King of the Party Crashers

About me:

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. --------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Rex Reginald. I am the poster boy for idea theft. I am a producer, writer and an all around entrepreneur. My latest venture is my "Pet Friendly Nation" initiative, but more on that later. I think I am about to become the "poster boy" for idea theft in Hollywood. I want you to be the judge. Have you seen the movie Wedding Crashers? If not, I'm sure you've at least heard of what a great success the film was last year and again this year with the Pay Television and DVD sales and rentals, etc. In 2002 I met with Robert Shaye (the CEO of New Line Cinema, one of the most successful film studios in Hollywood) and introduced him to my story outline concept and ideas for a feature film loosely based on my life, which I called "the Party Crasher." While initially very enthusiastic, Shaye and New Line ultimately turned down my presentation which also included suggested casting as well as my handbook on Party Crashing, "The Party Crasher's Handbook,” which I had copyrighted some years before. Two and a half years later, New Line and Shaye emerged with the world premiere of Wedding Crashers and the rest is now very current history. Shaye and New Line had in my opinion taken my ideas and used them through-out the Wedding Crashers feature film. I will present for you the basic information following and invite you to be the judge for yourself, and would ask that you email your responses complete with your contact information. As you may know, Wedding Crashers was one of the most successful comedies in years, grossing over $400 million, which, along with the profits from one of their other pictures Batman, helped New Line’s parent company AOL-Time Warner and its CEO Richard Parsons stabilize their otherwise somewhat depressed stock at that time, last year. Accordingly, I sued Shaye and New Line for "idea theft" for substantial damages in the Santa Monica Superior Court in front of Judge Valerie Baker. At first, Judge Baker appeared to be very favorable to my case. But then something happened! Judge Baker’s attitude made a 180-degree turn in the summer of 2005 and she then went on to grant summary judgment for New Line and Shaye in December 2005. A few months later, in May 2006, it was announced that Judge Baker had been nominated by Pres. George Bush to be a federal judge. Now, let me tell you something about myself. I was born and raised in Los Angeles, California. From my earliest youth, I was exposed to show business and the motion picture industry, as both my parents had many connections with the Hollywood Industry and movie stars. My father became the manager who launched the career of Audie Murphy, a returning war hero in 1945, and transformed him into a Hollywood superstar. Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier in American history, went on to star in over fifty Hollywood movies in the 40’s, 50’s & 60’s. Audie Murphy was my godfather and namesake. My mother also was a very accomplished actress in Hollywood, appearing in over 200 television shows and 45 films. My parents were very much a part of the Hollywood “in-crowd” and I was introduced very early on to the life of the party crowd in Hollywood. My parents hosted parties on a regular basis for some of the most successful actors in Hollywood. For example I grew up with some of the Hilton Hotel family kids. The Hiltons and I threw parties together at various mega-mansions all the way through high school. The biggest stars in Hollywood often came by our house; Cary Grant, Glenn Ford, Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, etc. Then, about 25 years ago, I met some professional party-crashers who taught me the ropes of party-crashing. Over the years, I developed my own party-crashing and party-throwing techniques and went on to develop them into a “science” myself. Through the years, I threw parties regularly with others. I also crashed weddings, entertainment events, rock-and-roll parties, gallery parties, restaurant openings, charity parties, professional events, art parties, exclusive high-level openings with companies, and political events. By this means, I got well immersed into the world of parties, party-crashing, party-going and party-throwing. While at first, I attended parties to meet beautiful women and celebrities, I later refined my objectives to include a focus on making contacts with Hollywood executives and wealthy investor types who could help advance my professional aspirations. About 20 years ago, it occurred to me to put my ideas and experiences of party crashing to writing. To this end, I wrote my book I called the Party Crasher's Handbook, containing all of my ideas and experiences on how one can learn of upcoming parties and events, the types of parties and events to crash and on party-crashing techniques in particular. I