts of harassment, assault, home invasion, identity theft and improper and illegal investigation of the Plaintiff-Appellant.  They all have an interest in the outcome of this case. 

3. The parties are MADONNA A/K/A MADONNA RITCHIE, GUY RITCHIE, DISNEY, BUENA VISTA PICTURES, WALT DISNEY PICTURES, WALT DISNEY RECORDS, MICHAEL EISNER, JERRY BRUCKHEIMER, JERRY BRUCKHEIMER FILMS, TIME WARNER AOL, WARNER BROS, WARNER BROS RECORDS, WARNER BROS TV, WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC PUBLISHING, WEBO GIRL MUSIC PUBLISHING, WB MUSIC CORP, WARNER VISION, MAD GUY ENTERTAINMENT INC, BERTRAM FIELDS, STUART PRICE, MAVERICK RECORDS, MAVERICK FILMS, GUY OSEARY, MARK MORGAN, MOTOROLA, LIZ ROSENBERG, STEVEN KLEIN, BRITNEY SPEARS, MUSIC TODAY INC, LUC BESSON, STEVE CHRISTIAN, VIRGINIE SILLA, PIERRE SPENGLER, SKA ILMS,

EUROPACORP, CHRISTOPHER CICCONE, GWENYTH STEFANI, HARAJUKU LOVER MUSIC, PHARRELL WILLIAMS, CHAD HUGO, STAR TRAK, INTERSCOPE RECORDS, NICK CANNON, ZOMBA RECORDING LLC, SONY BMG, DARREN SHERRILL, JAMES EDWARD JONES, LILLY DARRON KEITH,

BOOGOLOGY MUSIC, LIL D MUSIC PUBLISHING, DARREN SHERRILL MUSIC,

CALLAWAY ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, ANDREWS MCMEEL PUBLISHING, MISSY ELLIOT, MIRWAIS AHMADZAI, DONATELLA VERSACE, VERSACE INC, PRATO VERDE, MARIO TESTINO, VICTORIA NEWTON, GRAHAM DUDMAN, NICKI WATERMAN, THE SUN NEWSPAPER LTD UK,

NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD, GARY MARSHALL AKA GARRY MARSHALL, GINA WENDKOS, MEG CABOT, SHONDA RHIMES, PATRIOT PICTURES, PATRIOT ADVISORS, ARCLIGHT FILMS, JOHN QUAINTANCE, SUSAN JANSEN, JESSICA O’TOOLE, AMY RARDIN, MARTHA COOLIDGE, MICHAEL MENDELSON, CHARLES HOWARD, SUNIL NAYAR, STEVEN MAEDA, MICHAEL OSTROWSKI, COREY MILLER, ILDY MODROVICH,

BRIAN DAVIDSON, MARC DUBE, LIONS GATE FILMS INC, MARK AMIN,

KATHERINE FUGATE, JACK AMIEL, MICHAEL BEGLER, JONAS AKERLUND,

DAVID BERCUSON, UNIVERSAL PICTURES, PAUL WEITZ, CHRIS WEITZ, DEPTH OF FIELD, PAUL WEITZ, CHRIS WEITZ, DEPTH OF FIELD, UNIVERSAL PICRTURES, JOE HENRY, JOHAN RENCK, PROD4EVER, CHIME INTERACTIVE,

CHRISTIAN KARLSSON AND PONTUS WINNBERG A/K/A BLOODSHY AND AVANT. 

Table of Authorities 

4. Buchwald v. Paramount1990 California Superior Court filing where Eddie Murphy and Paramount Pictures were sued for breach of contract and copyright infringement over the film “Coming To America” that unlawfully used his story treatment as its basis, in the Hollywood tradition without credit or compensation to him. Buchwald won the case.  

5. USA v. Pellicano (CR no. 05-1046 (C) – RMT) 2006 filing, Appellee Madonna’s lawyer’s private investigator indicted on 110 counts of wiretapping, fraud, hacking, racketeering and illegal access to personal records. Pattern of misconduct the Plaintiff-Appellant alleged in her lawsuit 5 months prior to the Pellicano indictments are the same set of charges and alleged misconduct the Plaintiff-Appellant alleged in her suit months prior to the District attorney’s filing, revealing previously unreleased to the public pattern of misconduct utilized against unwitting entertainment industry members. 

6. Patrick Brothers v. Murphy1996 Southern California case brought by a pair of brothers who alleged Eddie Murphy stole their script for the film the Nutty Professor. The case was settled out of court in the Plaintiffs’ favor.  

Jurisdictional Statement 

7. The Appellant asserts this Court has jurisdiction over this case filed on September 31, 2005 in the Southern District Of Florida and dismissed in the same venue on December 21, 2005 by Judge Marcia Cooke, therefore it should proceed at this Appeals venue of the 11th Circuit: 

8. The Plaintiff is a tax paying resident of Miami, in the Southern District of Florida.  

9. The Plaintiff has been a law abiding resident of Miami for the past 20 years, in the Southern District of Florida.  

10. The Plaintiff’s business that was criminally stolen from by the Defendants is located in Miami, in the Southern District of Florida.

11. The majority of the malfeasances committed against the Plaintiff occurred in Miami, in the Southern District of Florida.  

12. Defendant Warner Bros Records has offices in Miami, Florida in the Southern District of Florida, located at 15800 NW 48th Avenue, Miami, FL 33014. It was written this year that Defendant Madonna has been a resident of Miami, Florida and that Defendant Missy Elliot is a resident of Miami, Florida.  

13. Numerous Federal laws this Court has jurisdiction over have been willfully violated by the Defendants such as Copyright Infringement, Criminal Copyright Infringement, Unfair Trade Practices, Mail Fraud, Fraud, Wire Fraud, Wiretapping, Internet Fraud, Assault, Harassment, Grand Theft Larceny, Human Rights violations, Civil Rights violations, violations of The U.S. Constitution and violations of United Nations Laws (much of which occurred on U.S. soil). This Court has subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 1338. All the Plaintiffs infringed works were registered with the copyright office prior to them being infringed by the nefarious, avaricious Defendants.  

14. The case has been sent to the FBI and DOJ due to the number of Federal and international laws that have been broken by the Defendants. The Plaintiff, upon interview and delivering case documents to the North Miami Beach, Florida branch of the FBI, was told that the case will be investigated.  

