1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

3
)
4 )
Alan Jules Weberman )
5 )
Plaintiff, )
6 )
) 16-cv-03567-GHW
7 Michael Drobenare )
2203 Avenue X )
8
Brooklyn, NY 11235 )
718-616-2111 )
9 )
(attorney for Plaintiff) )
10 )
vs. )
11 ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
Steven Eric Rayman ) OF 15 U.S. Code § 1125, SHERMAN
12
(and) ) AND CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACTS AND
) MEMORANDUM OF LAW
13 )
The New Press )
14 120 Wall Street, 31st Floor )
New York, NY 10005 )
15
T: (212) 629-8802 )
newpress@thenewpress.com )
16 )
)
17 )
Defendants, )
18 )
Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman )
19 )
LLP )
20 488 Madison Ave )
NYC 10022 )
21 212-752-9200 )
)
22 )
)
23 (attorney for Defendants) )
)
24 )
25

26

27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 1

 1 JURISDICTION
2

3 Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts can

4 hear "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
5 Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States..." US
6 Constitution, Article III, Section 2. The Supreme Court has
7 interpreted this clause broadly, finding that it allows federal
8 courts to hear any case in which there is a federal ingredient.
9 Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 738
10 (1824). This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
11 U.S.C. § 1331, because the matter involves a Federal question.
12 Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2)
13 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
14 rise Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.
15

16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

17

18 Defendant, Steven Eric Rayman, acting on behalf of his

19 client, The New Press caused Plaintiff A. J. Weberman’s book,
20 The New Crow Jim to be censored in its entirety by threatening
21 Create Space and Amazon and Kindle with a law suit by
22 erroneously and maliciously informing these entities that the
23 cover of The New Crow Jim violated copyright law or Trademark
24 law when Defendant knew the cover was clearly free speech
25 protected under numerous federal court decisions regarding
26 parody. (SEE EXHIBIT A)
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 2

 1 Defendant also caused Kindle E-Books to remove 2 other
2 books in this series, Obama and Islam and Escape From New York,
3 from its catalogue. (SEE EXHIBIT B)
4

5 This caused Plaintiff a loss of income for Plaintiff and

6 because the advertising Plaintiff was running was concurrently
7 removed as there was no book to advertise. This violated a key
8 provision of the Latham Act:
9 15 U.S.C. § l 125(a)(l)(B), FALSE
10 DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND
11 DILUTION FORBIDDEN
12 (a) Civil action
13 (1) Any person who, on or in connection with
14 any goods or services, or any container for goods,
15 uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or
16 device, or any combination thereof, or any false
17 designation of origin, false or misleading
18 description of fact, or false or misleading
19 representation of fact, which—
20

21 (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause

22 mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,
23 connection, or association of such person with
24 another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship,
25 or approval of his or her goods, services, or
26 commercial activities by another person, or
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 3

 1 (B) in commercial advertising or promotion,
2 misrepresents the nature, characteristics,
3 qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or
4 another person's goods, services, or commercial
5 activities, shall be liable in a civil action by
6 any person who believes that he or she is or is
7 likely to be damaged by such act.
8

9 This caused Plaintiff economic loss as the book, which was

10 high on the Amazon Charts in Law Enforcement and Civil Rights,
11 disappeared. (SEE EXHIBIT C) By misrepresenting the nature of
12 the cover to Amazon and Kindle Defendant violated the Lanham
13 Act. 15 U.S.C. § l 125(a)(l)(B), concerns misrepresentations
14 made "in commercial advertising or promotion". Mr. Rayman,
15 acting on behalf of his client The New Press, a George Soros
16 operation, did exactly this. By misrepresenting the cover of The
17 New Crow Jim as a trademark or copyright violation he caused
18 Amazon to pull the ads (SEE EXHIBIT D) I was running for it.
19

20 Courts in this Circuit, including this Court, have held

21 that to be actionable under that latter provision, statements
22 must be "(1) commercial speech; (2) for the purpose of
23 influencing consumers to buy defendant's goods or services; and
24 (3) ...disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing
25 public."
26 Citations: Jus Punjabi, LLC v. Get Punjabi Inc., No. 1:14-cv-
27 3318-GHW, 2015 WL 2400182, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2015)
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 4

 1 (Woods, J.), quoting Boule v. Hutton, 328 F.3d 84, 90-91 (2d
2 Cir. 2003), affirmed, 640 F. App'x 56 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 2016).
3