later copyrighted the book. In the meantime, in 2001, I got involved in charity, non-profit events and fund-raising for various causes. One such cause very dear to me was the movement to put an end to dog fighting in Southern California. In this connection, I produced one of the most successful episodes of the Leeza Gibbons Show for television entitled "When Pets Become Predators" which exposed the underworld of illegal dog fighting. The publicity from this show, some small reward money, the help of the police and prosecutors, and my appearances on ABC, NBC and CBS News ultimately enabled us to bust six illegal dog-fighting rings in California and Nevada. More recently, starting in 2006, in response to the widespread shortage of pet-friendly housing and the prevalent unconscionable practice of euthanizing dogs and cats, I proposed legislation to the City of San Francisco to encourage landlords to allow their tenants to maintain pets on their premises. I had garnered the support of the Mayor and of many influential people in the San Francisco area, and had planned to present the proposed legislation to the Board of Supervisors. However, I was blocked by a Supervisor who opposed the Mayor. I have since transferred, to Los Angeles, my goal to create the first pet-friendly city in America. Mayor Villaraigosa has indicated his enthusiastic interest and support. Eventually, I wish to take the proposal to the California Legislature to propagate legislation statewide, and ultimately plan to make this a nationwide initiative. If I ultimately prevail in my lawsuit, and recover the damages to which I sincerely believe I am entitled, I intend to commit a substantial portion of my gains to a non-profit charity that will work on behalf of animals. Now, let me tell you what happened with the movie. In March 2002, it occurred to me that party crashing would be a great idea for a motion picture comedy and in April 2002 I teamed up with Neil Portman, a former agent of the William Morris Agency to assist me. In late June, 2002, I met with Robert Shaye, CEO of New Line, at the Sunset Room and formally introduced him to my plans for a feature film on party-crashing – “The Party Crasher”. I told Shaye I was in a position to secure the funding for the complete production budget of the movie, if I found serious interest from a major film company in being a partner. I asked him if New Line would be interested in being that partner, taking on the Distribution and the Advertising for the film for a “to be negotiated interest” of 30-40% profit participation. Shaye expressed keen interest after I went over the details of party-crashing, wedding-crashing, funeral-crashing, event-crashing, etc., at that meeting. Further in response to Shaye’s expressed enthusiasm, I agreed to deliver him a treatment on two guys crashing parties, funerals, weddings … to meet attractive women, to get free food and entertainment, etc. (incidentally, all the things that are in Wedding Crashers). I suggested to Shaye that the actor Jim Carrey would be a good choice to play the lead role and sent my assistant to his agent, United Talent Agency ("UTA"), to explore the possibility of Carrey playing the lead. At the same time, I personally pitched Jim Carrey at a movie premiere, and he enthusiastically referred me to his agent at UTA, Nick Stevens. I made it clear to Shaye at that meeting that I was presenting him this information in confidence. If he ever used any of my ideas in a movie in which I was not involved, he would need to give me credit and negotiate compensation with me. He verbally agreed. It then was the next day that I delivered to Shaye the separate written treatments for two guys crashing parties, weddings and funerals. My assistant also delivered my Party Crasher's Handbook to Shaye, as well as other employees of New Line, and of Jim Carrey’s agency, UTA. After months of discussions and negotiations, New Line and UTA both announced their rejection of my proposal, saying they were not interested. Discouraged, I focused on my charitable activities mentioned above. Two years later, near the end of 2004, I learned through my contacts in Hollywood that a movie about wedding crashing was in production by New Line and would be coming out in mid-2005. I was advised that UTA, also had provided the actors for the movie; Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson. I then realized what had happened! Now, let me tell about my lawsuit. After learning about the movie in production, I contacted attorneys who filed suit against New Line and Shaye for idea theft in Santa Monica Superior Court, before Judge Valerie Baker in late 2004. I attended most of the court hearings in my case. At first, as mentioned earlier, Judge Baker seemed very favorably disposed to my case. She even appeared a bit hostile toward New Line's attorneys during court hearings. In May 2005, New Line took my deposition, along