15. Defendant Warner Bros Records and Jive (SONY/BMG) recently admitted committing willful violations of Federal law, felonies, in utilizing the unlawful practice of payola (“pay for play” – paying DJs for radio airplay, which is illegal). Upon information and belief, Defendant Warner Bros Records and SONY BMG have settled with the New York State Attorney’s Office for millions in fines and admitted wrongdoing. This recent development is additional evidence that Jive/SONY BMG and their affiliates and Warner Bros Records and there affiliates are no strangers to breaking Federal law in the operation of their business, much like the Plaintiff asserts in her Complaint they have done to her, trampling on her rights and willfully stealing her Federally and internationally protected copyrighted works, both released and unreleased, in acts that also constitute numerous felonies.  

16. It was made public last month that Defendants Madonna and Warner Bros Records were found guilty of Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement in Belgium (Acquaviva v. Madonna) in a crushing legal blow, the most definitive of its kind in music history against a major label and artist. It is the very misconduct the Plaintiff asserts in her Complaint they committed against her in willfully breaking U.S. Federal Law, over which this Court has jurisdiction. The Judge, Xavier Hiernaux, ordered a complete recall in the country of Belgium (population 10,000,000), of all copies of Madonna’s copyright infringing works “Ray Of Light” and “Frozen,” ordering that these works never be played again in Belgium and never aired again on Belgian TV.  

17. The Plaintiffs’ web site, transmitted from the Southern District of Florida, is viewed nationally and internationally with over 6,500,000 hits and counting, had its copyrights willfully infringed by the Defendants. 

Assertion   

18. The Appellant appeals from Judge Marcia Cooke’s FINAL ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT.  

Statement of the Issues

19. Appellant Aisha Goodison is a singer/writer/producer/director and owner of the independent film, record and literary company, Sonustar. The Appellees in flagrant, blatant violations of United States, Jamaican and United Nations laws willfully violated her copyrights and human rights. The Appellant is the sole owner and author of a very valuable copyrighted catalog of literary works that include several thousand songs, dozens of movie scripts and synopses, dozens of music video treatments and over 12 book manuscripts. It is the largest independently authored and owned catalog in the world. This action and its subsequent appeal arise out of the Appellees greedily and criminally helping themselves to very valuable items from the Appellant’s copyrighted catalog, in willful acts that violate civil and criminal law, both domestic and international.  

20. These were not crimes of necessity, but willfully acts of greed and avarice – and when the Appellant began to verbally and legally fight back to protect her property, via slamming their conduct on her site read by millions and initiating litigation, it evolved into crimes of harassment, wiretapping, stalking, terrorization and commissioned assault.  

21. In addition to stealing millions in copyrighted songs and lyrics from Aisha’s publicly viewed web site, www.AishaMusic.com, containing songs, lyrics, photos and an entertainment Column, all seen by millions internationally, Madonna, the main Appellee developed a sick habit of quoting verbatim, word for word, items from the Appellant’s copyrighted Sound Off Column and online Diary pages after they were copyrighted and published online to the Appellant’s large readership - to the point that the Appellant began receiving emails from readers asking her if she noticed how Madonna was ripping her off.  

22. Madonna would quote word for word items from Aisha’s already copyrighted and published site articles and updates, days and sometimes weeks later in her own Warner Bros arranged interviews. These were willful acts of plagiarism and copyright infringement, as the items she continually quoted from Aisha’s already copyrighted site were original items that Madonna plagiaristicly attributed to herself, and not to Aisha’s web site where she stole them from. She turned Aisha into a glorified speechwriter without permission. The Appellant’s web site’s statistical software recorded thousands of these visits by the Appellees, inextricably tying them to her web site. 

23. Shortly after, Madonna’s misconduct took an even viler turn, utilizing that same pattern of mimicking items the Appellant Aisha had written/said on her web site, evolving into commissioned wiretapping, where articles where placed in newspaper columns run by publicly affiliated Madonna cronies, such as Victoria Newton of the Sun Newspaper, containing verbatim, word for word excerpts from Aisha’s personal and business phone calls that were perversely attributed to Madonna in print. Many credible people Aisha spoke to over the phone on a regular basis witnessed Madonna do this disturbing, perverse act time and time again. 

24. The Appellant’s lawsuit, the subject of this appeal, was filed on September 31, 2005. In it she alleged several items that have now been confirmed via USA v. Pellicano. These items in the Pellicano indictments were just made public this year and show a pattern of corruption utilized by Madonna’s affiliates.  

25. Anthony Pellicano is the now incarcerated private investigator of Appellee Madonna’s lawyer, Bertram Fields, of Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman, Machtinger & Kinsella, who has been indicted on 110 counts of wiretapping, identity theft and racketeering.  

26. Those are three of the exact same charges the Appellant levied against Madonna, her attorney Bert Fields and their cohorts, in the Appellant’s lawsuit filed 5 months prior to the FBI’s indictments in February 2006.  

Circle Of Corruption 

27. Madonna’s lawyer Bert Fields has been presented with evidence the FBI has against him in the wiretapping indictments and, “They agreed to extend the deadline for prosecutors to decide whether to file charges against the 76-year-old Fields” thus temporarily suspending the statute of limitations, in order to give Fields a “queen for a day” session with the federal prosecutors.  

28. The indictments and recently unsealed contents thereof show an astonishing pattern of harassment and racketeering utilized against industry members, all bearing the same tactics and pattern. The same forms of misconduct were utilized against unwitting industry members in disputes with this same small set, several of which include the Appellees and their circle of corruption, who thought it a prudent, albeit illegal way, to dispose of litigation and situations brought on by their own misconduct.  

29. The FBI is currently investigating the case of harassment and intellectual property theft against the Appellant and the persistent, related break-ins to her home. The Appellant has also sought outside domestic and international experts to provide further evidence, expertise and testimony to the case. 

30. Nine members of Madonna’s lawyer’s firm, Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman, Machtinger & Kinsella, are leaving the law firm in the wake of the indictments and scandal. 

31. To this day, this misconduct regarding copyright infringement and illegally disclosing the contents of the Appellant’s private telephone conversations, as a form of harassment, continues at Madonna’s hands. 

