1 2 3
Alexander Baker, Plaintiff Pro Se 3505 8th Ave Los Angeles, CA. 90018 tel: 323-313-7653
4
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
8
312 N. Spring St. # G8, Los Angeles, CA. 90012
5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Firstcom Music, a Unit of Universal ) ) Music-Z Tunes, LLC; ) ) Kenneth “Ken” Nelson; ) ) Jenifer Carpenter; ) ) Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo; ) ) Children’s Network, LLC a/k/a ) Sprout; ) ) Johnson & Murphy Productions, LLC; ) ) John Doe Infringers 1-10,000 ) ) ) Defendants. Alexander Baker
Case No.: Civil Complaint for: RICO 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Copyright Infringement 17 U.S.C. §101 et. seq. Fraud Conversion
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26 27
Plaintiff Alexander Baker comes to this honorable United States District Court and
28
against the named defendants alleges as follows:
1 2
Table of Contents
3
SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM ..................................1
4
PARTIES AND RELEVANT NON-PARTIES ..................................................5
5
Plaintiff .....................................................................................................................................5
6
RICO Music Laundering Defendants ......................................................................................5
7
Additional Copyright Defendants ............................................................................................6
8
Relevant Non-Parties ...............................................................................................................7
9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................8
10
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................8
11
Personal Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................8
12
Venue ........................................................................................................................................8
13
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS .....................................................................9
14
I.
BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................9
15
A. 1980-1993 - Firstcom is a Legitimate Pioneer in Production Music ...........................9
16
B. The Basics of Music Licensing and Performance Income ..........................................9
17
C. Firstcom’s Contract Promises Writer Retains Writer Share ......................................10
18
D. September 1993 - Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo Form “Invisible Hand Productions” ...10
19
E. Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo Agree to Split Authorship Credit Equally ........................10
20
F. About 1994 - Firstcom is Acquired by Zomba .......................................................... 11
21
II. FORMATION OF LEGITIMATE MUSIC COMPOSITION, PRODUCTION AND LICENSING ENTERPRISE ...........................................................................................11
22 23
A. August 1996 - Invisible Hand Enters First Deal With Firstcom................................ 11
24
B. Equal Writing Agreement Morphs Into Ghostwriting Agreement.............................12
25 26
C. May 7, 1997 - Baker and Marlo File Fictitious Business Name Statement “Invisible Hand Productions” ....................................................................................................13
27
D. April 1997 - March 2006 - Invisible Hand Productions Enters 14 More Contracts with Firstcom .....................................................................................................................13
28
E. 2006 - Baker is Unfaithful in Marriage .....................................................................14
!ii
1 2
III. TRANSITION TO RICO ENTERPRISE OF MUSIC LAUNDERING ........................15 A. The “Sprout Promo Situation” - 30,000 Unlicensed Performances ..........................15
3
B. Firstcom Begins Systematically Circumventing Performance Royalties Under Intense Market Competition ..................................................................................................16
4
C. January 2007 - Jenifer Carpenter Registers Fabricated Splits ...................................17
5
D. Ken Nelson Declares Alexander Baker a “Loose Cannon” .......................................17
6
E. Nelson, Carpenter and Marlo Conspire to Exploit Baker’s Musical Talent ..............19
7
F. Firstcom Fraud: “We Will Not Sue Sprout” .............................................................19
8
G. Firstcom Coercion: “Baker Is Forbidden to Sue Sprout” ..........................................20
9
H. Music Laundering Scheme Solves Multiple Problems .............................................21
10
I.
July 26, 2007 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-For-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement Contract .................................................................21
12
J.
October 26, 2007 - Firstcom sues Sprout and Johnson & Murphy ...........................22
13
K. November 12, 2007 - Marlo Files Fictitious Business Name Statement “Invisible Hand Productions” Solely as “An Individual” ....................................................................22
11
14 15 16
L. December 3, 2007 - Marlo Coerces Baker Into Quitclaiming the House..................23 IV. CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF RICO MUSIC LAUNDERING ENTERPRISE......24
17
A. February 25, 2008 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Songwriter Inducement Not Signed By Baker ............................................24
18
B. September 12, 2008 - Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker .25
19
C. January 1, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................26
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
D. January 1, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker ..................................................................27 E. May 12, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker ..................................................................28 F. January 14, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................29 G. May 18, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................30 H. July 14, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker ..................................................................31
28
!iii
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I.
December 2, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker ....................................................32
J.
March 17, 2011 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker ..................................................................33
K. March 1, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................34 L. March 20, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed by Baker ..................................................................35 M. September 9, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Songwriter Inducement Not Signed By Baker ............................................36 N. January 17, 2013 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................37 O. January 9, 2014 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Falsely Claiming Herself 100% Author .................................................................................................38
12
P. January 20, 2015 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s signature on Writer Inducement ................................................................................39
13
Q. March 2014 - Present - Marlo Prevents Access to Baker’s Life’s Work ..................40
14
V. BAKER DISCOVERS “TIP OF THE ICEBERG” AND SUES .....................................41
15 16
A. June 30, 2015 - Baker Notices Marlo and Firstcom About Infringement of “70s Mix Tape” a/k/a “That 70s Record” ..................................................................................41
17
B. August, 2015 - Baker Discovers Fraudulent Fictitious Business Name Statement...42
18
C. January 2016 - Baker Discovers Universal Royalty Stream .....................................42
19
D. April-September 2016 - Baker Successfully Sues Marlo for Copyright Infringement of “That 70s Record” a/k/a “70s Mix Tape” .................................................................43
20 21
VI. BAKER DISCOVERS RICO MUSIC LAUNDERING ENTERPRISE ........................43
22
A. June 2016 - Firstcom Produces Contracts, Royalty Statements and Emails in Response to Subpoena ...............................................................................................................43
23
B. June 2016 - Baker Discovers Secret Universal Royalty Statements .........................44
24
C. June 2016 - Baker Discovers Firstcom v. Sprout Lawsuit .......................................44
25
D. July 2016 - Baker Discovers Nir Averbuch Reallocation .........................................44
26
E. October 2016 - Baker Creates Blog, Marlo Requests Domestic Violence Restraining Order To Chill It ........................................................................................................45
27 28
F. October 2016 - Baker Discovers Firstcom Subpoena Response Incomplete ............46 G. November 2016 - Baker Discovers Universal Digital Royalty Settlement ...............46 !iv
1
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................47
2
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...............................................................................................47
3
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................49
4
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF ..............................................................................................50
5
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...........................................................................................50
6
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...............................................................................................51
7
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...............................................................................................52
8
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................54
9
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................54
10
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ..............................................................................................56
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................57
12
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................i
13
List of Falsified Contracts Between Invisible Hand and Firstcom ...........................................i
14
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................... iii
15
List of Songs With False Authorship Registrations ................................................................iii
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
!v
SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM
1 2
1.
3
dedicated to what shall hereafter be known as “Music Laundering”.
4
2.
5
activity, for example drug dealing, prostitution, or loan sharking. The money acquired is
6
“dirty” because it was obtained in great quantity through illegal means, thus difficult to
7
explain. The conspirators then seek to give their ill-gotten money the appearance of
8
legitimacy by also operating some legitimate cash business, such as a laundromat, an
9
arcade, or a theater. The criminals thereby create a plausible explanation for the existence
The RICO defendants named here operate a RICO racketeering enterprise In a classic money laundering scheme, conspirators are profiting from an illegal
10
of their continual infusion of new dollars. The ill-gotten money now appears “clean”.
11
3.
12
Copyright Infringement plus Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud. They acquire possession of
13
recorded original music by falsely promising the writers of music that they will be
14
properly credited, thus entitled to collect future moneys called “Performance Royalties”.
15
The music is “dirty” because it was obtained in great quantity through illegal means, thus
16
difficult to explain. The conspirators then seek to give their ill-gotten music the
17
appearance of legitimacy by forging signatures on so-called “Writer Inducement
18
Contracts”, which contracts falsely indicate music authorship shares that either ignore
19
completely, or else greatly understate the actual writer’s musical contribution; while
20
overstating or wholly fabricating the conspirator’s contribution, who typically made no
21
actual musical contribution at all. The criminals thereby create a plausible explanation for
22
the existence of a continual infusion of new music titles, ready to be licensed. The ill-
23
gotten music now appears “clean”.
24
4.
25
i.e. maintaining a catalog of recorded music titles to which it owned the necessary rights,
26
and thus could commercially exploit by selling licenses for use in media, especially TV
27
shows. Each time a song is played in a TV show, both the publisher and the writer of the
28
song are entitled to collect money called a “Performance Royalty”.
Here, the conspirators are profiting from an ongoing pattern of criminal
Beginning in the 1980’s, Firstcom Music was a pioneer in “Production Music”,
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 1! of 60 !
Firstcom prospered, was purchased by a larger record company, then another, and
1
5.
2
then ultimately was acquired by Universal Music Group, one of the largest entertainment
3
conglomerates on Earth.
4
6.
5
Marlo, a husband-wife music writing partnership doing business as Invisible Hand
6
Productions, entered into a long string of contracts with Firstcom, under which they
7
created a great number of musical works, many of which were successfully licensed by
8
Firstcom for use on TV shows. In the beginning of their partnership, Mr. Baker and Ms.
9
Marlo agreed to split writer credits on all Production Music equally, and in the beginning,
10
they both contributed equally to the music. However, after the birth of their first daughter
11
in 1996, Mr. Baker did about 99% of the music writing and studio production, while Ms.
12
Marlo handled 100% of the business side, including all contracts and communications
13
with Firstcom.
14
7.