with those of my assistant and another witness, with respect to my presentation to Shaye at the Sunset Room. My attorneys and I were very pleased with the results. I felt very comfortable that, once we got New Line in front of a jury, we would surely prevail. But then a strange thing happened in the summer of 2005. Judge Baker's attitude suddenly changed. For no apparent reason she began acting with great hostility toward my counsel and my case, and now appeared disposed to friendliness and amiability toward New Line's counsel. I could not understand what had caused this abrupt reversal! In the meantime, on July 15, 2005, Wedding Crashers was released to the public. It was a smashing success, as I had predicted to Shaye that a film of this type would be. Shortly afterward, I went and saw the movie! I felt appalled and crestfallen as a virtual parade of my ideas rolled by in the movie, albeit with minor changes and variations on the theme of the characters that, to me, "seemed altered just enough to disguise them." I became resolute in the belief that I had to prevail, not just for myself, but for anyone in our industry who will find themselves faced with this same dilemma – the classic David and Goliath scenario. However, also in July 2005, New Line and Shaye brought a motion for summary judgment against me on the grounds that they did not use my ideas. They argued that there was no substantial similarity between the ideas I had shown Robert Shaye and New Line, and the ideas New Line used to develop and produce Wedding Crashers. The motion was heard on December 1, 2005. Judge Baker agreed with New Line, that there was no substantial similarity between their ideas and mine, and that, therefore, New Line had not used my ideas. She granted them summary judgment against me, in effect saying that the evidence was so clear that no jury could reasonably find differently. Judge Baker entered that judgment later in December, 2005. My attorneys are currently in the process of appealing what, in my opinion, was a baseless and suspect decision Now, I'll show you the ideas I presented to Shaye and the ideas used in Wedding Crashers and let you decide whether you think New Line used my ideas. My attorneys and I were astonished by Judge Baker's decision. We could not understand how she could reasonably have reached such a definitive conclusion. In my mind, and in the minds of my friends and colleagues, it only took common sense to see that New Line had used my ideas. However, that is our opinion. I invite you to compare the ideas for yourself, using the table on the next page, and to make your own decision. California courts have laid out specific criteria for determining whether an idea theft has taken place in a movie or story context. They look for clearly apparent similarities between the ideas submitted to the producer and the ideas used in the movie. The factors of comparison in which the courts look for similarities are (1) the basic plot ideas, (2) the motivation, (3) the subject matter, (4) the milieu, (5) the themes, (6) the sequences, (7) dramatic gimmicks and (8) the characterization. Comparing my proposals to Shaye with the content of Wedding Crashers, I believe it’s obvious that New Line followed my ideas to produce the movie. I invite you to compare the following and decide for yourself. 1. My basic plot idea involved two buddies seeking advantage where they have no business. Wedding Crashers also involves two buddies seeking advantage where they have no business. 2. The motivations of my characters are the same as for those in the movie; to meet women, have fun and eat gourmet food. 3. My subject was the skillful crashing of upscale, elegant parties. New Line’s subject involved the skillful crashing of upscale, elegant weddings. 4. The milieu for both is similar, involving partygoers, party crashers, beautiful women and elegant settings in attractive venues. 5. My theme, and that of the movie Wedding Crashers both involve the two young men using fake identities and props to gain unauthorized entry, to seek young women for sex, and to challenge themselves to achieve an ultimate success. 6. The sequences are virtually identical; repeatedly crashing event after event to become progressively more skillful and successful at it. 7. My dramatic gimmicks entail my ‘Rules of Party Crashing’, and my slogan “Life’s a Party and Everyone Wants to Crash It”. Those in Wedding Crashers invoke the ‘Rules of Wedding Crashing’, and the slogan “Life’s a Party, Crash It”. The gimmick of dressing in waiters’ uniforms to gain access, is identical. 