I am seeking representation of the movie, One Man's Deep Words through a legal Safe Pass
Here are some information regarding the movie project:
Move Title: One Man's Deep Words
Status: Post production
Genre: Indie docu-drama university philosophy film
Based on the book, "One Man's Deep Words" by Mr.Ben.
Here are the credits:
Screenplayed By: Robert Sacchi
Edited, Cinematographed and Direction By: Vincent Turner
Based on the novel, One Man's Deep Words by Chimezie Mr Ben Ihekuna
Set/Location: USA
Here are the logline and synopsis:
Logline
Adam challenging Charles Griffins unruly behavior towards his students in his Philosophy class is the reason behind Charles' discovery...
SYNOPSIS
Mr. Griffins, six feet tall, handsome but frowning, always-dressed in a suit, middle-aged Euro-Asian-American Philosophy lecturer at the University of Maryland, is good at what he loves doing-lecturing philosophy students at all levels. He is so knowledgeable in the subject that most students see him as the best of all philosophy lecturers at the Department of Philosophy. However, ‘Professor’, as he is popularly called, is plagued with a challenge. He is tired of following the “by the works of philosophers as written in the books” tradition. Professor looks forward to a time when Philosophy would pay back the dues he had paid to it - to come up with his ideologies that would stand the test of time.
Charles and Kelvin are freshmen at the university studying Philosophy. From their first to their final years, they have being under the taught-driven voice of Mr. Griffins but realize his displeased character, despite his teaching proficiency. This gets his students unhappy with him. It soon gets to the point that one of his students, in the person of Adam, during an hour-long lecture, amplifies Griffin’s innate desire by asking: “Mr. Know It All, when will you come up with your ideologies?!” This creates a wind of change that affected his personality completely.
Inspired by the influence of his Sandra, his wife of twenty years, Adam, and encouraged by his students and friends, Charles and Kelvin, Mr. Griffins writes the thought-provoking, national and international bestselling, philosophy-based ‘small book,’ the university has ever recorded in its history - “One Man’s Deep Words”-with its subsequent revised editions. He is awarded the university’s “Most Outstanding Lecturer of all Time.”
Information about the full video is available upon request.
Legal Safe Pass
Litigation Funding / Representation Request: Clear-Cut IP Infringement & Data Spoliation Case (JAMS CA Jurisdiction)
I am writing to request a formal evaluation of an exceptionally strong, evidence-backed intellectual property and Right of Publicity dispute bound by California law and mandated under JAMS Arbitration (Victorville, CA).
As the claimant and underlying rights holder, I possess ironclad, written confessions from the respondent admitting to the material facts of the case, making this an ideal matter for pro bono representation or risk-tolerant litigation funding.
Case Overview:
The Agreement: A standard 24-Month Film Shopping Agreement for my published book, "One Man's Deep Words," which officially expired in April 2026 without any buyers or extensions triggered.
The Infringement: Post-expiration, the producer (Vincent Turner / Off Campus Productions) has refused to halt operations. He is actively shooting new scenes, exporting cuts, and has text-messaged his intent to exhibit the film in a cinema without an active contract or underlying rights.
Right of Publicity Violation: The unauthorized film relies entirely on my on-camera performance, face, voice, and identity. Section 3 of our expired agreement explicitly excludes all Right of Publicity elements from the producer's retention.
Willful Spoliation of Evidence: Upon realizing I was asserting my legal rights, the respondent intentionally deleted all 107-minute master files from our shared server. Crucially, he admitted to this deletion in writing via text message, and I have a secured backup of the destroyed files.
Why This Case is Highly Actionable:
Written Admissions: I possess timestamped WhatsApp archives where the respondent directly admits that the contract has expired ("we sign a new contract or we kick rocks"), confesses to deleting the data ("I understand I deleted but damn I should have thought about it"), and acknowledges that 65% of the project relies entirely on my ideas.
Statutory Remedies: Under California Civil Code § 3344, the respondent faces severe exposure for willful Right of Publicity violations, which carries automatic statutory damages, punitive damages, and the mandatory shifting of all attorney fees and arbitration costs to the losing party.
Complete Gridlock: The respondent is currently spending capital editing a movie that cannot pass a standard "Chain of Title" check, rendering his assets completely un-distributable without my sign-off.
I have attached a comprehensive Case Intake Summary detailing the timeline, specific contract clauses, and exact transcripts of the evidence for your review.