15
had become much more crowded and competitive than it had formerly been. This is
16
Firstcom’s “Competition Problem”. In 2006-2007, Firstcom was in the process of being
17
acquired by Universal. To remain competitive, Universal and Firstcom devised a scheme
18
called “Direct Licensing”. Direct Licensing means selling a license for use of music on a
19
show, with the understanding that the buyer is not obligated to report the usage, thus
20
bypassing Performance Royalties that would otherwise be due to the writer and publisher.
21
While representing an attractive discount option for clients, Firstcom understood that
22
Direct Licensing runs afoul of its standard contract with writers, which promises that
23
writers retain their “writer share” of Performance Royalties. While Direct Licensing
24
addresses the Competition Problem, it creates a new problem - how to get their music
25
writer-producers to continue creating product, while agreeing to forego future
26
Performance Royalty income. This is the “Direct License Problem”.
27
8.
28
Clair Marlo had discovered that TV network Sprout was performing their Firstcom song
Beginning in the mid 1990’s, Plaintiff Alexander Baker and Defendant Clair
By the mid-2000s, Firstcom faced problems. The market for Production Music
In 2006-2007, Firstcom had yet another another problem. Alexander Baker and
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 2! of 60 !
1
“See What The Animals Do” on a regular basis, without a license. Eventually the
2
performances totaled at least 3500 in number, and by Plaintiff’s estimate, it was 30,000.
3
When Firstcom mysteriously denied that the song was being used at all, Alexander Baker
4
threatened to sue Sprout for Copyright Infringement. In the resulting communications,
5
this became known as the “Sprout Promo Situation”. By all accounts, Firstcom senior VP
6
Ken Nelson was furious with Alexander Baker for having been a “loose cannon”.
7
9.
8
refused to hire him ever again, if not for the fact that he knew that Mr. Baker had a
9
proven track record of creating marketable Production Music, and creating it by the ton.
As angry as Ken Nelson was with Alexander Baker, he would likely have simply
10
Firstcom had made a lot of money from exploiting Mr. Baker’s work, and wanted to
11
“keep the gravy train rolling”. This is the “Sprout Promo Problem”.
12
10.
13
had sex outside the marriage. She could not forgive him and wanted to punish him as
14
severely as possible. However, she too wanted to continue to exploit Mr. Baker’s musical
15
talents and “keep the gravy train rolling”. This is Clair Marlo’s “Revenge Problem”.
16
11.
17
scheme intended to solve all of their respective problems. This cooperative structure
18
between Defendants Firstcom, Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter, and Clair Marlo is
19
hereafter referred to as “The Music Laundering Enterprise” or “The Enterprise”. Music
20
Laundering as implemented by The Enterprise works to address Firstcom’s Competition
21
Problem, the Direct Licensing Problem, the Sprout Promo Problem and Clair Marlo’s
22
Revenge Problem, as follows.
23
12.
24
continuing to deliver a steady stream of new music, a secret and hitherto unprecedented
25
royalty stream was created, payable by Universal to Invisible Hand Productions. Ms.
26
Marlo secretly re-registered Invisible Hand Productions into her own name by filing a
27
new Fictitious Business Name Statement. Besides secretly and solely collecting this new
28
royalty stream, Ms. Marlo could now unilaterally enter into the work-for-hire contracts.
Meanwhile, Clair Marlo also had a problem. Her husband, Alexander Baker,
In 2007, Ken Nelson, his assistant Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo hit upon a
To induce Clair Marlo to forego some significant writer royalties, while
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 3! of 60 !
To further induce Clair Marlo, the Music Laundering scheme called for Ms.
1
13.
2
Marlo to be given a 75% share, or a 90% share, or even a 100% share of music titles
3
which were actually created solely by Mr. Baker, rather than the 50% share per their
4
long-standing ghostwriting agreement. Of course, Mr. Baker would never agree to give
5
up any percentage of his writer shares, nor would he agree with Direct Licensing, so the
6
Music Laundering scheme required Ms. Marlo to forge Mr. Baker’s signature on the
7
Writer Inducement Contracts which established the writer “splits”.
8
14.
9
effectuate the Music Laundering scheme with Firstcom.
As Mr. Baker’s wife and business partner, Ms. Marlo was uniquely positioned to
10
15.
11
suing or taking any legal action against Sprout. The Enterprise further stated that
12
Firstcom would take no action against Sprout, and had no position on whether the song
13
being played on Sprout was or was not “See What The Animals Do”. With Mr. Baker
14
silenced and restrained, Firstcom then immediately sued Sprout, ultimately settling for an
15
undisclosed payment, while successfully depriving Alexander Baker from suing or
16
collecting any Performance Royalties at all.
17
16.
18
Music Laundering, obtaining original music through false promises of proper credit made
19
to Mr. Baker and at least 6 other writers, then executing false and forged Writer
20
Inducement Contracts, or in several cases proceeding on Writer Inducement Contracts
21
which were not signed at all. The contracts were sent through the U.S. Mail from
22
California to Texas. The false authorship registrations were transmitted from Firstcom in
23
Texas to ASCAP and BMI in California, while false copyright registrations were
24
transmitted to the U.S. Library of Congress in Washington DC.
25
17.
26
now successfully licensed some vast number of expropriated musical works for use on a
27
long list of TV shows.
In 2007, the Enterprise informed Alexander Baker that he was prohibited from
From 2007-2015, the Enterprise continuously operated in an ongoing pattern of
Continuously well-stocked with laundered music since 2007, the Enterprise has
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 4! of 60 !
PARTIES AND RELEVANT NON-PARTIES
1 2
Plaintiff
3
18.
4
producer and publisher now living in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Baker’s publishing
5
company is “Write Hear Music” (BMI CAE/IPI #: 197437624).
Plaintiff Alexander Baker (hereafter “Mr. Baker”) is a music composer,
6 7
RICO Music Laundering Defendants
8
19.
9
conspired to engage in a pattern of criminal copyright infringement, mail fraud and wire
10
fraud; such racketeering activity herein termed “Music Laundering”. Each has committed
11
numerous criminal acts of Mail and Wire Fraud as part of their scheme to fraudulently
12
obtain and commercially exploit copyrighted musical works by Mr. Baker and other
13
composers.
14
20.
15
Marlo”) is a music composer, producer, and publisher now living in Sherman Oaks,
16
California. Ms. Marlo’s role in the Music Laundering Enterprise is to forge the Plaintiff’s
17
signature on contracts, submit false authorship information, and generally tell whatever
18
lies are required to induce Plaintiff and other composers to create licensable music for the
19
Enterprise.
20
21.
21
“Firstcom”) is a Production Music company with offices in Carrolton, Texas and Santa
22
Monica, California. Firstcom profits by acquiring master rights and publishing rights to
23
pieces of recorded music, then selling licenses for usage of that music in films, television
24
shows, advertisements, video games, websites, and other media. During each 6-month
25
period from 2007-2015, Firstcom received greater than $1000 in revenue on illegally-
26
obtained music titles authored by Plaintiff and others.
27
22.
28
President of Firstcom, a position he has held since the mid-1990’s. On behalf of Firstcom,
The following defendants listed in paragraphs 20-23 are the persons who have
Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo, (hereafter “Clair Marlo” or “Ms.
Firstcom Music, a Unit of Universal Music Z-Tunes, LLC (hereafter
Kenneth “Ken” Nelson (“Ken Nelson” or “Mr. Nelson”) is Senior Vice
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 5! of 60 !
1
Mr. Nelson obtains copyright to recorded music masters by contracting with music
2
production companies on a “work-for-hire” basis; and the copyrights to Compositions by
3
contracting with music authors through so-called “Writer Inducement Contracts”. Mr.
4
Nelson’s role in the Music Laundering Enterprise is that he devised a scheme by which a
5
continuous source of licensable music is obtained through deception, then given the
6
appearance of legitimacy with forged and otherwise falsified Writer Inducement
7
Contracts. Mr. Nelson also devised various schemes to enrich himself by depriving
8
songwriters of performance royalty money due.
9
23.
Jenifer Carpenter (“Jenifer Carpenter” or “Ms. Carpenter”) is Executive
10
Assistant to Mr. Nelson at Firstcom, a position she has held since the mid-1990’s. Ms.
11
Carpenter is responsible for submitting copyright, authorship and publishing registrations
12
to the Library of Congress and to Performance Rights Organizations such as ASCAP and
13
BMI. Ms. Carpenter’s role in the Music Laundering Enterprise is to falsify such
14
registrations whenever necessary, to create the appearance of legitimacy, while at the
15
same time diverting money away from the authors to whom it belongs, and into the hands
16
of the Enterprise conspirators.
17 18
Additional Copyright Defendants
19
24.
20
headquartered in New York City, featuring programming for young children. Sprout is a
21
division of NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast.
22
25.
23
advertising agency in Van Nuys, CA who produced promotional audio-video recordings
24
aired on Sprout.
25
26.
26
who performed copyrighted music pursuant to good faith purchases of licenses from the
27
RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
Defendant Children’s Network, LLC, (“Sprout”) is a television network
Defendant Johnson & Murphy, LLC (“Johnson & Murphy” or “J&M”) is an
Defendants John Doe Infringers 1-10,000 are TV show producers and others
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 6! of 60 !
1
Relevant Non-Parties
2
27.
3
Performance Rights Organization. ASCAP contracts with commercial music users such
4
as television networks and radio stations, charging fees in exchange for allowing the
5
performances of affiliated music. ASCAP then pays performance royalties to its member
6
composers and publishers, based on reported usage.
7
28.
8
Organization. BMI contracts with commercial music users such as television networks
9
and radio stations, charging fees in exchange for allowing the performances of affiliated
10
music. BMI then pays performance royalties to its member composers and publishers,
11
based on reported usage.
12
29.
13
Creative and Special Projects at ASCAP. Ms. Muñoz participated, perhaps unwittingly, in
14
the fraudulent scheme to deprive Alexander Baker of performance royalty money and his
15
right to sue.