Statement of the Case  

32. In her 2005 lawsuit the Appellant also charged the Appellees with commissioning burglaries to her home. Associates of the Appellees have utilized similar misconduct before. Appellee Madonna is head of the sick, law breaking Kabbalah Cult, whose founder Phillip Berg broke into the home of a dead rabbi and stole intellectual property. Berg stole the deceased rabbi’s book manuscript from his home and criminally published it as his own works. It caught the attention of the deceased rabbi’s family and other rabbinical agents, and a lawsuit was brought by the bereaved, which Defendant Berg lost. Since the filing of the Appellant’s lawsuit her home has been broken into 4 more times that she knows of, with copyrights and case materials stolen, such as data compact discs labeled “Copyrights” and another labeled “UK.” However, there are other copies in existence. During one of the break-ins where the Appellant was not home, her house’s electrical system was willfully tampered with in such a tell tale manner that it  indisputably was done as a form of harassment. 

33. On March 3, 2006, the Appellant’s home had been broken into for the fourth time. The barrel of the lock on the backdoor was removed and placed on the ground, face up, at the very edge of the doorframe as a harassment tactic. It was a brand new lock and brand new door – and it now displayed signs of criminal tampering in that an object of some sort was jammed into the corner of the lock’s barrel to pry it out. The Appellant, once again, called the police and reported the incident. 

34. Two weeks later, on March 18, 2006, an article appeared in the Los Angles Times that got the Appellant’s attention, as it was regarding Madonna’s lawyer’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, and a previously unreleased incident of him getting angry at a client that paid him to wiretap a young woman who had reported him for sexual assault. Pellicano grew angry because his client was growing jittery over the illegal wiretap and wanted to hire a new attorney that Pellicano did not like.  

35. Said client has since been indicted with Pellicano on wiretapping charges, and recently confessed that Pellicano, who is frequently employed by Madonna’s lawyer, Bert Fields, was hired by him and others, because he illegally wiretaps people and can get you the contents of their private conversations.  

36. As a threat to keep quiet about the illegal wiretapping and not hire a new attorney who may not go along with it, Pellicano glued the locks to the man’s office shut and stuck a knife in one of the locks:

37. "Last year, Abramson said, federal prosecutors played her and her client a recorded conversation in which Pellicano urged Kalta not to fire another attorney in order to hire Abramson. "He said I was not a lawyer he could trust," Abramson said.

Kalta, however, hired Abramson, who brought in another private investigator.

After that, Abramson said, Kalta found the locks in his office glued shut. One of the doors had a knife jammed into a keyhole." - L.A. Times March 18, 2006

38. It is further evidence that the Hollywood set involved in the scandal, several of whom are the subject of this appeal, have done business with individuals who regularly engage in unlawful acts, that numerous entertainment industry members have now come forward and said they were victims of as well.  

39. The same form of harassment is being utilized against numerous entertainment industry members and the Appellant is irrefutability one of them - however, the locale being changed to Miami, where Appellee Madonna was sued in 1995 by a married couple for criminally invading their privacy and harassing them, upon being rebuffed by them, due to them being a monogamous heterosexual couple. When she was rebuffed and rejected, as she is known for being a perverse sexual deviant who put out a book featuring bestiality and wrote of acts of pedophilia, it was alleged that a horrible pattern of harassment, stalking and invasion of privacy ensued against the couple, commission by Madonna. Additionally two gay men sued Appellee Madonna for invasion of privacy in sickly attempting to use sexual footage of them without their permission. She has also been sued (and lost) for copyright infringement many times, in fact, more times than any other artist in the history of the entertainment industry. Therefore, once again, a pattern exists for the despicable misconduct she commissioned against the Appellant.  

40. Due to the recent indictments that have unfolded over the past several weeks, previous cases have been legally reopened with previous verdicts challenged, as it was recently revealed the Appellees, namely Bert Fields, Madonna’s lawyer, had allegedly “wiretapped” his legal opponents and used items from the wiretaps in Court, which is unlawful and a violation of lawyer client confidentiality privilege.  

41. The FBI has given the Plaintiffs who reopened those cases documents showing their lawyer client conversations were allegedly wiretapped by Bert Field’s private investigator.  

42. The Appellant has been stalked, harassed, threatened and assaulted by people who were commissioned to do so in attempts to scare her out of pursuing her legal rights that would bar them from any further use of her very valuable copyrighted catalog and reclaim the works they’ve already willfully stolen and violated. 

43. Aisha’s copyrighted catalog that they have willfully stolen from has already netted them over $500,000,000 in ill-gotten, criminal profit. This was and is their motivation for the continued misconduct – money. And at the expense of a hard working writer who has no criminal record or history of misconduct or strange behavior – while the Appellees have a laundry list of lawsuits, sick conduct and an FBI criminal probe testifying of their misconduct against numerous people – not just the Appellant.  

44. It shows a pattern of misconduct that has violated numerous laws, both domestic and international, that must be taken into consideration in this case and appeal, as it is the same exact pattern of misconduct happening to the Appellant that has and continues to happen to others. 

45. One month before she filed this lawsuit, the Appellant was even choked on her way to Court, by a menacing man who as he choked her, spewed the contents of one of her recent telephone conversations at her and spouted off about a missing letter. When she went to the courthouse, she found out from the judge that there was indeed a missing letter she did not receive by mail that could have cost her her home. Numerous items of mail were arriving to the Appellant’s mailbox blatantly opened as well, further invading her privacy. This was a first for the Appellant in 20 plus years of receiving mail. She reported the mail tampering to the Postmaster General.  

Judge Marcia Cooke’s Inappropriate Conduct 

46. The Appellant’s Copyrights were willfully violated by the Appellees in acts that can only be described as avaristic and unconscionable. Under the law, the Appellant is entitled to relief. However, Judge Marcia Cooke deprived her of those legal rights on a legally deficient, non-law based premise, which was her opinion that “pop culture icons” and the “companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” could not have possibly done the “sensational allegations” leveled against them.  

47. Judge Cooke first referred to the Appellant’s lawsuit as an “amusing read,” in her ruling for dismissal in favor of a “pop culture icon,” Madonna, who went to her alma matter, much to the offense of the Appellant, her family and international experts who have been sought by the Appellant’s family regarding the willfully, blatant, disgraceful United Nations Human Rights, Civil Rights and Intellectual Property rights violations transpiring against the Appellant. These violations include criminal copyright infringement, assault, harassment, terroristic threats, stalking, wiretapping and multiple home invasions, where her house was tampered with and case evidence stolen. 

48. Yet, a serious case of this magnitude, that the Appellant’s father, a famous Jamaican national residing in Jamaica, was so appalled by what judge Cooke wrote, brought the matter to Her Majesty the Queen’s Counsel in Jamaica regarding the strange ruling. They concluded, informally to her father, that based on the facts, the Appellant is the owner of the works, as she wrote and copyrighted it first, then it was willfully stolen and infringed years later by the Appellees.  