4 Here, Defendant Rayman's notification of an infringement

5 claim under federal law, on behalf of his client, can plausibly
6 constitute "commercial speech." Commercial speech is a US legal
7 term relating to speech done on behalf of a company or
8 individual for the intent of making a profit. Aside from The New
9 Press wanting to suppress its content, Defendant believed The
10 New Crow Jim was diminishing the sales of The New Jim Crow. This
11 is economic in nature and has the intent of convincing the
12 audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing or
13 conversely not purchasing a specific product. What other type of
14 speech could this be? Perhaps it was new genre of literary
15 criticism?
16

17 Amazon.com, a retailer, or the publisher of Plaintiff's

18 book the Amazon company, CreateSpace constitute representations
19 to "consumers" or "the relevant purchasing public." They are
20 for-profit institutions. The advertisements pulled by Amazon are
21 prima fascia representations to the book consumers of the United
22 States. What else can they be? The ads that were pulled were
23 entirely commercial in nature.
24

25 Dismissal of the Amended Complaint in its entirety is not

26 warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6); and the Court should
27 find that it does not lack federal question subject matter
28 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. 2 See ECF No. 14, at 3.

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 5

 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
2 SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT AND CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACT
3

4 Sec.3. Every contract, combination in form of

5 trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of
6 trade or commerce in any Territory of the United
7 States or of the District of Columbia, or in
8 restraint of trade or commerce between any such
9 Territory and another, or between any such
10 Territory or Territories and any State or States
11 or the District of Columbia, or with foreign
12 nations, or between the District of Columbia and
13 any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby
14 declared illegal. Every person who shall make any
15 such contract or engage in any such combination or
16 conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a
17 misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
18 punished by fine not exceeding five thousand
19 dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one
20 year, or by both said punishments, in the
21 discretion of the court.
22

23 Citation: Act of July 2, 1890(Sherman Anti-Trust Act), July

24 2, 1890; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1992;
25 General Records of the United States Government; Record Group
26 11; National Archives.
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 6

 1 § 4 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 Suits by persons
2 injured (a) Amount of recovery; prejudgment
3 interest Except as provided in subsection (b) of
4 this section, any person who shall be injured in
5 his business or property by reason of anything
6 forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefore
7 in any district court of the United States in the
8 district in which the defendant resides or is
9 found or has an agent, without respect to the
10 amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold
11 the damages by him sustained, and the cost of
12 suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The
13 court may award under this section, pursuant to a
14 motion by such person promptly made, simple
15 interest on actual damages for the period
16 beginning on the date of service of such person's
17 pleading setting forth a claim under the antitrust
18 laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for
19 any shorter period therein, if the court finds
20 that the award of such interest for such period is
21 just in the circumstances.
22

23 The Sherman Anti-Trust act was originally applied to

24 monopolistic mega corporations that threatened the free market
25 however the Clayton Anti-Trust as allows individuals legal
26 recourse. By causing Plaintiff’s book to be removed from Kindle
27 and Amazon Defendant became a conspirator in a restraint of
28 trade since the book was marketed both nationally and

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 7

 1 internationally. The Clayton Anti-Trust Act allows to “sue
2 therefore in any district court of the United States in the
3 district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an
4 agent, without respect to the amount in controversy” so even
5 through billions of dollars are not involved in this litigation,
6 The Sherman Anti-Trust, and its provisions against restraint of
7 trade is a valid cause of action.
8

9 PARTIES
10

11 Plaintiff Alan Jules Weberman is a well-known author and

12 researcher. He is a former Congressional researcher who worked
13 for the late Congressman Henry Gonzalez of San Antonio, Texas,
14 and the late Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania on the
15 subject of CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. He is
16 the author of Coup D’état In America, the CIA and the
17 assassination of JFK and The Oswald Code, a steganographic
18 analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald’s address book. He is known for
19 coining the word “garbology” as a means of journalistic spying
20 on subjects via their trash. He is cited in California v.
21 Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) in which the Supreme Court
22 legalized garbology. He also coined the word “Dylanology” in
23 relation to his analysis of the poetry of Bob Dylan. His works
24 have been viewed by a least two million people on Scrib’d and
25 articles about him or by him have appeared in almost every major
26 newspaper, magazine or website. Plaintiff recently testified
27 before the Portuguese Parliament regarding CIA involvement in
28 the assassination of the Portuguese Prime Minister and was

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 8

 1 granted permission by the Portuguese Minister of Justice to film
2 one of the assassins in his jail cell in the Prison of the
3 Valley of the Jews.
4