16
30.
17
Music Group and Firstcom. Mr. Schmidt participated in a conference call in which Mr.
18
Baker was told that no legal action could or would be taken against Sprout, then directed
19
the Firstcom v. Sprout copyright lawsuit in which Firstcom prevailed, while Alexander
20
Baker’s rights to sue and to collect Performance Royalties was destroyed.
21
31.
22
business formed by Alexander Baker and Clair Marlo in 1993, registered with a Fictitious
23
Business Name Statement filed in Los Angeles County in May 1997. Invisible Hand
24
entered into more than 25 Work-for-Hire contracts with Firstcom.
25
32.
26
Invisible Hand on at least 3 compositions for Firstcom, but was not included in any
27
authorship registrations.
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) is a
Broadcast Music Incorporated (“BMI”) is a Performance Rights
Loretta Muñoz (“Ms. Muñoz”) is Assistant Vice President of Pop/Rock
Darren J. Schmidt, Esq. (“Mr. Schmidt”) is litigation counsel for Universal
Invisible Hand Productions (“Invisible Hand”) is a DBA music production
Ken Stacey is a composer, singer and music producer who collaborated with
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 7! of 60 !
Windy Wagner is a composer and singer who collaborated with Invisible Hand
1
33.
2
on at least 1 composition for Firstcom, but was not included in the authorship
3
registration.
4
34.
5
at least 4 compositions for Firstcom, but was not included in the authorship registrations.
6
35.
7
on at least 1 composition for Firstcom, but was not included in the authorship
8
registrations.
9
36.
Billy Trudel is a composer and singer who collaborated with Invisible Hand on Keely Hawkes is a composer and singer who collaborated with Invisible Hand
Bruce S. Watson is a composer, guitarist and singer who collaborated with
10
Invisible Hand on at least 1 composition for Firstcom, but was not included in the
11
authorship registration.
12
37.
13
Invisible Hand on at least 14 compositions for Firstcom, and was included in authorship
14
registration, but with a share that was less than correct.
Nir Averbuch is a composer and music producer who collaborated with
15
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 17 18
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
19
38.
20
action under 17 U.S.C. §101 et. seq. (Copyright Infringement) and 18 U.S.C. §1962 et.
21
seq. (RICO), which are federal questions.
22
Personal Jurisdiction
23
39. United States District Court has personal jurisdiction over all above-captioned
24
parties because all are citizens and residents of the United States.
25
Venue
26
40. Central District of California, Western Division is the proper venue because
27
Defendant Clair Marlo resides in Sherman Oaks, California; Firstcom Music, a Unit of
28
Universal Music Z-Tunes LLC is domiciled in Santa Monica, California.
United States District Court has original subject matter jurisdiction for this civil
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 8! of 60 !
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS
1 2 3
I.
BACKGROUND
4
A. 1980-1993 - Firstcom is a Legitimate Pioneer in Production Music
5 6
41.
7
field of “Music Library” a/k/a “Production Music”. With a business model now widely
8
emulated, Firstcom prospered by obtaining copyright control over recorded musical
9
works, which were then made available for use on TV shows in exchange for license fees.
Firstcom Music was born in Texas in the early 1980s, and became a pioneer in
10
42.
11
standard “work-for-hire” contracts with music writer/producers. This standard contract
12
states that Firstcom pays a certain amount of money in exchange for ownership of two
13
distinct copyrights: (1) Composition, commonly known as “the Publishing”, and (2)
14
Sound Recording, commonly known as “the Master”.
To obtain copyright control over commissioned works, Firstcom executed
15
B. The Basics of Music Licensing and Performance Income
16
Properly licensing recorded music for use on a television show requires two
17
43.
18
licenses - a “synchronization license” issued by the publisher, and a “master license”
19
issued by the master owner. Thus, owning both the Publishing Rights and the Master
20
Rights allows Firstcom to issue their clients valid “all-in-one” licenses for public
21
performances of the recorded music.
22
44.
23
with music writers and publishers to survey and document music usage
24
( “performances”). The PROs also contract with television networks, production
25
companies, radio stations, theaters and other commercial consumers of music, charging
26
them a fee in exchange for allowing the performance of copyrighted music written by
27
their represented writers, and published by their represented publishers. These
28
commercial music consumers agree to provide the PROs with “cue sheets”, which are
Performance Rights Organizations (“PROs”) such as ASCAP and BMI contract
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 9! of 60 !
1
lists of which music titles were performed on which shows, time and date, duration of
2
play, and other pertinent information.
3
45.
4
Performance Royalties due, and issue Performance Royalty distribution payments. For
5
every reported performance, half of the Performance Royalty is paid to the Publisher, and
6
half is paid the Writer.
On a quarterly basis, the PROs tabulate the music performances, calculate the
7
C. Firstcom’s Contract Promises Writer Retains Writer Share
8 9 10
46.
Firstcom’s standard Work-for-Hire contract explicitly provides that the music
writer retains ownership of the “writer’s share of public performance income”.
11
D. September 1993 - Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo Form “Invisible Hand
12
Productions”
13 14
47.
15
songwriters and music producers. They each owned musical equipment. They began a
16
romantic relationship that eventually led to marriage with children.
17
48.
18
They began living together, and merged their respective musical equipment into a single
19
home recording studio at the residence.
20
49.
21
partnership dedicated to creating and commercially exploiting music. They named their
22
new company “Invisible Hand Productions”.
Prior to meeting in April 1993, Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker were both musicians,
In September 1993, Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo had been dating for 6 months.
In September 1993, Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo agreed to form a business
23
E. Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo Agree to Split Authorship Credit Equally
24
In January 1994, Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo collaborated on their first Production
25
50.
26
Music project together, composing and recording original songs for the Muzak
27
corporation.
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 10 ! of ! 60
Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker agreed that writing credit for all Production Music
1
51.
2
would be divided equally between the two of them. Beginning with the January 1994
3
Muzak project, and continuing with two more Muzak projects between 1994 and 1996,
4
the two did approximately equal amounts of musical work, and made approximately
5
equal contributions to the musical compositions submitted to Muzak.
6
F. About 1994 - Firstcom is Acquired by Zomba
7
In or about 1994, Firstcom Music was purchased by Zomba, an independent
8
52.
9
record company notable for pop music stars such as Britney Spears, In Sync, and the
10
Backstreet Boys. Firstcom hired Ken Nelson as executive producer and Senior Vice
11
President, in charge of commissioning and overseeing the creation of new musical works
12
to be added to Firstcom’s catalog of Production Music.
13
53.
14
community for throwing a lavish annual holiday party at their offices on the Sunset Strip.
15
At the December 1995 Zomba party, 8 months pregnant, Clair Marlo met Ken Nelson.
16
54.
In January 1996, a baby girl was born to Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker.
17
55.
During the first half of 1996, Ms. Marlo developed a relationship with Mr.
18
Nelson. Ms. Marlo impressed Mr. Nelson, touting her prior credits as a singer-songwriter
19
on her album “Let it Go”, and as a producer of Harry Chapin, Pat Coil and Michael Ruff.
20
Ms. Marlo also impressed Mr. Nelson touting the credits of Mr. Baker, who had been a
21
keyboard player for the Supremes, REO Speedwagon, and Mother’s Finest.
During the 1990s, Zomba was also notable in the Los Angeles music
22 23
II. FORMATION OF LEGITIMATE MUSIC COMPOSITION, PRODUCTION AND LICENSING ENTERPRISE
24 25
A. August 1996 - Invisible Hand Enters First Deal With Firstcom
26 27
56.
28
for Firstcom - “Rock Reflections” and “Vacation Scenes”. Mr. Nelson approached Ms.
In August 1996, Ken Nelson imagined two new collections of music he wished
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page ! 11 of ! 60
1
Marlo with an offer to contract. Doing business as Invisible Hand Productions, Mr. Baker
2
and Ms. Marlo entered into a Work-for-Hire Contract with Firstcom to write and produce
3
“Rock Reflections” and “Vacation Scenes”.
4
57.
5
team for 3 years, things were suddenly very different, because now, the couple had a
6
baby.
Although Invisible Hand had been successfully creating Production Music as a
7
B. Equal Writing Agreement Morphs Into Ghostwriting Agreement
8 9
58.
Beginning with the very first project for Firstcom in August 1996, and
10
continuing thereafter, Mr. Baker performed approximately 99% of the music work,
11
including composition and production. At all times, Ms. Marlo performed 100% of the
12
business work, including contract negotiations and conveying authorship information to
13
Firstcom. Giving up long hours in the recording studio allowed Ms. Marlo to spend time
14
with the baby, and time in the home office. Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo were stay-at-home,
15
work-at-home parents.
16
59.
17
lucrative was as much about quantity as it was about quality. As a composer, Mr. Baker
18
was not only talented, but also very prolific, and stylistically diverse.
19
60.
20
is a very time-consuming effort, and requires a combination of various talents - recording
21
engineer, arranger, instrumentalist, vocalist, software programmer, editor, mix engineer,
22
mastering engineer - traditionally all performed by different people. Mr. Baker brings
23
great value by “wearing all of those hats”. Mr. Baker has not only the various talents, but
24
also the perseverance to keep on creating new music, day after day, year after year.
25
61.
26
was a very valuable one indeed, because Mr. Nelson was in charge of deciding who got
27
contracts with Firstcom, and who didn’t. At all times, Ms. Marlo was the representative
28
from Invisible Hand who dealt with Firstcom. Mr. Baker never dealt with Firstcom.
Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo both appreciated that to make Production Music
It was mutually appreciated that creating finished music in the recording studio
It was also mutually appreciated that Ms. Marlo’s relationship with Mr. Nelson
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 12 ! of ! 60
Had Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo not been married with children, Mr. Baker never
1
62.