49. Other international members of government sought by the Appellant’s family are equally baffled at judge Cooke’s ruling, that as one can tell by reading the dismissal, is prejudicially based on her opinion of “pop culture icons” and clearly not the case evidence before her.  

50. Justice cannot accommodate such frivolity, partiality and prejudice. Furthermore, it was cruel, abhorrent and unconscionable for a Federal Judge to refer to a case with such vile human rights violations as “an amusing read.” It was thoroughly inappropriate, sarcastic, nasty, sick and extremely unprofessional. The Appellant has been choked, harassed, threatened, defrauded with her home’s privacy willfully violated on several documented occasions. There is nothing “amusing” about that.  

Time Frame Via Docket Sheet And Court Filings Reveal That Judge Marcia Cooke Could Not Have Read The Case And The Evidence Before Summarily And Hastily Tossing It Out And Erring In Her Final Ruling  

51. Judge Cooke was provided with credible digital, audio, text and banking proof of the misconduct committed by the Appellees that she never addressed and according to the Federal Court’s case transfer sheets between her and the previous presiding judge, Cecilia Altonaga, who was asked to recuse herself due to a gross, blatant conflict of interest, could not have read in that short time frame of a couple days. Judge Cooke could not have possibly read the case and its evidence between the time she signed for the case, received it and then summarily dismissed it – a grand total of two days. The case contained over 300 pages of evidence and the Complaint of 60 pages, along with several digital data and audio compact discs, total numbering in Gigabytes in size. She could not have reviewed all the materials in under two days and tended to her other cases, such as Jose Padilla. It is not the human norm to digest that much text and data in under two days, while tending to a judge’s standard caseload.  

52. Judge Cooke opted to throw the case out without reading all the case and credible evidence, in favor of a “pop culture icon” who went to her alma mater, who she deemed could not have done the “sensational” accusations leveled against her. Said “pop culture icon” who has an irrefutable, horrible track record of copyright infringement, assault and invasion of privacy testifying against her. Her continued pattern of breaking the law, having been sued for these willful acts of misconduct, and credibly so, more times than any other artist in music history, was deliberately not taken into account by the judge either. Furthermore, Appellee Madonna has not won any of the cases brought against her.  

53. Recently, a judge in Belgium threw the book at Madonna for willfully stealing an indie musician’s song (John Acquaviva v. Madonna) that was written and copyrighted years before Madonna stole it for her later released song “Frozen.” The judge in the case ordered all of Madonna’s infringing materials in Belgium removed off the shelves at once. He also forbade the video for the song ever being shown on TV or the song played on radio again. Madonna denied knowing anything about the indie musician or the song, until Paris Match uncovered a photo of an unknown Madonna having dinner with the producer of the song she went on to willfully infringe. This was one of many copyright infringement lawsuits against Madonna for willfully stealing copyrighted works.  

Judge Cecilia Altonaga’s Inappropriate Conduct 

54. Previously, Judge Cecilia Altonaga was recused from this case for a gross conflict of interest that she deliberately did not disclose, opting to preside over a case the Federal Judicial Cannons forbade her to, as her teenage daughter has stock in the Appellees’ company and her husband is a partner in a law firm in which the Appellees are one of their biggest clients, where said Judge’s household derives significant income. Said law firm makes millions in legal fees from one of the Appellees companies. She further suggested in Court that the Appellant file the case in State court, which would have been the wrong jurisdiction with lesser penalties and ability for relief and recovery.  

55. Judge Cecilia Altonaga, unprovoked, further inappropriately took it upon herself to verbally abuse and slander the Appellant at an Appellee called hearing in December of 2005, disgracefully and partially voicing her praise for the famous Appellees and their attorneys who put food on the judge’s table. The judge was more concerned with the legal fees they would incur, Appellees with deep financial ties to the judge’s family via her husband and their daughter with stock in one of their companies, than the Appellant and her family whose privacy was horribly being violated with millions in copyrighted works criminally being stolen.  

56. During said hearing Judge Altonaga focused more on the legal fees the miscreant Appellees would incur than the fact that a hard working writer and her family were being criminally and financially victimized via commissioned home invasion burglaries to steal copyrighted compact discs and tamper with the electrical and locks in their home as a form of harassment/threat, wiretapping and stalking accompanied by threats from strangers who had clearly been made privy to the personal contents of the Appellant’s phone calls and repeated them to her verbatim (as Appellee Bert Fields’ incarcerated private investigator Anthony Pellicano did to other industry members), assault, identity theft, blacklisting, libel and defamation of character. Such judicial misconduct is a black eye on the judiciary that further erodes the public’s confidence in said institution of government. 

57. Laws Violated In Which The Plaintiff-Appellants Are Entitled To Relief 

1. Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 101
2. The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1051
3. The Business and Professions Code of Sections 17500 to 17535
4. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
5. Title 18 section 1341 of the U.S. Code (Mail Fraud)
6. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
7. Violations of The U.S. Constitution: The Fourth Amendment
8. Multiple willful violations of RICO statues
9. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986
10. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec.1001
11. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec.1030.
12. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510
13. The No Electronic Theft Act (NET)
14. 17 U.S.C. _ 506 (a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. _2319(c)(3)
15. Multiple violations of The Universal Copyright Act of 1952
16. Multiple violations of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
17. Multiple violations of The Berne Treaties of 1967, which the U.S. joined in 1989 and swore to uphold.
18. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR 1948), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
19. The United Nations Guidelines/Computerized Personal Data Files, which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
20. The European Convention on Human Rights
21. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
22. The inter-American declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Art V), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
23. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (Art 11), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
24. The United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child, which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold. 

Burden Of Proof 

58. The burden of proof in this case does not lie with the Appellant, as she has provided the Court with irrefutable evidence of both civil and criminal violations of the law, both international and domestic, indisputable points of access to her copyrighted catalog that the Appellees utilized millions of dollars of without permission or payment, which is forbidden under domestic and international law. This is inexcusable conduct that should have been addressed by the Court, but Judge Marcia Cooke opted not to in favor of her non-evidence, lawless, prejudiced, biased opinion of “pop culture icons” who went to her alma mater and the “companies who bring their entertainment to the masses.” Justice cannot accommodate favoritism and the willful disregard of evidence and case exhibits.  