Given the clear pattern of bad faith, willful spoliation, and high probability of a favorable JAMS award or a forced copyright-transfer settlement, I welcome the opportunity to discuss a contingency fee arrangement or litigation funding partnership.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Chimezie Benedict Ihekuna
Author & Rights Holder, "One Man's Deep Words"
Email: mrbenisreal@gmail.com
Phone/WhatsApp: +2348062162220
EXHIBIT A: CONTRACT │ ──► Shopping Agreement executed (April 2024). Base term expires April 2026.
└────────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT B: LOGISTICS │ ──► Jan 2026 text logs show uncontracted actors, medical delays, zero market movement.
└────────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT C: ADMISSIONS │ ──► May 2026 emails from co-writer Sacchi admitting the movie is unmarketable.
└────────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT D: OBSTRUCTION│ ──► June 4–11 emails proving Vincent rejected AAE because he thought they would "own it".
└────────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT E: SPOLIATION │ ──► June 28 emails & July 3 text logs documenting Vincent deleting files out of malice.
└────────────────────────┘
THE CONTRACT │ ► Signed 24-Month Shopping Agreement (April 2024).
│ (Lapsed Term: Zero Extensions) │ Base term expired April 2026 without any signed buyer terms.
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT B: PRODUCTION LOGISTICS│ ► January 2026 WhatsApp Logs. Confirms incomplete scenes,
│ (Amateur Set Management) │ uncontracted cast/crew, and zero market advancement.
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT C: THE UNMARKETABILITY│ ► May 8, 2026 Emails from Co-Writer Robert Sacchi.
│ (Sacchi Admissions) │ Explicitly states: "Without a completed movie there is nothing to market."
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT D: THIRD-PARTY IP │ ► May 27, 2026 Emails. Shows unauthorized distribution of
│ (Unauthorized Footages) │ rough project footage to an unnamed "Hollywood actor."
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT E: COMMERICAL BLOCK │ ► June 4–11, 2026 Emails. Proves Vincent directly refused AAE's
│ (The Filmhub Obstruction) │ vetted screener request, choosing self-service aggregation instead.
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXHIBIT F: MALICIOUS REMOVAL │ ► June 28 Emails & July 3 Text Messages. Captures the sudden
│ (Data Spoliation Admissions) │ Google Drive wipe and his text admission: "I understand I deleted..."
└─────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│
1. The Written Admission of Material Breach
The Evidence: Vincent Turner's explicit text message: "We breached the shopping agreement by starting production."Why It Erases Their Defense: This is a clear, first-person confession of a material contract breach. Vincent's counsel cannot argue that they acted in good faith or misunderstood their operational boundaries. He openly admitted to violating the contract, which immediately establishes your claim for willful copyright infringement from day one.
2. The Written Request for a Renewal Contract
The Evidence: Vincent Turner's text messages: "Or we send a new contract... No big deal" and "You don't want to sign the same contract with a new date."Why It Erases Their Defense: Vincent has tried to claim that his contract automatically extended into December 2026 based on his internal filming dates. This text message completely destroys that narrative. By begging you to sign a new contract with a "new date," he has text-logged a formal admission that his original contract has completely expired. A party cannot argue a contract is still active while simultaneously begging for a rewrite to fix an expiration.
3. The Explicit Written Confession of Retaliatory Deletion
The Evidence: Vincent Turner's text message: "I deleted the videos you deleted the feed good."Why It Erases Their Defense: In civil disputes, a party might try to claim that files were lost due to a server crash or a routine cloud cleanup. Vincent's words completely eliminate that defense. He explicitly acknowledges the act of deletion and celebrates it out of pure spite ("good"). This locks in intentional spoliation of evidence and bad-faith destruction of asset value, which will cause the arbitrator to issue an immediate adverse inference ruling against them.
4. The First-Person Confession of Hold-Up Extortion
The Evidence: Vincent Turner's text messages: "I will hold the movie until you make the decision to work with the project" and "Detailed like a list or delete the film completely."Why It Erases Their Defense: These text boxes establish a clear record of civil extortion and an illegal asset hold-up. Under California law, a producer cannot withhold or threaten to destroy project assets to force a copyright owner into granting a contract extension or surrendering private data. Vincent documented his own coercive strategy in plain English.
5. My Full-Length 107-Minute Master Backup Asset
The Evidence: My secure, unlisted digital backup of the fully compiled feature-length film cut.Why It Erases Their Defense: Vincent and Robert are currently running their entire extortion strategy under the delusional belief that they hold a monopoly over the film assets. I do not need to negotiate for screeners, rendering their sole piece of leverage completely useless."
All evidences, including WhatsApp conversations, email threads and the expired shopping agreement are available for perusal upon request
If interested, send me a DM or email me at mrbenisreal@gmail.com