8. The characterization in my idea for the movie and in Wedding Crashers: two male buddies party/wedding crashers. This is specifically set forth in the “Charity Crashing” treatment in my Handbook, which I delivered to New Line. Further, each of the main “crasher” characters in Wedding Crashers represents an aspect of my life: I am now regarded as ‘the party crasher guru’, the role in Wedding Crashers of Chazz Reingold. I have been the ‘mentor party crasher’ at one time, represented in Wedding Crashers by Vince Vaughn. And, I have been an apprentice party crasher in the past, as portrayed in Wedding Crashers by Owen Wilson. Following, in the left column, is a list of the ideas shared with Robert Shaye, the CEO of New Line Cinema in 2002. In the right are the characterizations and attributes which appeared in their feature film, Wedding Crashers. I ask you to compare them. ---------------------------------------------------------- Ideas I Presented to Shaye, New Line, & UTA Similar or Identical Ideas in “Wedding Crashers” 1. I proposed the title of “Party Crashers.” New Line's movie was titled "Wedding Crashers." 2. My movie was to be a slapstick comedy. Their movie is a slapstick comedy. 3. Crashing parties, including weddings, was to be the basic storyline for my movie. Crashing weddings is the basic storyline of their movie. 4. My crashers would be two male buddies, one a party-crashing mentor to the other. The 'Wedding Crashers' lead roles are two male friends, one of whom initiates the other in the practice of crashing weddings. 5. My two buddies would crash parties, including weddings, to pick up beautiful women, eat gourmet food, drink and have fun. The two buddies in New Line's movie crash weddings to pick up beautiful women, eat gourmet food, drink and have fun. 6. Techniques used by my crashers would include impersonation, fake back stories, entering through kitchens, and using props such as busboy, waiter, and valet uniforms. The two characters in 'Wedding Crashers' impersonate relatives or friends of guests, use fake back stories about being investment bankers, enter through kitchens and wear waiters’ uniforms to crash a wedding party. 7. My Handbook discusses the 'Rules of Party Crashing'. The buddies follow the 'Rules of Wedding Crashing'. 8. My Handbook refers to the 'Party Crashers Super Bowl' as the ultimate party crash. The movie refers to 'The Kentucky Derby of Wedding Crashes' as the ultimate wedding crash. 9. I, Rex Reginald, have been called, by the media, the “King of the (Hollywood) Party Crashers”, “The Real Party Crasher” and similar terms. Character “Chazz Reingold”, is described as “The Greatest Wedding Crasher”. 10. I considered, but rejected, funeral crashing as discredited and in bad taste. Chazz Reingold, the fanciful caricature of me in Wedding Crashers, is shown as having 'fallen from grace' by doing funeral crashing. 11. I wrote and copywrited a book titled “The Party Crasher’s Handbook.” Some advertising for the movie, “Wedding Crashers” describes and offers for sale an imaginary handbook titled “The Rules of Wedding Crashing” by Chazz Reingold. 12. My Handbook cover has the slogan "Life is a party and Everyone wants to crash it". The tag line on signs and other advertising for “Wedding Crashers” was “Life’s a Party, Crash It" ---------------------------------------------------------- Now, after reviewing the above list, do you agree with Judge Baker that there is, clearly and definitively, so little in common between my ideas and those of Wedding Crashers that a jury of my peers could not reasonably have found in my favor, and that I should, therefore, be denied my day in court? Now, I'll tell you why I feel there was substantial similarity and that New Line did use my ideas. I believe the facts reveal Judge Baker's decision to be utterly devoid of common sense, and raise profound questions as to the motive for her ruling. I believe the similarities to be blatantly obvious and unmistakable, as do my attorneys. We are now engaged in a vigorous appeal to overturn the Summary Judgment, in hopes of finally getting my day in court. (1) Who would believe that New Line did not use my concept of the “Rules of Party Crashing” when they present the “Rules of Wedding Crashing” in their movie? How could Judge Baker hold that “Rules of Wedding Crashing” is so different from “Rules of Party Crashing” that a jury could not reasonably find a substantial similarity? (2) Who would believe that New Line did not essentially appropriate my idea that "Life Is A Party And Everyone Wants To Crash It" when they baldly used the tag line “Life’s a Party, Crash It” on signs and other advertising for Wedding Crashers? How could Judge Baker believe that a jury could not reasonably find them substantially similar? (3) Who would believe that New Line did not take my idea of "The Super Bowl of Party Crashes" as the ultimate party crash, when they used the concept "The Kentucky Derby of Wedding Crashes" to describe the ultimate wedding to crash in the movie? Again, how can Judge Baker, in any kind of good conscience, hold that "The Kentucky Derby of Wedding Crashes" ” is so different from "The Super Bowl of Party Crashes" that a jury would not reasonably find them abundantly similar? (4) Who