59. Judge Cooke clearly and prejudicially had her mind made up before she got the case she had for all of two days, that she was going to throw it out, and that she did – evidence and all, which is unconstitutional, unlawful and a violation of the Cannons.    

60. Judge Cooke completely disregarded solid banking records that show the Appellees allowed a hacker to commit identity theft using the Appellant’s ATM Visa card provided to AOL/Warner Bros for internet service, in attempts to spend all the money in her account, as a form of harassment, when she announced the pending release of her CD titled “Aisha.”  

61. Tellingly, it was later revealed in the 2006 case USA v. Pellicano, where Madonna’s lawyer, Appellee Bert Field’s private investigator has been indicted, that one of the charges listed against him is identity theft – the very crime the Appellant leveled against them in her 2005 lawsuit. Once again, it shows a pattern of harassment utilized by this same small Hollywood set against numerous people in the industry.  

62. The Appellant has laid out what happened in black and white using admissible evidence, similar to items accepted in other cases, supporting her lawsuit with concrete evidence that Judge Cooke did not address and based on the sign in docket sheet of transfer between judges, could not have read in such a short time, tend to her other cases and appear in court all day.

63. In her ruling for dismissal of this case Judge Marcia Cooke made erroneous statements about prior instructions and rulings rendered in the case before she presided over it, which clearly illustrated she did not read the case or its previous motions/filings – or failed to read them properly – nor did she take what is a serious international human rights matter seriously, opting to perversely refer to it as “an amusing read” which is highly inappropriate for a federal judge or any officer of the Court, for that matter. 

64. She referred to the Appellant’s lawsuit as “tabloid” – when the Appellant had presented the Court/Judge with federally and internationally protected copyrights that were blatantly and shamefully infringed in whole and part, police reports, bank statements showing criminal misconduct that began with one of the Appellees in the case, as mentioned above, who at the time of the identity theft were owned by perpetual copyright infringer Madonna’s label Warner Bros. 

65. The Appellant further presented the Court with other solid, federal Copyright evidence that Judge Cooke opted to ignore in favor of her fact-less opinion of “pop culture icons” which sends a very dangerous message to the public – that if your rights are violated by a “pop culture icon” your case, its accompanying concrete evidence, your legal and Constitutional rights will be summarily tossed out the window by the federal court system, as “pop culture icons” could not possibly break the law and or commit any misdeeds that would attach them to “sensational accusations” – which in the real world, anyone with any basic sense knows is a ridiculous premise to conduct the law and the administering of justice upon.  

66. Judge Cooke via her ruling dangerously displayed the blind faith of a child in “pop culture icons” that court dockets all over the world and around the country show, frequently engage in breaking the law and in the same vein they did in this case – which was also included in this case as a point of reference to show prior misconduct in assisting the Court’s in evaluating the case in the interest of justice.  

67. Once again, either Judge Cooke did not read all of the case and its accompanying evidence or is deliberately ignoring what they facts are irrefutably saying or both. The Appellant feels it is the latter. 

68. There is absolutely nothing “tabloid” about banking statements from a FDIC recognized and insured American banking institution that showed the Appellees, Warner Bros’ AOL, unlawfully gave a hacker access to the Appellant’s ATM/Visa card and computers containing their software (AOL) that stored her Copyrighted works that have subsequently, greedily and lasciviously been plundered by the Appellees. There is a clear paper trail; both digital and text, confirming the Appellees’ misconduct against the Appellant and a blaring point of access to these nationally and internationally copyrighted works that were criminal used in violation of scores of international laws. 

69. These assertions are not “conspiracy theories” as alleged by the Appellees in one of their motions - they are facts in black and white, confirmed by reputable sources of business and information – in forms of text and data, used in many court cases. However, the Appellant was discriminated against in her case not being heard, or apparently read by Judge Cooke, in favor of a “pop culture icon” who went to her alma mater. The entire thing is disgraceful.  

70. The Court was further presented with evidence showing blatant, substantial duplications of the Appellant’s already copyrighted works the Appellees willfully violated. In one instance of Copyright infringement, the Appellees unlawfully used one of the Appellant’s scripts to make the film “The Princess Diaries 2” – in which the Appellees stole so much of the Appellant’s script that it constituted over 90 minutes of the film’s 110 minute running time, which is disgraceful – and due to the manner in which it was stolen, a willful criminal breach of federal and international law. 

71. Every song on Madonna’s CD “Confessions On A Dance Floor” contains music and lyrics she willfully stole from the Appellant’s publicly released copyrighted works seen and heard by many who visit her web site (and by DJs who were given copies) and private unreleased Copyrights stored on Aisha’s computers. All these items were copyrighted by the Appellant well before the Appellees stole them, as they have done to dozens of other singer, writers, directors and artists in general.  

72. The case was tossed on Judge Cooke’s opinion of pop stars and not the facts and the evidence, which by her actions, she demonstrated to the internationally community, she has no use for.  

73. If the judicial system is to be based on whether or not a judge suspects someone is guilty rather than the evidence presented to the Court, the Court is open to great levels of corruption and prejudice, as has been illustrated where judges have shown open bias and favor to famous litigants, who went on to break the law again at innocent members of the public’s expense. Judges have shown open favor to famous and wealthy litigants, as was done in this case, and embarrassed the judiciary to the public as a result. 

74. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Defended by Appellee Bert Fields, the judge fawningly referred to copyright infringer Eddie Murphy as a "creative genius" in a case that showed the world just how "unconscionable" Hollywood is and the lengths some of its denizens go to in violating Copyrights then lying to the Court that they made no money, when they reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten wealth from unlawful conduct, also known as perjury and fraud.  

75. Murphy then went on to commit copyright infringement again, and was sued for willfully stealing the film “The Nutty Professor.” Murphy quickly settled the case out of court in the Plaintiff’s favor.   

76. Another incident of open judicial prejudice that biased a case, was where Judge Penfield Jackson tried to punish Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, for being too rich and an overnight success with a judge alleged “Napoleon complex” - rather than addressing the factual points of the case.  