2
would have agreed to giving up 50% of writer share on the music he composed and
3
produced for Firstcom. In truth, Ms. Marlo was not functioning as a co-composer, but
4
rather was acting as an agent, successfully connecting the real parties in interest -
5
Firstcom and Alexander Baker.
6
63.
7
equally share writing duties and writing credits, in August 1996 and thereafter became a
8
“ghostwriting” situation wherein Ms. Marlo took 50% credit for authorship on thousands
9
of songs for which she made no actual musical contribution. Ms. Marlo’s contribution
10
was that she could “get the gig”. That is, Ms. Marlo had a close relationship with Mr.
11
Nelson, a relationship she guarded jealously.
What originally began as an agreement between Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo to
12
C. May 7, 1997 - Baker and Marlo File Fictitious Business Name
13
Statement “Invisible Hand Productions”
14 15
64.
16
Veseliza Baker in January 1995 upon marrying Alexander Baker.
17
65.
18
County for Invisible Hand Productions, indicating that the business was a partnership
19
owned by Alexander Baker and Clara Baker, “husband and wife”.
“Clair Marlo” is the stage name adopted by Clara Veseliza, who became Clara On May 7, 1997 a Fictitious Business Name Statement was filed in Los Angeles
20
D. April 1997 - March 2006 - Invisible Hand Productions Enters 14 More
21
Contracts with Firstcom
22 23
66.
24
Invisible Hand Productions, entered into at least 14 more work-for-hire contracts with
25
Firstcom. One such contract was signed on January 13, 2000, for an album called
26
“HM-032Q Cool Songs for Kids” which contains the song “See What The Animals Do”.
27
This contract bears 10 separate instances of Alexander Baker’s authentic signature, and is
28
concurrently filed as EXHIBIT 25.
From April 1997-March of 2006, Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker, doing business as
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 13 ! of ! 60
1
E. 2006 - Baker is Unfaithful in Marriage
2 3
67.
4
extra-marital sex. Mr. Baker admitted having sex outside the marriage, and vowed to Ms.
5
Marlo to stop doing so, and to work towards repairing the relationship.
6
68.
7
hatred of Mr. Baker. However, she wished to continue exploiting Mr. Baker’s musical
8
talent and work ethic. Also, Mr. Baker is a kind and loving father to their two children,
9
for example reading bed time stories every single night for 17 years. This was Ms.
In 2006, Ms. Marlo discovered emails indicating that Mr. Baker was having
As a result of the infidelity, Ms. Marlo developed a seething and unchangeable
10
Marlo’s “Revenge Problem”.
11
69.
12
In truth, she decided to exact revenge, by defrauding Mr. Baker in several ways, as we
13
shall see.
14
70.
15
many discussions about “fixing the marriage”. However, nothing ever worked. Ms. Marlo
16
continuously maintained that she was still waiting to “regain trust” in Mr. Baker, while
17
concealing the seething hatred that would ultimately be the driving motivator behind her
18
ensuing decade of crime. After Mr. Baker’s infidelity, the couple were never intimate
19
again.
20
71.
21
their two children, and continuing to work for Firstcom. But as Mr. Baker would discover
22
much later, the Firstcom projects from 2007-2015 proved to be anything but “business as
23
usual”.
So, Ms. Marlo pretended to be open to the possibility of repairing the marriage.
Over the next several years, the couple would visit various counselors, and have
Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo would spend the next 8 years continuing to parent
24 25 26
///
27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 14 ! of ! 60
1
III. TRANSITION TO RICO ENTERPRISE OF MUSIC LAUNDERING
2
A. The “Sprout Promo Situation” - 30,000 Unlicensed Performances
3
On September 26, 2005 Children’s Network LLC launched a new television
4
72.
5
network called “PBS Kids Sprout”, nowadays simply “Sprout”, and owned by NBC
6
Universal.
7
73.
8
that featured the song “See What The Animals Do”, written and produced solely by
9
Alexander Baker, and registered as a 50-50 co-write with Clair Marlo per their standing
From September 2005 - June 2007, Sprout aired promotional videos (“promos”)
10
ghostwriting agreement.
11
74.
12
hour, 24 hours per day, for about 21 months. This totals some 30,000 performances.
13
75.
14
Animals Do” from the beginning, because Sprout network was on the couple’s family
15
room television every day, to the delight of their then 2-year-old second daughter. The
16
child learned to recognize the bird-whistling tune and would exclaim, “daddy song,
17
daddy song!” each time it was played.
18
76.
19
naturally assumed that it had been properly licensed for performances on Sprout.
20
77.
21
for over a year. At this time, Ms. Marlo informed Mr. Baker that the piece had not shown
22
up in the royalty statements. Mr. Baker believed Ms. Marlo, but he had never seen any
23
royalty statements nor signed any royalty checks. Throughout the marriage and
24
partnership, such business matters were conveniently handled by Ms. Marlo.
25
78.
26
Sprout was using “See What The Animals Do”, and that it had not shown up on any
27
royalty statements. Mr. Nelson promised to investigate, and Ms. Marlo relayed this
28
promise to Mr. Baker.
Sprout aired promos containing “See What The Animals Do” about 2 times per Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo became aware of Sprout’s use of “See What The
Since “See What The Animals Do” was Firstcom Production Music, Mr. Baker In or about November 2006, Sprout had been using “See What the Animals Do”
In or about November 2006, Ms. Marlo notified Mr. Nelson at Firstcom that
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 15 ! of ! 60
1
B. Firstcom Begins Systematically Circumventing Performance Royalties
2
Under Intense Market Competition
3
Also in late 2006, while the Sprout Promo Situation was unfolding, Firstcom
4
79.
5
was acquired by Universal Music Group (“Universal”). Many new companies offering
6
Production Music had emerged in the prior decade, and competition had become fierce
7
between them. Business was down. This was Firstcom’s “Competition Problem”.
8
80.
9
Firstcom devised a new business strategy called a “Direct License”. A Direct License
To regain a competitive edge, and now under Universal’s corporate directorship,
10
means that Firstcom licenses a piece of music to a TV show client with a “nod and a
11
wink” understanding that the TV show client need not report or pay for music
12
performances.
13
81.
14
terms of Firstcom’s standard work-for-hire contract, which provides that the writer retains
15
ownership of the “writer’s share of public performance income”. Mr. Nelson discussed
16
Direct Licensing with Ms. Marlo, and the two suspected that Mr. Baker would never
17
approve of Direct Licensing. And yet, they wished to continue to exploit Mr. Baker’s
18
musical talent. This was FIrstcom’s “Direct License Problem”.
19
82.
20
Baker.
21
83.
22
that, with Jenifer Carpenter’s help, Ms. Marlo could be compensated for projected losses
23
in Performance Royalties by surreptitiously assigning falsely inflated authorship shares to
24
Ms. Marlo on future projects, and corresponding falsely deflated authorship shares to Mr.
25
Baker and others. Ms. Marlo liked the idea of cheating Mr. Baker while enriching herself.
26
After all, Mr. Baker had cheated on her, by having sex outside the marriage. This new
27
agreement appeared to solve both the Direct Licensing Problem, and the Revenge
28
Problem.
Mr. Nelson was concerned that issuing Direct Licenses would run afoul of the
Ken Nelson and Clair Marlo agreed to conceal Direct Licensing from Mr. Clair Marlo was not happy with Direct Licensing either. Mr. Nelson suggested
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 16 ! of ! 60
1
C. January 2007 - Jenifer Carpenter Registers Fabricated Splits
2 3
84.
4
“HM-078 Happy Songs”. Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker did co-write 2 of the songs - “Shout”
5
and “This Is You”. Ms. Marlo made no musical contributions to the other 10 songs. Mr.
6
Baker wrote 4 songs with collaborator Billy Trudel, 2 others with Ken Stacey, 1 with
7
Windy Wagner, and 1 with Keely Hawkes and Bruce Watson. The remaining 2 songs Mr.
8
Baker wrote by himself.
9
85.
During 2006, Invisible Hand wrote and produced a 12-song Firstcom project
Strangely, the List of Compositions and Masters within the contract for
10
“HM-078 Happy Songs.” does not indicate any authorship splits whatsoever. A true and
11
correct copy of the contract purporting to control “HM-078 Happy Songs” is concurrently
12
filed herewith as EXHIBIT 1.
13
86.
14
the 12 songs from Firstcom project “HM-078 Happy Songs.” Ms. Carpenter entered each
15
of the 12 songs as being written 70% by Clair Marlo, and 30% by Alexander Baker, while
16
completely ignoring co-writers Billy Trudel, Ken Stacey, Windy Wagner, Keely Hawkes
17
and Bruce Watson.
From January 5-11, 2007, Jenifer Carpenter registered the authorship splits on
18
D. Ken Nelson Declares Alexander Baker a “Loose Cannon”
19
In or about March 2007, Mr. Nelson continued to take the position that no
20
87.
21
license had been issued to Sprout regarding “See What The Animals Do”, which was still
22
airing regularly. Mr. Nelson further insisted that Mr. Baker must be mistaken as to what
23
song he had actually heard. Ms. Marlo relayed Mr. Nelson’s message to Mr. Baker.
24
88.
25
was in fact “See What The Animals Do”.
26
89.
27
Firstcom had a fiduciary duty to enforce copyright, that Sprout had a duty to report
28
performances, and that ASCAP and BMI had a duty to collect and distribute royalties for
Mr. Baker became irate, because he knew that the song being used by Sprout Tension grew between Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker believed that
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 17 ! of ! 60
1
those performances. Ms. Marlo did not appear to disagree with Mr. Baker in principle,
2
but instead suggested that it would be unwise to disrupt relations with Mr. Nelson and
3
Firstcom, and to let them handle the Sprout Promo Situation however they saw fit.
4
90.