5 Plaintiff was a leading member of the Youth International

6 Party and the head of the New York Chapter of the Black Panther
7 Defense Committee when he worked as a journalist for the
8 Underground Press in the 1970’s. In the early 1960’s Mr.
9 Weberman was part of the Civil Rights Movement in East Lansing,
10 Michigan, during which time he conferred with Malcolm X.
11 Currently Mr. Weberman is part of the Jewish Defense
12 Organization SRS (Senior Research Section) where he has been
13 studying such diverse matters as Black Racism and its relation
14 to the Black Lives Matter Movement along with the connections of
15 Maria De Blasio, Mayor De Blasio’s mother, to the Russian
16 Intelligence Service.
17

18 Defendant Steven Eric Rayman is just the opposite of the

19 Plaintiff and was part of the establishment all his life. He was
20 general counsel to The New Yorker magazine from 1998 to 2000,
21 and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Simon &
22 Schuster from 1984-1998. Between 1980 and 1984, he was Chief
23 Counsel, Studio and Network Operations at Home Box Office. He
24 began his career at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, where
25 he practiced law from 1977 to 1980. Since 1988, Mr. Rayman has
26 taught media and entertainment law at Cardozo School of Law,
27 where he is an Adjunct Professor. Professor Rayman is the editor
28 of a book entitled 100 Years of Harvard Lampoon Parodies

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 9

 1 Selections from the Best Parodies by the Nation's Oldest College
2 Humor Magazine 1976. Defendant Rayman should have advised The
3 New Press that he clearly recognized the cover fit all legal
4 criterions for Fair Use yet had the book blocked anyway because
5 his client, The New Press, disliked the content and wanted to
6 suppress it out of malice. It should be noted that when
7 Plaintiff first discovered that Rayman was behind his book being
8 censored he had no idea who Rayman represented or if he
9 represented himself as someone indignant over the books
10 contents. In subsequent letter motions it was revealed that his
11 client was The New Press. There are other books on Amazon and
12 Kindle with a cover similar to The New Jim Crow (see EXHIBIT
13 E) however The New Press and Defendant Rayman did not have these
14 e-books and paperback books blocked because they fit The New
15 Press’s political agenda.
16

17
The New Press is a nonprofit public-interest book publisher
18
that focuses on public issues such as Black crime. A look at its
19
website reveals its authors are 90% rich White liberals who have
20
no idea what goes on in prisons or ghetto neighborhoods as they
21
look down from their Ivory Towers and pontificate on subject
22
matter that is far removed from their lives. They receive
23
funding from The Tides Foundation which is linked to George
24
Soros, a Jew who survived the Holocaust by sending Austrian Jews
25
to their death, and from other Soros front groups. Many of the
26
employees of The New Press had previously worked for Soros
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 10

 1 entities such as The Open Society Foundation. The author of The
2 New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander, is a Soros Fellowship winner.
3

4 FACTS
5

6 Plaintiff, Alan Jules Weberman, is the author of a book

7 that was sold on Kindle and Amazon entitled The New Crow Jim,
8 The Empowerment of the Black Criminal Subculture and was
9 partially an answer to the New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.
10 The New Jim Crow blamed the high incarceration rates in the
11 African-American community on entirely on poverty and racism.
12 The New Crow Jim blames this on the creation of an indigenous
13 criminal subculture with its own language, dress and moirés
14 brought about largely by the disintegration of the African-
15 American family into single parent households and the poverty
16 and absence of role models this generates generation after
17 generation. The cover of the book is a parody of the cover of
18 the New Jim Crow and the Kindle edition was clearly labeled as
19 such. The cover was not copied or traced but was created by a
20 layout artist and had major differences: the title, the
21 subtitle, the author, the color of the man behind bars were all
22 changed. It was meant to be a parody and after it was removed
23 for the first time Plaintiff added a disclaimer stating that it
24 should not be confused with the New Jim Crow on the cover Kindle
25 edition. But what constitutes a parody v. a copyright or
26 trademark violation?
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 11

 1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW
2

3 The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a parody may

4 qualify as fair use under § 107. According to the Court, a
5 parody is the “use of some elements of a prior author’s
6 composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments
7 on that author’s works.” Like other forms of comment or
8 criticism, parody can provide social benefit, “by shedding light
9 on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” In
10 other words, parodies can be considered “transformative” works,
11 as opposed to merely “superseding” works. Since transformative
12 works “lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of
13 breathing space within the confines of copyright,” the more
14 transformative the parody, the less will be the importance of
15 other § 107 factors that may weigh against a finding of fair
16 use.
17 In Cliff Notes Inc. v Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing
18 Group (718 F. Supp. 1159 S.D.N.Y 1989) Spy Magazine created Spy
19 Notes which parodied Cliff Notes and contained Cliff Notes
20 yellow and black diagonal stripes, the format and type styles of
21 the titles and a picture of a clay model in the lower right hand
22 corner. The Court issued a preliminary injunction against Spy
23 Notes, however the decision was vacated on appeal by the Court
24 of Appeals of the Second Circuit ruling that the public interest
25 in free expression outweighed the risk of consumer confusion
26 presented in the case. 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989). The court
27 began with the proposition that parody is a form of artistic
28 expression protected by the first amendment."As a result parody