77. His ruling in said case was overturned due to the open bias, prejudice, playing up to the press, smart aleck remarks and illogical reasoning he displayed in attempts to harm Bill Gates, that evolved into open mockery, clearly audible laughing and inappropriate speech in court, at Gates and his attorneys expense:

 78. “The unanimous decision cited Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's conduct as the reason for vacating his final judgment and remanding the case back to the lower court for reassignment to a different judge: We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the court said. Jackson's actions, the court said, "would give a reasonable, informed observer cause to question his impartiality in ordering the company split in two. In Microsoft's appeal last February, it focused in large part on Jackson, whose ruling the company said was "motivated by a desire to punish" the company.” – CNN 

79. Judge Cooke has shown clear prejudice against the Appellant in favor of rich and famous litigants, one of whom went to her alma mater. Her rulings contained legal errors, misquotes, misspelling, misapplied law, missing pages, clear prejudice and illogical reasoning that astonishingly concluded “pop culture icons” and the “companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” just don’t break the law – therefore the Appellant, with all this solid proof and factual exhibits showing their guilt, must be a liar – which the Appellant takes great offense to, as the Appellant is telling the truth.  

80. The case was quickly tossed in spite of the fact that the evidence in the case clearly says the Appellees willfully broke the law against an indie writer with a huge Copyrighted catalog that took her many years to write and copyright, who they felt couldn’t fight back – therefore she was a prime target. When she fought back within the law, they resorted to harassment and violence, which is thoroughly contemptible and criminally unlawful. 

Celebrities Do Break The Law 

81. To refute Judge Cooke’s theory that “pop culture icons” don’t break the law, hence they could not have done the “sensational accusations” leveled against them, here is a list containing a small fraction of the names of the celebrities who have broken the law according to their criminal records  - all after they became famous: Pee Wee Herman, Pat O’Brien, Marv Albert, Pete Rose, Mike Tyson, Mystikal, Suge Knight, Fatty Arbuckle, Eric Aude, Sandra Will Caradine, Christian Brando, Spade Cooley, Robert Durst, Steven Roye, Phil Spector, Oscar Wilde, Glen Campbell, Enrico Caruso, Robert Clary, Hogan's Hero LeBeau, Robert Downey Jr, John du Pont, Jane Fonda, Gary Glitter, Steve Howe, L. Ron Hubbard, Rick James, Don King, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Lookinland, Bess Myerson, Dana Plato, Sid Vicious and Wendy O. Williams. To conserve space in this appeals brief, the entire long list from public court records was not included. 

82. There is no basis in the U.S. Code or the Constitution for Judge Cooke’s ruling. It is all her opinion of famous people – and a biased, embarrassingly fawning, prejudicial opinion at that in their favor – even though the evidence clearly shows they have flagrantly broken the law and the Appellant has submitted credible evidence showing access, as prescribed under Copyright law and the rules of the Court. Judge Cooke showed favor to a “pop culture icon” that went to her alma mater, who has broken Copyright law numerous times in numerous cases as Court records reveal. Appellee Madonna has a well-documented history, legal precedent, of willfully violating copyrights that the judge deliberately ignored – further promoting illegal conduct.  

83. Instead Judge Cooke decided to shamelessly make fun of, insult and degrade a woman of character who authored many Copyrighted works that the Appellees willfully and wantonly stole in acts that break both civil and criminal law – in lieu of exalting a woman of lawlessness who stooped so low in her careless, self-indulgent conduct that she was sued for choking a child who pestered her for her autograph on her day off.  

84. The Appellees are the ones with the bad track record, not the Appellant. Yet, this was not taken into consideration by the judge, which has strengthened the Appellees resolve to continue violating the Appellant’s rights in violation of U.S. and United Nations laws.  

85. Since the time of Judge Cooke’s ruling, the Appellant’s home has been broken into again and again with work compact discs containing newer copyrighted works willfully stolen. The Appellant reported it to the Police, for which she has a report. A week later, Aisha’s works from the compact discs appeared in the New York Daily News, attributed to Appellee Madonna and two writers, in criminal violation of several U.S. and United Nations laws.  

86. To quote what Judge Cooke said about the Appellant’s lawsuit, applying it to her personal theory of guilt and innocence that she is questionably enforcing from the bench of the U.S. Federal Court, in open contradiction to the U.S. Code and the Constitution, “the President of the United States” has not “signed legislation” that states “pop culture icons” and the “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” get a free pass to willfully break both civil and criminal law, criminally defraud and commission the harassment and invasion of privacy of innocent citizens – while the world and foreign governments watch in astonishment the deliberate depravation of an innocent citizen’s rights.  

87. Further showing partiality, Judge Cooke superficially nitpicked how the lawsuit was drafted up, on invented technicalities not based in the U.S. Code, Constitution or Federal Rules. Similar lawsuits with similar structure have been accepted by the Courts and not dismissed. A clear sign of willful partiality against the Appellant in this case. These other cases can be submitted as further proof of Judge Cooke’s open bias and questionable rulings. 

88. How can what is acceptable in one Federal Court not be acceptable in another?  It is discrimination. It is nitpicking to avoid the horrible fact that crimes are being committed against the Appellant commissioned by a “pop culture icon” whose greed for money and fame knows no bounds.

89. She has proven through her actions that she would do anything to get it and maintain it – attested by the court docket with cases stacked against her for invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, plagiarism, trademark infringement, breach of contract, unethical business dealings, fraud and assault.  This cannot be ignored, as it shows a terrible pattern of ongoing misconduct. Any society that strives to call itself civil cannot tolerate or condone such conduct. 

90. Judge Cooke’s ruling also insults the intelligence of any capable adult, to be told that their case cannot possibly be true, as “pop culture icons” just don’t break the law, therefore they could not have committed the “sensational accusations” leveled against them, especially by a private citizen – in spite of the fact they have a clear, documented history of this very same misconduct they have wickedly done to others – for years. Something is very wrong with that.  

Selective Justice 

91. It cannot be one set of laws for one set of people and another set of laws for another set of people. One cannot preside over a case and discriminate against a litigant’s rights on such a shoddy, lawless basis. It is embarrassing and shameful.  

92. It brings dishonor upon the Court, and in the eyes of the world at that, as it gives the impression that though a litigant has been granted rights by the United Nations, The U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code, said rights can be revoked when it is expedient or inconvenient to a legal situation featuring a chronic law breaking “pop culture icon.” This is inexcusable and disgraceful. Justice cannot accommodate favoritism to the famous predicated on a premise not rooted anywhere in the law or basic common sense.  