5
should stand to lose as much as Mr. Baker from the loss of Performance Royalties. The
6
story Ken Nelson told did not make sense, so Mr. Baker’s irritation worsened.
7
91.
8
identifying the musical piece and threatening to sue for Copyright Infringement. In
9
response to Mr. Baker’s email, numerous reply emails circulated between Sprout,
Unaware of “Direct Licensing”, Mr. Baker reasoned that, as publisher, Firstcom
On or about May 1, 2007 Mr. Baker sent an email to an officer of Sprout,
10
Firstcom, attorneys for Firstcom, ASCAP, and BMI. It is fair to characterize this flurry of
11
emails as “all hell broke loose”.
12
92.
13
promos that contained “See What The Animals Do”.
14
93.
15
Vice President Loretta Muñoz stated “I don’t know what the composer [Alexander
16
Baker] thinks he might have heard, but it certainly was not his song”. Mr. Baker knew he
17
was being lied to, but it is certainly possible that Ms. Muñoz was merely repeating the lie
18
she had been fed by by Ken Nelson and Firstcom.
19
94.
20
“loose cannon”, meaning that Mr. Baker’s old-fashioned insistence on enforcing his right
21
to collect Performance Royalties might conflict with Firstcom’s newfangled desire to
22
maximize income by offering TV show clients Direct Licenses which deliberately bypass
23
Performance Royalties, rights to which are explicitly promised in all of Firstcom’s
24
contracts.
25
95.
26
Sprout for copyright infringement, but to keep it quiet. Mr. Nelson suggested that the
27
lawsuit be concealed from Mr. Baker, because he knew that Mr. Baker would insist on
28
joining the lawsuit, and would also inform ASCAP and BMI demanding to be paid for
Shortly after Mr. Baker sent the legal threat to Sprout, Sprout stopped airing any On or about June 1, 2007, Mr. Baker was forwarded an email in which ASCAP
Ken Nelson phoned Clair Marlo and explained that Alexander Baker was a
Ken Nelson secretly explained to Clair Marlo that Firstcom was going to sue
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 18 ! of ! 60
1
performance royalties due. Mr. Nelson and Firstcom had already lied to ASCAP and
2
BMI, falsely claiming that the song used by Sprout was not “See What The Animals Do”.
3
96.
4
new policy of Direct Licensing. Mr. Nelson promised that Universal would begin paying
5
Direct License royalties to writers, but stating that such royalties were expected to be
6
significantly less money than ASCAP and BMI royalties.
7
97.
8
talents of Alexander Baker. Mr. Nelson pondered, “What to do?”
Ken Nelson also explained to Clair Marlo that Firstcom would be phasing in its
Mr. Nelson also expressed his strong desire to continue exploiting the musical
9
E. Nelson, Carpenter and Marlo Conspire to Exploit Baker’s Musical
10
Talent
11
To appease Ms. Marlo with regard to Direct Licensing, to conceal the Sprout
12
98.
13
Promo Lawsuit from Mr. Baker, and to continue exploiting Mr. Baker’s musical talent,
14
Mr. Nelson, Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Marlo devised the following scheme:
15
99.
16
into her own name. Thus, Mr. Baker would no longer be party to the work-for-hire
17
contracts entered into with Firstcom. Second, Ms. Marlo would forge Mr. Baker’s
18
signature onto any new Writer Inducement Contracts, often taking a greater-than-equal
19
share of writer credit. Third, Firstcom/Universal would pay an additional secret royalty to
20
Invisible Hand Productions, now secretly and solely in Ms. Marlo’s name, thus of benefit
21
only to her.
22
First, Ms. Marlo would place ownership of Invisible Hand Productions solely
F. Firstcom Fraud: “We Will Not Sue Sprout”
23
100.
24
Nelson, Clair Marlo, Alexander Baker and Darren Schmidt, attorney for Universal /
25
Firstcom. The purpose of the conference call was to discuss the Sprout Promo Situation.
26
101.
27
certainty that Sprout had performed “See What The Animals Do” about 30,000 times.
28
Darren Schmidt said that it did not matter whether Sprout had actually used the song or
On or about July 1, 2007 a telephone conference call was had between Ken
During the Sprout Promo Situation conference call, Mr. Baker repeated his
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 19 ! of ! 60
1
not, because Firstcom had decided not to pursue any legal action against Sprout. For this
2
reason, Mr. Schmidt continued, Firstcom had simply decided to take the position that the
3
song used by Sprout was not “See What The Animals Do”. Mr. Baker repeated his
4
disapproval at being deprived of royalties on 30,000 performances. Mr. Schmidt opined
5
that, under the contract, Firstcom had a right to “give music away for free” if that’s what
6
they wanted to do.
7 8 9
G. Firstcom Coercion: “Baker Is Forbidden to Sue Sprout” 102.
Continuing the Sprout Promo Situation conference call, Mr. Baker expressed
10
his desire to enforce his right to sue Sprout. Darren Schmidt replied that Mr. Baker was
11
absolutely prohibited from suing, under the Legal Action clause of the contract. The
12
January 13, 2000 contract does indeed contain a “LEGAL ACTION” clause, which reads:
13
Any legal action brought, or any enforcement of
14
[Firstcom’s] rights undertaken by [Firstcom] against
15
any alleged infringer of the Compositions and/or
16
Masters will be initiated and prosecuted at
17
[Firstcom’s] sole expense and in [Firstcom’s] sole
18
discretion, including the right to settle any such
19
action.
20
103.
21
by Firstcom, while not prohibiting Baker from suing. But, continuing the Sprout Promo
22
Situation conference call, Ken Nelson stated that if Invisible Hand Productions wanted to
23
ever work for Firstcom again, that Mr. Baker would drop the Sprout Promo matter
24
entirely, and never speak a word of it to anybody.
25
104.
26
representations made by Ken Nelson, Firstcom, and Darren Schmidt during the
27
conference call, Mr. Baker decided not to sue Sprout in 2007. Mr. Baker did drop the
28
issue, not saying another word about it to anyone until years later.
Mr. Baker understood the Legal Action Clause to apply only to actions brought
To say that Mr. Baker felt betrayed is an understatement. Relying on the
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 20 ! of ! 60
1 2
H. Music Laundering Scheme Solves Multiple Problems
3
105.
4
phase in Direct Licensing; it solves the Direct Licensing Problem because Invisible Hand
5
will continue working for them; it solves the Sprout Promo Problem because Firstcom
6
gets a nice settlement while Baker must “sit down and shut up”, and it solves Ms. Marlo’s
7
Revenge Problem because she gets to take contract money, authorship credit and royalty
8
payments rightly due to Mr. Baker. As far s Firstcom, Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and
9
Clair Marlo are concerned, Music Laundering is win-win-win-win.
Music Laundering solves Firstcom’s Competition Problem, because they can
10 11
I.
July 26, 2007 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-For-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement Contract
12
On July 26, 2007, and according to the newly formulated agreement with Ken
13
106.
14
Nelson and Jenifer Carpenter, Ms. Marlo unilaterally signed a Firstcom work-for-hire
15
music production contract as “Clair Marlo, doing business as Invisible Hand
16
Productions”. Ms. Marlo claimed herself as Invisible Hand’s “Owner”. Ms. Marlo forged
17
Mr. Baker’s signature onto the attached Writer Inducement Contract.
18
107.
19
Unstoppable, DF-03 Completely Covered, DF-04 Text Me + Elements, DF-05
20
Transcendent Image, and lists a total of 248 music titles, each of which was written solely
21
or partly by Alexander Baker. Ms. Marlo falsely listed many of the titles as being 100%
22
her own authorship, falsely listed other titles as being 50-50 co-writes with Dan Weniger,
23
and falsely listed other titles as being a 75-25 split with Alexander Baker. All of these
24
false authorship splits were intended to, and were ultimately successful in depriving Mr.
25
Baker of his future royalty money.
26
108.
27
to Firstcom offices in Texas.
The July 26, 2007 Contract is for 5 albums, DF-01 Escape Plan, Df-02
Ms. Marlo sent the false and forged contract in the U.S. Mail from California
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 21 ! of ! 60
On receipt, Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson noticed that Mr. Baker was
1
109.
2
being cheated of his rightful shares, according to plan. However, Ms. Carpenter and Mr.
3
Nelson decided that he was not being cheated badly enough to effectively implement the
4
new Music Laundering scheme. So, Ms. Carpenter registered all of the songs in this
5
contract without including Mr. Baker’s name in a single one of them.
6
110.
The July 26, 2007 Contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 2.
7 8 9
J. October 26, 2007 - Firstcom sues Sprout and Johnson & Murphy 111.
On October 26, 2007, according to plan and contrary to the representations
10
made to Alexander Baker, Firstcom and parent Universal Music-Z Tunes filed a copyright
11
infringement suit against Children’s Network, LLC (“Sprout”) and Johnson & Murphy,
12
LLC regarding the unlicensed performances of “See What The Animals Do”, known as
13
the “Sprout Promo Situation”.
14
112.
15
United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division.
16
113.
17
was authored by Clair Marlo and Alexander Baker, and that it was performed 3500 times
18
on Sprout Network without a license.
19
114.
20
undisclosed terms.
21
115.
22
filed herewith as EXHIBIT 18.
The Firstcom v. Sprout lawsuit is case no. CV 07-6890 ODW (FMOx), filed in The Firstcom v. Sprout complaint alleges that “See What The Animals Do”
In April 2008, Firstcom v. Sprout lawsuit was settled out of court on A copy of the First Amended Complaint in Firstcom v. Sprout is concurrently
23 24
K. November 12, 2007 - Marlo Files Fictitious Business Name Statement “Invisible Hand Productions” Solely as “An Individual”
25 26
116.