would believe that New Line did not use my ideas for wedding crashing, when I provided them with a treatment on the very subject of wedding crashing, in my Handbook? (5) Who would believe that New Line did not copy my characterizations of the crashers as two male buddies, one a mentor and the other an apprentice, when their leads in the movie are two male friends, one who brought the other into the practice of wedding crashing? How could Judge Baker conclude that the two are not substantially identical? (6) Who would believe that New Line did not get from me their ideas for techniques of impersonation, fake back stories, entry through the kitchen, and the use of waiters’ uniforms, when those are exactly what their lead characters did in Wedding Crashers? I believe that, in the face of the evidence above, it’s a slam dunk that New Line used my personal, original ideas, and owes me compensation for that. More than that, however, the factors of comparison set forth above demonstrate that Wedding Crashers was based almost entirely upon my treatment, and that my intellectual property provided the structure for the very genre for their a party-crashing film. I should be credited and compensated for that as well. Everyone consulted on this; my friends, supporters, attorneys, and even relative strangers is inclined to believe that summary judgment ought to have gone my way, not New Line’s. The ultimate absurdity lies in New Line’s assertion that their own writers developed, literally, all of the ideas upon which they based Wedding Crashers, independent of me. They claim that any apparent similarities between my ideas and their movie are entirely coincidental. They claim that, by the time they began production of Wedding Crashers just five months after rejecting me, they’d already discarded and forgotten everything I’d disclosed or delivered to them. What kind of a jury could possibly have believed that story, especially with a potentially huge settlement on the line? I might add that Judge Baker did not rule on this issue of Independent Creation. She limited her decision to denying the obvious similarities. What has happened since Judge Baker's Summary Judgment went against me: I’d heard that Judge Baker had applied to the President to become a federal judge in the summer of 2005. I later learned, just over 4 months after the summary judgment against me, that Judge Baker was selected by the White House, out of a number of applicants, as a nominee for federal judgeship, a fact announced in the media on May 4, 2006. The appointment of a state court judge to federal court is a major promotion. Aside from the lofty prestige, federal judges are appointed for life, and no longer have to run for re-election as state court judges do. I understand that federal judges also have greater autonomy and power in their courtrooms. Through my research, I also learned that Richard Parsons, CEO of AOL-Time Warner (which owns New Line), is connected to President George Bush, was selected to co-chair a commission on Social Security, and is close to Republicans in general. He was the lawyer to Nelson Rockefeller as NY Governor, then later as Vice President in Washington, DC. He was an advisory trustee to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, served on the board of the Rockefeller family's Museum of Modern Art, and on the transition team for Michael Bloomberg when he was elected mayor of New York City. I considered Judge Baker’s ruling in my case. In my opinion, it un- reasonably defied any fact-based logic, all of which supports my position. In fact, her ruling clearly appeared to fly in the face of both the law and the evidence. I then did some research to find out more about summary judgment. I’d had no idea I could lose my case without getting a trial; I’d always thought I could explain myself to a jury and let them decide. I learned, though, that summary judgment is a technique that can be unfairly employed to deny justice to people in America courts. We are led to believe that, in America, we have a right to have our legal matters resolved as a matter of evidence, before a jury of our peers. We trust in the likelihood that twelve fellow, everyday people will judge the facts honestly and render a fair decision. And, we believe it would be exceedingly difficult for one to influence enough jurors to thwart that expectation. However, state legislators in America have enacted the summary judgment law, by which one party in a suit may win a case and obtain a judgment simply by filing affidavits on paper to a judge, without ever having to testify at trial, or face a jury. Now, the summary judgment is appropriate in simple cases such as, for example, a failure to pay on a promissory note, where the facts are cut-and-dried and there is no defense. This is the sort of case the summary judgment law was intended to address. But in complicated cases, where issues are complex, and