Judge Cooke’s Inappropriate Conduct 

93. Judge Cooke inappropriately made fun of severe human rights violations with scores of U.S. and United Nations Human Rights laws broken, that the Appellant and her family were made to endure in a horrible and disgraceful case many witnessed, that she, Judge Cooke, sadistically and perversely referred to as an “amusing read” in her written ruling. That was thoroughly contemptible. The Appellant, her family and several international legal advisors and specialists struggle to grasp how a Federal Judge, representing herself, her community, her post, the Judiciary and her Country, thought it appropriate to mock and make fun of a citizen and her family’s rights cruelly being violated in a manner that has lead to the Appellant being assaulted on the same street as a U.S. Courthouse, her phone wiretapped, her computers hacked, her mail illegally open and her home being burglarized 5 TIMES with items related to her Copyrights stolen from said property and criminally used, in conduct irrefutably related to this case.

94. How did Judge Cooke find it appropriate to write such a thing on a Federal Court document, bearing the Court’s, and in essence, the Country’s legal seal, in the face of the horrible human rights violations the Appellant and her family have endured on U.S. soil, that is well documented.   

Statement of Facts

95. The following are the laws willfully violated by the Defendant-Appellees in which the Plaintiff is entitled to relief for:

1. Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 101
2. The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1051
3. The Business and Professions Code of Sections 17500 to 17535
4. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
5. Title 18 section 1341 of the U.S. Code (Mail Fraud)
6. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
7. Violations of The U.S. Constitution: The Fourth Amendment
8. Multiple willful violations of RICO statues
9. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986
10. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec.1001
11. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec.1030.
12. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510
13. The No Electronic Theft Act (NET)
14. 17 U.S.C. _ 506 (a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. _2319(c)(3)
15. Multiple violations of The Universal Copyright Act of 1952
16. Multiple violations of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
17. Multiple violations of The Berne Treaties of 1967, which the U.S. joined in 1989 and swore to uphold.
18. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR 1948), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
19. The United Nations Guidelines/Computerized Personal Data Files, which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
20. The European Convention on Human Rights
21. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
22. The inter-American declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Art V), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
23. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (Art 11), which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold.
24. The United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child, which the U.S. joined and swore to uphold. 

Summary of Argument 

96. The Plaintiff-Appellant requests a reversal of Judge Cooke’s ruling for Dismissal based on the fact that as mentioned above she could not have possibly read all the case and it’s evidence in the short span of a couple of days, which is the duration for which she had it before she summarily tossed it in favor of a “pop culture icon” who went to her alma mater. Furthermore, her ruling has no basis in the U.S. Code, Constitution and U.N. law, is illogical and reeks of partiality to the rich and famous. She ignored evidence, facts, history of similar serious misconduct by the Defendants-Appellees and to the disgrace of the judiciary, mocked serious criminal United Nations Human Rights Violations transpiring against the Plaintiff-Appellant that can be easily verified via many documents, records and witnesses. This was inexcusable.   

97. It was Winston Churchill who said, “All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” Justice is important, as it is the basis of our society. It is what separates us as humans from the animals. And even in the latter’s kingdom, there is a law of the jungle which animals go by. If they follow law, why shouldn’t we.  

98. Honor and duty are also important, as it is the mark of our character – without it we are lost and open to avarice, incivility and injustice. The Appellant’s rights have been severely violated in a very provable case against Appellees with a solid record for breaking the law and in the same manner alleged in this case. For a federal judge to summarily throw it out, and based on the sign in sheet for case transfer, not read all of the case, is a great miscarriage of justice and one worthy of censure.  

99. Tax payers dollars pay judges salaries – and not for them to not read all of the cases submitted to them, call United Nations human rights violations “amusing,” misapply law and show fawningly partiality to famous miscreant Defendants who chronically break the law. This should not have happened, as it does not help the Judiciary’s standing with the public, with faith therein at an all time low. The Pledge of Allegiance states, “Liberty and justice for all.” It does not say liberty and justice for some. It says for ALL.  

100. If we take the justice out of it by depriving citizens of their rights, we are only left with liberty – the liberty to do as we please, no matter who gets hurt and what laws are broken. The Appellees have taken the justice out of the well-worn and tried phrase, replacing it with lawlessness and corruption; therefore it is the Court’s duty to address it.  

101. Sir Winston Churchill also said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” We cannot act as if nothing ever happened. The truth of the matter is something very terrible happened in this case. The Appellant and her family had their rights criminally violated. The Appellees engaged in a sick pattern of invasion of privacy, intellectual property theft, property theft, fraud, commissioned harassment and assault. This must not be swept under the rug as though “nothing ever happened.” The truth will never tolerate it.  

102. Many people have witnessed firsthand what transpired. Scores of Copyrights owned by the Appellant that predate the Appellees’ later infringing illegally registered works were used, verbatim, in whole while others in part, comprising 70-95% percent of the Appellees infringing works, which is thoroughly unlawful. 

103. The Appellees have rendered a new meaning to Albert Einstein’s quote, “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources” – replacing it with flat out criminal theft, fencing of stolen copyrights, criminal harassment and invasion of privacy.  The Appellant has been made into a modern day slave. She has done all this work over many years, copyrighted it over the years and it is has been and continues to be stolen and criminally used to reap millions for the Appellees who should be behind bars for their conduct.  

104. District Judge Todd Campbell wrote in a Copyright infringement ruling regarding Bridgeport Music v. Badboy, where he found against Defendants from a subsidiary and its parent company similar in size and stature to Appellee Warner Bros, that he needed to “vindicate the integrity of the copyright law." And he is right in that statement. 

105. Hundreds of thousands of sole proprietors from all over the world pay hundreds individually and untold millions collectively to the Copyright Office to register their works for protection and are receiving no benefits thereof, as that protection is constantly rendered null and void at the hands of greedy, unconscionable major record labels, film studios and their stars, who manipulate the court system in a shameful way and all too frequently get these Copyright cases thrown out – predicated on their fame and not the facts – and that is a disgrace.  

106. If the judicial system will not address these crimes being committed, the Copyright Office must then be barred shut. Closed, as large entertainment companies like Warner Bros and Disney, to name a few, so regularly willfully abuse Copyright Law, to the point that Copyrights are in danger of becoming extinct. The public has overwhelmingly shown they no longer feel Copyrights work to protect them, due to these major labels and film companies’ willful acts of abuse and open defiance of the law coupled with manipulation of the Court system. 