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 12

 1 and satire deserve substantial freedom as a form of
2 entertainment, and social and literary criticism.” (Berlin v.
3 E.C. Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 541, 545 2d Cir. 1964, cert
4 denied, 379 U.S. 822 1964.)
5

6 In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case (92-1292), 510 U.S.

7 569 (1994). Argued November 9, 1993 -- Decided March 7, 1994)
8 the Supreme Court found that parody falls under the idea of Fair
9 Use. The Fair Use doctrine is a limitation on the exclusive
10 rights. As the statute outlines in §107, there are uses that are
11 more favored and will not be considered copyright infringement
12 if it falls under criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,
13 or research. In the Campbell case the band 2 Live Crew made a
14 parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Pretty Woman.” 2 Live Crew’s
15 version changed the lyrics to comment and criticize the
16 viewpoint on women the original song took. The Court continued
17 by adding that parodies were transformative uses because the
18 parody authors added independent creative elements. The Court
19 also said it would fall more in the line of parody, if you are
20 to look at the market harm. Finally, just because a parody might
21 have a commercial effect does not lead to an inference of
22 commercial harm.
23 Defendant had no legal right to threaten Amazon or Kindle.
24 In Roe v. Amazon the Southern District Court (Ohio) dismissed
25 the self-publication vendors from a lawsuit because, legally,
26 they functioned more like book “distributors” than “publishers”
27 and ruled that it would “Apply the old standards to the new
28 technology, treating the Corporate Defendants’ process as if it

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 13

 1 were next logical step after the photocopier. Just as Xerox
2 would not be considered a publisher and held responsible for an
3 invasion of privacy tort carried out with a photocopier,
4 Corporate Defendants will not be liable as publishers for the
5 tort allegedly committed using their technology.” Roe v.
6 Amazon.com et al, No. 3:2015cv00111 - Document 60 (S.D. Ohio
7 2016) Defendant Rayman is a college professor and was certainly
8 aware of this ruling when he intimidated Kindle and Amazon and
9 caused them to remove The New Crow Jim from circulation despite
10 the fact they had no legal liability to do so.
11

12 The New Crow Jim fits the criterion for a parody protected by
13 the First Amendment as Fair Use.
14

15 1. The book is published by the Jewish Defense Organization, a

16 non-profit political organization.
17

18 2. The only part of the book that comes into question as far as
19 Fair Use relevancy is one page, the book cover. The rest of the
20 book is entirely original and its content refutes that of the
21 New Jim Crow without using any quotations from it. The amount
22 and substantiality of the copying in relation to the copyrighted
23 work as a whole is 1 in 300. The crucial determination is
24 whether the quality and value of the material copied from the
25 original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the
26 purpose of copying.
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 14

 1 3. No harm as been caused to the original work which still
2 remains on the top of the Kindle Best Seller lists.
3

4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

5

6 Plaintiff argues that Defendant Professor Steven Eric

7 Rayman intended to prevail extra-judicially because of the costs
8 that are entailed in filing a federal lawsuit such as retention
9 of counsel; filing fees etc. would exceed revenues accrued by
10 plaintiff from The New Crow Jim. But there is more involved here
11 than money. Defendant Steven Eric Rayman and The New Press,
12 which claims to be a friend of free speech (as long as it fits
13 into their political agenda) violated Plaintiff A. J. Weberman’s
14 rights under the Latham Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Clayton
15 Act and caused his book to be removed from Kindle and Amazon
16 Books under the pretext of copyright violation knowing full well
17 the cover in question was a parody and fell under Fair Use and
18 that Kindle or Amazon could NOT be held liable for its content
19 even if it did not. Plaintiff asks this Court to award him
20 $76,000 in compensatory damages for the money lost because the
21 book was taken off the open market and $10,000 in punitive
22 damages and all costs associated with filing this complaint to
23 deter others from acting in a similar manner and to order the
24 Defendant to restore The New Crow Jim back to Amazon and Kindle
25 with its original cover.
26 Dated this day of September 1,
2016
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 15

 1

2
Michael Drobenare
3 2203 Avenue X
Brooklyn, NY 11235
4 718-616-2111
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMO OF LAW - 16