27
Business Name Statement in Los Angeles County Recorder listing herself “Clara Veseliza
28
Baker”, “an individual” as the sole owner of “Invisible Hand Productions”. A true and
On November 12, 2007, according to plan, Clair Marlo filed a Fictitious
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 22 ! of ! 60
1
correct copy of the November 12, 2007 Fictitious Business Name Statement is attached
2
as EXHIBIT 19.
3 4
L. December 3, 2007 - Marlo Coerces Baker Into Quitclaiming the House Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker were co-plaintiffs in medical litigation from
5
117.
6
2004-2006, which ultimately settled out of court. However, Ms. Marlo was adamant that,
7
for some reason, she feared Mr. Baker would be sued by some other doctor, and that they
8
could protect their house by putting it solely in her name. The house was purchased in
9
2005 as “husband and wife, as community property”, and was valued at approximately $1
10
million.
11
118.
12
that he quitclaim his share of the family house over to her. Mr. Baker refused, explaining
13
that nobody was going to sue him, and that quitclaiming a house to avoid a real or
14
perceived debt most likely constitutes a fraudulent conveyance anyway.
15
119.
16
the scheme to defraud Mr. Baker out of as much property as possible, by whatever means
17
possible, while continuing to exploit his musical talent for as long as possible.
18
120.
19
that “daddy doesn’t care if we lose the house”, “daddy doesn’t care if we sleep on the
20
street”. One evening in early December 2007, Mr. Baker came into the main house from
21
the studio, to find both of his daughters crying. Ms. Marlo sent them to their rooms, then
22
explained that she had once again told the two girls that we would all be homeless
23
because daddy wouldn’t sign papers to protect the house. Mr. Baker felt that Ms. Marlo
24
was abusing the children, and wanted it to stop.
25
121.
26
the quitclaim deed that had already been prepared by Ms. Marlo’s attorney. A true and
27
correct copy of the December 3, 2007 quitclaim deed is attached as EXHIBIT 20.
Beginning around September 2007, Ms. Marlo began suggesting to Mr. Baker
In truth, Ms. Marlo was pressuring Mr. Baker to quitclaim the house as part of
Ms. Marlo began telling the couple’s two daughters, ages 11 and 4 at the time,
The next day, on December 3, 2007, under extreme duress, Mr. Baker signed
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 23 ! of ! 60
1
IV. CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF RICO MUSIC LAUNDERING ENTERPRISE
2 3 4
A. February 25, 2008 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Songwriter Inducement Not Signed By Baker
5 6
122.
7
for-hire contract, with a total contract price of $9750.
8
123.
9
partly authored by Alexander Baker.
On February 25, 2008, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed workThis February 25, 2008 contract lists 28 songs, each of which was solely or
10
124.
11
are 100% authorship of Clair Marlo, and falsely indicates that some are 50-50 co-writes
12
between Dan Weniger and Clair Marlo.
13
125.
14
Baker, nor by Dan Weniger.
15
126.
16
U.S. Mail.
17
127.
18
and noticed that it was not signed by Mr. Baker. However, they did not care that it was
19
unsigned by Mr. Baker, because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had
20
already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others
21
without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of their
22
RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
23
128.
24
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
25
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
26
they were false.
27
129.
The February 25, 2008 contract falsely indicates that some of the Compositions
The February 25, 2008 contract does not purport to be signed by Alexander Clair Marlo sent the February 25, 2008 contract from California to Texas by Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the February 25, 2008 Agreement
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The February 25, 2008 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 3.
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 24 ! of ! 60
1
B. September 12, 2008 - Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
2 3
130.
4
which refers to an agreement dated May 21, 2008. The Agreement specifies 2 separate
5
projects, one of 50 Compositions and Masters, the other of 15 Compositions and Masters,
6
and states a total contract price of $28,000.
7
131.
8
which was solely or partly authored by Alexander Baker. The letter falsely indicates that
9
some of the Compositions are 100% authorship of Clair Marlo, and falsely indicates that
On September 12, 2008, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed letter
The September 12, 2008 letter states the titles of the 65 Compositions, each of
10
some are 50-50 co-writes between Dan Weniger and Clair Marlo.
11
132.
12
delivered in unfinished form to Invisible Hand, whereupon Alexander Baker made
13
melody and arrangement additions, edits, and final mixes. Dan Weniger had agreed to a
14
50-50 writer split with Invisible Hand, and Ms. Marlo and Mr. Baker had agreed to
15
equally divide that portion 25-25, as per the long-standing ghostwriting agreement.
16
133.
17
Baker, nor by Dan Weniger.
18
134.
19
and noticed that it was not signed by Mr. Baker. However, they did not care that it was
20
unsigned by Mr. Baker, because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had
21
already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others
22
without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of their
23
RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
24
135.
25
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
26
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
27
they were false.
28
136.
The Dan Weniger songs each originated as Dan’s work, which he then
The September 12, 2008 letter does not purport to be signed by Alexander Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the September 12, 2008 Agreement
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The September 12, 2008 Contract is concurrently filed as EXHIBIT 4.
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 25 ! of ! 60
1
C. January 1, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement
2 3
137.
4
hire contract, project “DF06 More Action More Drama, DF07 Personal Stories, DF09
5
Information Update”, with a total contract price of $17,500.
6
138.
7
Weniger as a writer. The Dan Weniger songs each originated as Dan’s work, which he
8
then delivered in unfinished form to Invisible Hand, whereupon Alexander Baker made
9
melody and arrangement additions, edits, and final mixes.
On January 1, 2009, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
The January 1, 2009 contract lists 50 original songs, 40 of which include Dan
10
139.
11
Marlo and Mr. Baker had agreed to equally divide that portion 25-25, as per the long-
12
standing ghostwriting agreement.
13
140.
14
Alexander Baker.
15
141.
16
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
17
142.
18
Alexander Baker is a forgery.
19
143.
20
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
21
144.
22
contract and noticed that it was not signed by Mr. Baker. They knew, or should have
23
known that the signature on the Writer Inducement was a forgery. However, they did not
24
care that it was unsigned and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair
25
Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker
26
and others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose
27
of their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
Dan Weniger had agreed to a 50-50 writer split with Invisible Hand, and Ms.
The remaining 10 songs on this contract were solely written and produced by This January 1, 2009 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The signature on the January 1, 2009 contract purporting to be that of Clair Marlo sent the January 1, 2009 contract from her office in California to Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 1, 2009 work-for-hire
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 26 ! of ! 60
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
1
145.
2
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
3
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
4
they were false.
5
146.
The January 1, 2009 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 5A.
6 7
D. January 1, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
8 9
147.
On January 1, 2009, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
10
hire contract, DF10 Positive Profiles, with a total contract price of $17,500.
11
148.
12
or partly authored by Alexander Baker.
13
149.
14
songs each originated as Dan’s work, which he then delivered in unfinished form to
15
Invisible Hand, whereupon Alexander Baker made melody and arrangement additions,
16
edits, and final mixes.
17
150.
18
Marlo and Mr. Baker had agreed to equally divide that portion 25-25, as per the long-
19
standing ghostwriting agreement. However, this contract omits Alexander Baker entirely
20
from the 42 registrations.
21
151.
22
and registered 50-50 per the long-standing ghostwriter agreement.
23
152.
24
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
25
153.
26
Baker or Dan Weniger.
27
154.
28
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
The January 1, 2009 contract lists 50 original songs, each of which was solely 42 of these songs indicate that Dan Weniger is a co-writer. The Dan Weniger
Dan Weniger had agreed to a 50-50 writer split with Invisible Hand, and Ms.
The remaining 8 songs were written and produced solely by Alexander Baker, The January 1, 2009 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of This January 1, 2009 contract does not purport to be signed by Alexander Clair Marlo sent the January 1, 2009 contract from her office in California to
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 27 ! of ! 60
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 1, 2009 contract and
1
155.
2
noticed that it was not signed by Mr. Baker or Mr. Weniger. However, they did not care
3
that it was unsigned by Mr. Baker, because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair
4
Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker
5
and others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose
6
of their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
7
156.
8
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
9
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
10
they were false.
11
157.
The January 1, 2009 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 5B.
12 13
E. May 12, 2009 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
14 15
158.
16
hire contract, EVO131 Step Into The Holidays, EVO129 Not Too Hard Rock, EVO130
17
Acoustic Cinema, with a total contract price of $39,000.
18
159.
19
was arranged solely or partly by Alexander Baker. This contract additionally lists 34
20
original songs, each of which was solely or partly authored by Alexander Baker.
21
160.
22
co-writes favoring Clair Marlo. In fact, each of these compositions was solely authored
23
by Alexander Baker.
24
161.
25
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
26
162.
The May 12, 2009 contract does not purport to be signed by Alexander Baker.
27
163.
Clair Marlo sent the May 12, 2009 contract from her office in California to
28
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
On May 12, 2009, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
This May 12, 2009 contract lists 4 songs in the public domain, each of which
The May 12, 2009 contract falsely indicates that the Compositions are 72-25
The May 12, 2009 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 28 ! of ! 60
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the May 12, 2009 contract and
1
164.
2
noticed that it was not signed by Mr. Baker. However, they did not care that it was
3
unsigned by Mr. Baker, because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had
4
already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others
5
without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of their
6
RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
7
165.
8
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
9
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
10
they were false.
11
166.
The May 12, 2009 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 6.
12 13
F. January 14, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement
14 15
On January 14, 2010, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
16
167.
17
hire contract, project “EVO138 Beach Baby”, with a total contract price of $13,000.
18
168.
19
solely authored by Alexander Baker.
20
169.
21
72-25 co-writes favoring Clair Marlo.
22
170.
23
of the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
24
171.
25
bear the signature of Alexander Baker. However, this signature is a forgery by Clair
26
Marlo.
27
172.