107. These acts have spread abroad as well via said major labels, studios and their stars willfully stealing the Copyrights of foreign nationals and foreigners from countries such as England, France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, who now opt to also Copyright their works in America as well, as the U.S. entertainment industry has violated the Copyrights of many people abroad in addition to thousands of innocent, unwitting American writers works that were unlawfully used domestically. 

108. The law in the area of Copyrights needs vindicating. Based on public, cursory searches of the Internet, op-eds and articles, the comments being made by the public shows they now believe Copyrights are a joke and big companies regularly manipulate the legal system.  Too many big companies are flagrantly abusing Copyrights at sole proprietors’ expense. Sole proprietors account for many people in this country and in the world. Not only do they create, they buy products as well – in contrast to a faceless, soulless corporation such as Appellees Warner Bros and Buena Vista Pictures, who have a horrible track record of abusing and violating Copyrights. 

109. At a time when the public’s confidence in the judiciary is at an all time low, as revealed by many articles, op-ed, web blogs regularly visited by millions around the world - strange, intelligence insulting rulings such as the dismissal rendered in this case and on such shoddy legal grounds, only serve to further erode the public’s confidence in the judicial system.  

110. The way the Appellant has been treated by the district Court, which she showed the utmost respect, is appalling and a disgrace to the judiciary. It’s bad enough being victimized by the malfeasance that forces one to seek justice in a court of law, but it is utterly shameful and inexcusable to be victimized by a verbally abusive judge, Cecilia Altonaga, who presided over a case Federal Cannons regarding judicial conduct forbade her to and deliberately withholding her financial ties to the Defendants that she showed blatant favor to. 

111. Then to have the second judge who presided over this case, Marcia Cooke, summarily throw out a case with United Nations human rights violations on the basis that “pop culture icons” and the “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” simply could not have done the “sensational allegations” leveled against them by the Appellant, a private citizen, thusly, the Appellant is a liar in her estimation. These are unacceptable, grossly offensive, perversions of justice, both incidents worthy of censure. 

112. The Appellant takes great offense at this, as she is a person of character who has been telling the truth the whole time, with solid evidence to back up her case - that the judge didn’t even bother to read in favor of her bias, nonsensical, unconstitutional opinion of a pop culture icon from her alma mater. That’s a stunning look at the justice system the Appellant is taken aback by.  

113. Both judges have violated the Appellant’s rights and betrayed their oath of office, as with the first judge, Cecilia Altonaga, there was a stunning case of financial conflict of interest that was deliberately not disclosed and with the second judge, her friend and colleague, Marcia Cooke, the docket sheet reveals she could not have possibly read the voluminous case and all its evidence in the little time she had it (and managed her other cases) – yet threw the case out anyway in a matter of a couple of days of receiving it. That is grossly irresponsible and inexcusable – and once again, worthy of censure.

Oral Argument And Recusal of Judge Cooke Requested 

114. An oral argument is requested in this case. The Appellant would like to address the Court regarding the points of this case and the indisputable evidence showing serious breaches of civil and criminal law, both domestic and international. Said oral arguments will bolster this appeal and show the Appeals Court that the District Court greatly erred in tossing out this case. An oral argument will bring home the seriousness of what transpired that not only violated domestic law, but international law as well in a criminal manner. The Plaintiff-Appellant also requests Judge Cooke recuse herself on the above cited reasons listed in this Appeal regarding her questionable conduct.

Certificate of Compliance 

115. This Appeals Brief complies with the type volume of limitation. The number of words in this brief is 9,637 and it contains 951 one and half spaced lines in 30 pages.  

Dated:_______________________
Signed: ______________________

Aisha Goodison
P.O. Box 190073
Miami Beach, Florida 33119-0073
305-751-0039
www.sonustar.com
law@sonustar.com
  

 

S       O      N      U      S      T      A      R

____________________________________________________________________ 

 

AISHA GOODISON
SONUSTAR ENTERTAINMENT
Web: www.sonustar.com
web: www.aishamusic.com
email: mgmt@sonustar.com

REPLY TO:

Aisha Goodison
P.O. Box 190073
Miami Beach, Florida 33119-0073 

April 21, 2006 

RE: Appeal # 06-11760-E 

Appeal # 06-11760-E was sent to the wrong Appeals Court by the Federal Court in Miami, who I filed said appeal with.  

An appeal form was then sent to me from the Court by mail. I filled out the form, stating my reasons for the appeal, as requested in the communiqué and returned it to the address stipulated on said form. 

I was then sent a letter from the Appeals Court stating the appeal, # 06-11760-E, was sent to an Appeals Court that has no jurisdiction over it, as it is a “Copyright” matter, therefore it must be sent to the correct Appeals Court with the appropriate jurisdiction.

The Washington Appeals Court then transferred the case to the branch in Atlanta, and according to a letter I received, docketed it on March 17, 2006. 

Please find herewith enclosed, the corresponding appeals brief (and copies).  

It is in paper format, as the letter I was sent from the Appeals Court stated “pro-se” litigants could send in the appeals brief in this format, as opposed to .PDF. Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

Aisha Goodison

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL DOCKET NO: 06-11760-E

 

AISHA ET AL,

       Plaintiffs-Appellants 

v.

MADONNA ET AL

       Defendants-Appellees

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: CIV 05-22618 COOKE 

 

 MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL 

  1. Due to inadequate information I received over the phone and not being familiar with the appeals process as a pro se litigant, I request the Court reinstate my appeal that was dismissed on May 15, 2006, and accept the new appeal submitted herewith. I went by the clerk’s instructions over the phone in going through and following the checklist of what she determined I needed. It turns out more was need for my appeal. This was the first appeal I filed, so I did not know. When the appeal was rejected by the clerk she then sent me a sample brief and sample excerpt transcripts from two different cases as a guideline. 
  2. However, my U.S. mail is delayed on a regular basis not arriving in the allotted and guaranteed times. This has been found to be true by us on many occasions. I was also the victim of mail tampering last year that was reported to the Postmaster General. I did not receive the notice regarding the rejected appeal based on the clerk’s determination that the format was not in compliance, in time to make the 14-day deadline imposed by the Court.
  3. Per the Court instruction I received from the clerk over the phone on May 26, 2006, I was told if I completed and turned in this motion and accompanying appeal before May 30, 2006, it would be considered timely.  

 

Dated:____________________________
Signed by:________________________

 

Aisha Goodison, pro se
P.O. Box 190073
Miami Beach, Florida 33119-0073
305-751-0039
www.sonustar.com
law@sonustar.com

   

Recommended Charities