require careful judgment and analysis, and wherein different people can reach different conclusions, its use is an absurdity. It’s unfair, inappropriate and virtually never granted. And yet, that is exactly what happened to me. The summary judgment procedure can be easily abused, because it is ultimately decided by only one person who can choose to ignore the evidence without challenge. I believe this to be a serious weakness in the legal system. It’s a means of denying real justice to the little guy who is wronged by those rich and powerful. I have always believed up until this recent experience that our judicial system was pure and beyond repute, a good place for us to settle our disputes with justice. After talking to attorneys and organizations involved with judges, I now believe there is just as much corruption in the judicial system as in the other branches of our government; perhaps more. As of now I have nothing beyond circumstantial evidence that there is any criminal wrongdoing. However, given the fact that the judge’s ruling has been deemed unreasonable by the many professional and lay people whom I have consulted, I do believe it plausible and reasonable that Judge Baker’s decision to deny my claim, in the inappropriate way she did, was motivated by something beyond the merits of the case. I think it’s incumbent upon me to pursue, not only an appeal as the only recourse left to me, but a vigorous and thorough investigation of Judge Baker, and of the foundation of her ruling against me, in order to ascertain whether, truly, there has been any wrongdoing. I owe this,, not only for myself but for all those others who find themselves, and will find themselves, in similar situations, being exploited by powerful companies, such as the studios that control the movie industry. Since I don't have the authority or resources to carry out a complete investigation, I filed a complaint against Judge Baker on August 30, 2006 with the California Commission on Judicial Performance, for violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. I am asking them to investigate her decision in the disposition of my case, to determine whether she committed any wrongdoing in terms of knowingly having failed to follow the law in her ruling, to implicate or exonerate her. The Commission’s investigation is currently underway. Now, let me tell you what I'm planning to do about idea theft. My friends and I have formed the Writers Coalition to fight for the rights of writers and creative artists. Idea theft has become a sport in Hollywood. Some major studios and top flight producers (You may know who they are.) regularly use the ideas of creative artists and writers in their films and other products, while giving those writers and artists little, or even no, acknowledgment or compensation. This is what has happened to me. Writers and artists usually fail to sue these studios and producers for fear that, if they did, they would be blacklisted and their careers ruined. They fear that no studio would hire them or respond again to their ideas. Writers and artists are rarely financially secure enough to take on such challenges. They are no match for the powerful, billionaire studios that run the movie industry. The Writers Coalition and I intend to expose this ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL PRACTICE FOR WHAT IT IS … "GREED". We intend to go to the media and let the whole world know this abhorrent practice in Hollywood. In the future, when we cannot get fair treatment in the courts, we will then go to the court of public opinion, and have our cases heard through the media. We intend to garner the support and membership of the writers and artists and, with strength in numbers, vigorously fight fairly for their rights. We plan, particularly, to target those studios and producers who blatantly steal the work of others. Together, we intend to bring an end to this plague of “Idea Theft” in Hollywood. There is real support in numbers.… please contact us if you wish to participate and make your voice heard. Rex Reginald, San Francisco November 6, 2006. P.S. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS 2006 DISMAL YEAR FOR NEW LINE Struggling New Line looks ahead to 2007. NEW LINE CINEMA MAKES AN OFFER REX REGINALD REFUSES Around December 7, 2006, New Line through an intermediary, offer $1,000,000 and an executive position to Rex Reginald to produce and write the Wedding Crashers sequel with them, which Mr. Reginald promptly turned down as ridiculous, because of the $400,000,000 Wedding Crashers has made. In addition, they wanted to call it Party Crashers, the original title Rex Reginald pitched to Bob Shaye and New Line along with Wedding Crashers. REX REGINALD TURNS DOWN SITCOM SERIES Around November 15, 2006, Rex Reginald turned down a sitcom television series dealing with Rex's Party Crashing ideas, from Warner Brothers Television, which is also own by AOL.