28
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
This January 14, 2010 contract lists 12 original songs, each of which was The January 14, 2010, contract falsely indicates that the Compositions are The January 14, 2010 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer The Writer Inducement portion of the January 15, 2010 contract purports to
Clair Marlo sent the January 15, 2010 contract from her office in California to
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 29 ! of ! 60
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 15, 2010 Work-for-
1
173.
2
Hire contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. They knew or reasonably
3
should have known that the Writer Inducement contract was a forgery. However, they did
4
not care that it was unsigned and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair
5
Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker
6
and others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose
7
of their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
8
174.
9
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
10
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
11
they were false.
12
175.
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The January 14, 2010 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 7.
13 14
G. May 18, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement
15
On May 18, 2010, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
16
176.
17
hire contract, project “EVO145 Happy Happy Holidays”, with a total contract price of
18
$13,000.
19
177.
20
authored by Alexander Baker.
21
178.
22
co-writes favoring Clair Marlo.
23
179.
24
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
25
180.
26
to be signed by Alexander Baker.
27
181.
28
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
This May 18, 2010 contract lists 12 original songs, each of which was solely The May 18, 2010 contract falsely indicates that the Compositions are 72-25 The May 18, 2010 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The Writer Inducement portion of the May 18, 2010 contract does not purport Clair Marlo sent the May 18, 2010 contract from her office in California to
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 30 ! of ! 60
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the May 18, 2010 Work-for-Hire
1
182.
2
contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. They knew, or should have known
3
that the signature on the Writer Inducement was a forgery. However, they did not care
4
that it was unsigned and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo
5
had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and
6
others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of
7
their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
8
183.
9
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
10
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
11
they were false.
12
184.
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The May 18, 2010 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 8.
13 14
H. July 14, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
15
On July 14, 2010, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed letter which,
16
185.
17
by referring back to the terms of a prior contract, constitutes a new work-for-hire
18
contract, projects “EVO-148 Soaring Rock Anthems” and “HM-096 Gleefully” with a
19
total contract price of $28,500.
20
186.
21
songs, each of which was solely authored and produced by Alexander Baker. Schedule A
22
falsely states that these 11 songs are 50-50 co-writes with Clair Marlo.
23
187.
24
September 24, 2010, lists the song “Cross The Line”, which was in fact a 50-50 co-write
25
between Alexander Baker and Heather Donovan. Schedule A falsely states Clair Marlo as
26
a third writer, with a 33.33% share.
This July 14, 2010 contract, addendum dated August 9, 2010, lists 11 original
A different Schedule A of the July 14, 2010 contract, addendum dated
27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 31 ! of ! 60
Schedule A of the July 14, 2010 lists 8 more songs, falsely indicating that each
1
188.
2
was a 75-25 split favoring Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander
3
Baker.
4
189.
5
between Alexander Baker, Clair Marlo and Sue Sheridan.
6
190.
7
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
8
191.
9
to be signed by Alexander Baker, nor by Sue Sheridan, nor by Heather Donovan.
Schedule A of the July 14, 2010 correctly lists 2 more songs as 3-way splits The July 14, 2010 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The Writer Inducement portion of the July 14, 2010 contract does not purport
10
192.
11
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
12
193.
13
contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker, nor Sue Sheridan, nor Heather
14
Donovan. However, they did not care that it was unsigned because Ken Nelson, Jenifer
15
Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works
16
of Alexander Baker and others without permission and without compensation, that being
17
the primary purpose of their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
18
194.
19
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
20
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
21
they were false.
22
195.
Clair Marlo sent the July 14, 2010 contract from her office in California to Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the July 14, 2010 Work-for-Hire
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The July 14, 2010 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 9.
23 24
I.
December 2, 2010 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
25 26
196.
27
contract for project “EVO152 Latin Vibes” with a total contract price of $13,000.
On December 2, 2010, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a Work-for-Hire
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 32 ! of ! 60
The December 2, 2010 contract correctly lists 3 songs as being 3-way co-
1
197.
2
writes between Alexander Baker, Clair Marlo and Troy Dexter.
3
198.
4
a 75-25 split favoring Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
5
199.
6
of the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
7
200.
8
purport to be signed by Alexander Baker, nor by Troy Dexter.
9
201.
The December 2, 2010 contract lists 11 more songs, falsely stating that each is The December 2, 2010 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer The Writer Inducement portion of the December 2, 2010 contract does not Clair Marlo sent the December 2, 2010 contract from her office in California to
10
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
11
202.
12
Hire contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker or by Troy Dexter. However,
13
they did not care that it was unsigned because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair
14
Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker
15
and others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose
16
of their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
17
203.
18
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
19
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
20
they were false.
21
204.
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the December 2, 2010 Work-for-
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The December 2, 2010 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 10.
22 23
J. March 17, 2011 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed By Baker
24
On March 17, 2011, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a Work-for-Hire
25
205.
26
contract for project “EVO159 Stories: Mixed Moods” with a total contract price of
27
$13,000.
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 33 ! of ! 60
The March 17, 2011 contract correctly lists 1 song “Walk A Mile” as being a 3-
1
206.
2
way co-write between Alexander Baker, Clair Marlo and Dylan Baker.
3
207.
4
75-25 split favoring Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
5
208.
6
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
7
209.
8
purport to be signed by Alexander Baker or by Dylan Baker.
9
210.
The March 17, 2011 contract lists 13 more songs, falsely stating that each is a The March 17, 2011 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The Writer Inducement portion of the March 17, 2011 contract does not Clair Marlo sent the March 17, 2011 contract from her office in California to
10
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
11
211.
12
contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker or by Dylan Baker. However, they
13
did not care that it was unsigned because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo
14
had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and
15
others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of
16
their RICO Music Laundering Enterprise.
17
212.
18
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
19
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
20
they were false.
21
213.
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the March 17, 2011 Work-for-Hire
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The March 17, 2011 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 11.
22 23
K. March 1, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement
24
On March 1, 2012, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a Work-for-Hire
25
214.
26
contract for a seven album project, with titles “OM168 Tones and Drones”, “OM169
27
Drama Beds”, “OM170”, “OM171 Hits, Booms and Accents”, “OM172 Risers and
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 34 ! of ! 60
1
Fallers”, “OM173 Loops and Rhythms” and “OM174 Sweeps and Transitions” with a
2
total contract price of $15,000.
3
215.
4
50-50 co-write with Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
5
216.
6
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
7
217.
8
signed by Alexander Baker. However, that signature is a forgery by Clair Marlo.
9
218.
The March 1, 2012 contract lists about 500 songs, falsely stating that each is a The March 1, 2012 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The Writer Inducement portion of the March 1, 2012 contract purports to be Clair Marlo sent the March 1, 2012 contract from her office in California to
10
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
11
219.
12
contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. They knew, or should have known
13
that the Writer Inducement was a forgery. However, they did not care that it was unsigned
14
and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already agreed to
15
commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others without
16
permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of their RICO
17
Music Laundering Enterprise.
18
220.
19
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
20
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
21
they were false.
22
221.
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the March 1, 2012 Work-for-Hire
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The March 1, 2012 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 12.
23 24
L. March 20, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Writer Inducement Not Signed by Baker
25 26
222.
27
which by referring to a previous contract constituted a new Work-for-Hire contract for an
On March 20, 2012, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed letter,
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 35 ! of ! 60
1
album project titled “EVO174 Twilight Rock: Dramatic Themes for the Undead” with a
2
total contract price of $13,000.
3
223.
4
co-write with Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
5
224.
6
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
7
225.
8
purport to be signed by Alexander Baker.
9
226.
The March 20, 2012 contract lists 13 songs, falsely stating that each is a 50-50 The March 20, 2012 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of The Writer Inducement portion of the March 20, 2012 contract does not Clair Marlo sent the March 1, 2012 contract from her office in California to
10
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
11
227.
12
noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. However, they did not care that it was unsigned
13
because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already agreed to
14
commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others without
15
permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of their RICO
16
Music Laundering Enterprise.
17
228.
18
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
19
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
20
they were false.
21
229.
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the March 20, 2012 contract and
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The March 20, 2012 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 13.
22 23
M. September 9, 2012 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Firstcom Accepts Songwriter Inducement Not Signed By Baker
24
On September 9, 2012, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed letter
25
230.
26
which, by referring back to the terms of a prior contract, constitutes a new work-for-hire
27
contract titled “EVO183 Evolving Patterns”, with a total contract price of $13,000.
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 36 ! of ! 60
The September 9, 2012 contract lists 13 songs, falsely stating that each is a
1
231.
2
75-25 co-write favoring Clair Marlo, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
3
232.
4
of the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
5
233.
6
purport to be signed by Alexander Baker.
7
234.
8
to Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
9
235.
The September 9, 2012 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer The Writer Inducement portion of the September 9, 2012 contract does not Clair Marlo sent the September 9, 2012 contract from her office in California Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the September 9, 2012 Work-for-
10
Hire contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. However, they did not care
11
that it was unsigned because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already
12
agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others without
13
permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of the RICO
14
Enterprise.
15
236.
16
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
17
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
18
they were false.
19
237.
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The September 9, 2012 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 14.
20 21
N. January 17, 2013 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s Signature on Writer Inducement
22 23
238.
24
hire contract, a Latin music project with project tile unstated on the contract, but which
25
became “EVO-186 Latin Pop 2” with a total contract price of $13,000.
26
239.
27
solely authored by Alexander Baker.
On January 17, 2013, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-for-
This January 17, 2013 contract lists 14 original songs, each of which was
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 37 ! of ! 60
The January 17, 2013 contract falsely indicates that the Compositions are 72-25
1
240.
2
co-writes favoring Clair Marlo.
3
241.
4
of the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
5
242.
6
signed by Alexander Baker. However, that signature is a forgery by Clair Marlo.
7
243.
8
to Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
9
244.
The January 17, 2013 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer The Writer Inducement portion of the January 17, 2013 contract purports to be Clair Marlo sent the On January 17, 2013 contract from her office in California Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 17, 2013 Work-for-
10
Hire contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. They knew, or should have
11
known that the signature on the Writer Inducement was a forgery. However, they did not
12
care that it was unsigned and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair
13
Marlo had already agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker
14
and others without permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose
15
of the RICO Enterprise.
16
245.
17
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
18
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
19
they were false.
20
246.
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The January 17, 2013 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 15.
21
O. January 9, 2014 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract,
22
Falsely Claiming Herself 100% Author
23
On January 9, 2014, 1 Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed Writer
24
247.
25
Inducement contract, which by referencing a previous contract constitutes a new work-
26 27 28
This contract contains several hand-corrected dates. January 9, 2014 is the date indicated for the Certificate of Authorship. 1
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 38 ! of ! 60
1
for-hire contract, project “EVO211”, an album which ultimately took the title “EVO211
2
Epic and Inspired”, with a total contract price of $17,500.
3
248.
4
100% sole author, when each was solely authored by Alexander Baker.
5
249.
6
the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
7
250.
8
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
9
251.
The January 9, 2014 contract lists 14 songs, falsely stating that Clair Marlo is The January 9, 2014 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer of Clair Marlo sent the January 9, 2014 contract from her office in California to Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 9, 2014 Work-for-Hire
10
contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. However, they did not care that it
11
was unsigned because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already agreed
12
to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others without
13
permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of the RICO Music
14
Laundering Enterprise.
15
252.
16
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
17
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
18
they were false.
19
253.
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The January 9, 2014 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 16.
20 21
P. January 20, 2015 - Marlo Unilaterally Signs Work-for-Hire Contract, Forges Baker’s signature on Writer Inducement
22 23
254.
24
for-hire contract, an untitled album project which ultimately took the title “70s Mix
25
Tape”, with a total contract price of $17,500.
26
255.
27
favor of Clair Marlo, when 11 of the 12 songs were solely authored by Alexander Baker.
On January 20, 2015, Clair Marlo and Ken Nelson executed a signed work-
The January 20, 2015 contract lists 12 songs, stating a 75-25 writer split in
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 39 ! of ! 60
The January 20, 2015 contract falsely states that Clair Marlo is sole producer
1
256.
2
of the Sound Recordings, when in fact Alexander Baker was sole producer.
3
257.
4
Firstcom in Texas by U.S. Mail.
5
258.
6
that she had received lyric sheets for “70s Mix Tape”. The lyric sheets for the 11 songs
7
authored by Alexander Baker each stated:
Clair Marlo sent the January 20, 2015 contract from her office in California to On January 9, 2015, Jenifer Carpenter sent an email to Clair Marlo indicating
8 9
© 2014 Alexander "Ace" Baker
10
Write Hear Music (BMI) all rights reserved
11 12
259.
13
Hire contract and noticed that it was not signed Mr. Baker. they knew or should have
14
known that the Writer Inducement was a forgery. However, they did not care that it was
15
unsigned and forged because Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo had already
16
agreed to commercially exploit the musical works of Alexander Baker and others without
17
permission and without compensation, that being the primary purpose of the RICO
18
Enterprise.
19
260.
20
authorships of the musical works with BMI, and filed “SR” copyright registration with
21
the Library of Congress, repeating the false designations within the contract, knowing
22
they were false.
23
261.
Jenifer Carpenter and Ken Nelson received the January 20, 2015 Work-for-
Shortly thereafter, using electronic means, Jenifer Carpenter registered the
The January 20, 2015 contract is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 17.
24 25
Q. March 2014 - Present - Marlo Prevents Access to Baker’s Life’s Work
26
262.
27
changing the lock on the Invisible Hand home recording studio, which is a stand-alone
28
converted garage on the same property. Afterwards, Mr. Baker was forced to live
In May 2012, Ms. Marlo changed the locks on the family home, without
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 40 ! of ! 60
1
elsewhere, while continuing to work in the studio, and while Ms. Marlo continued to
2
control all the finances, including Mr. Baker’s quarterly BMI royalty checks. Ms. Marlo
3
was still promising to “work on the marriage”, but “still needed more time”.
4
263.
5
independent film “Route 30, Too!” On March 25, 2014, Mr. Baker arrived at the studio
6
and began working. Ms. Marlo came into the studio and demanded that he leave. Mr.
7
Baker did not leave right away, so Ms. Marlo called the Los Angeles Police Department,
8
whereupon Mr. Baker began recording video of Ms. Marlo with his iPhone.
9
264.
In March of 2014, Alexander Baker had been hired to compose music for the
Ms. Marlo told the police “I own this house, and it’s my house and I have a
10
studio here, and he won’t get out. We’re in the middle of a, a divorce, and he won’t get
11
out of the studio.” A true and correct copy of the transcript of the video is concurrently
12
filed as EXHIBIT 23.
13
265.
14
he be given access to the studio, to make copies of his Life’s Work, that is computer files
15
stored on many hard drives located in the studio. Ms. Marlo has at all times refused such
16
requests and demands.
17
266.
18
opportunities to perform music work and to issue music licenses, but all such
19
opportunities required access to the studio, and access to Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work, which
20
Ms. Marlo steadfastly denied.
On various occasions since, Mr. Baker has requested and then demanded that
On serval occasions during the summer of 2015, Mr. Baker received
21 22
V. BAKER DISCOVERS “TIP OF THE ICEBERG” AND SUES
23 24
A. June 30, 2015 - Baker Notices Marlo and Firstcom About Infringement of “70s Mix Tape” a/k/a “That 70s Record”
25 26
267.
27
Clair Marlo. The letter indicated that Mr. Baker had discovered the misappropriation of
On June 30, 2015, Mr. Baker sent a letter to Ken Nelson at Firstcom, copying
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 41 ! of ! 60
1
his musical works collectively known as “70s Mix Tape” or “That 70s Record”. Mr.
2
Baker expressed his desire to settle the matter fairly, quietly and without litigation.
3
268.
4
Baker, not communicating with him by any means, despite several follow-up emails.
Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Firstcom completely ignored Alexander
5 6
B. August, 2015 - Baker Discovers Fraudulent Fictitious Business Name Statement
7
Mr. Baker first discovered the November 12, 2007 Fictitious Business Name
8
269.
9
Statement in August of 2015, while gathering copies of real estate documents at Los
10
Angeles County Recorder for discovery in his divorce proceeding against Ms. Marlo. Mr.
11
Baker noticed that the document indicated that any person who provided false
12
information “is guilty of a crime”.
13 14
C. January 2016 - Baker Discovers Universal Royalty Stream
15
270.
16
the Family Law case. Attached to that document were 1099 tax forms that indicated that
17
Ms. Marlo was receiving royalty income under the name “Invisible Hand Productions”.
18
271.
19
unknown to Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker immediately began contacting the royalty department
20
at Universal, attempting to discover whether there was an account in his name, and/or in
21
the name of Invisible Hand Productions. Apparently, Ms. Marlo has been receiving
22
Universal royalty checks for many years.
23
272.
24
Productions, because as far as they were concerned, Mr. Baker had nothing to do with
25
Invisible Hand Productions.
26
273.
27
Universal, in his own name and Social Security number. Evidently, Ms. Marlo has for
In December 2015, Ms. Marlo filed an “Income and Expense” declaration in
This royalty stream to Invisible Hand Productions was hitherto completely
Universal would give Mr. Baker no answers regarding Invisible Hand
Mr. Baker also discovered that there was another royalty stream coming from
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 42 ! of ! 60
1
many years been cashing Universal royalty checks in Mr. Baker’s name, that Mr. Baker
2
did not know existed.
3
274.
4
Universal royalty income paid in Mr. Baker’s name, but actually received by Ms. Marlo.
5
275.
6
Baker.
7
However, when requested, Universal did not have a W-9 form on file for Mr.
D. April-September 2016 - Baker Successfully Sues Marlo for Copyright Infringement of “That 70s Record” a/k/a “70s Mix Tape”
8 9
In July 2016, Universal did provide Mr. Baker with 1099 forms regarding the
276.
In April 2016, Mr. Baker filed suit against Clair Marlo for copyright
10
infringement regarding “That 70s Record” (a/k/a “70s Mix Tape”).
11
277.
12
Beth Chrisman. Ms. Chrisman found that the Writer Inducement contract was a forgery.
13
278.
14
“70s Mix Tape” from their online music search engine.
15
279.
16
Alexander Baker, awarding sole authorship of the 11 songs, and ordering Clair Marlo to
17
pay $23,105 in damages, plus past and future royalties, plus costs. A true and correct
18
copy of Judge Klausner’s ruling is concurrently filed herewith as EXHIBIT 21.
In July 2016, Mr. Baker filed a declaration and analysis by handwriting expert Shortly after the declaration by the handwriting expert, Firstcom “deactivated” On September 22, 2016 the Honorable R. Gary Klausner found in favor of
19 20
VI. BAKER DISCOVERS RICO MUSIC LAUNDERING ENTERPRISE
21 22
A. June 2016 - Firstcom Produces Contracts, Royalty Statements and Emails in Response to Subpoena
23
In May 2016, Mr. Baker served a subpoena on Firstcom, requesting
24
280.
25
production of all contracts, royalty statements, emails and other documents relating to
26
Alexander Baker, Clair Marlo, and Invisible Hand Productions.
27
281.
28
large number of Bates-stamped documents in response.
In June 2016, Firstcom delivered to Alexander Baker by electronic means a
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 43 ! of ! 60
In examining this large number of documents, Mr. Baker discovered many of
1
282.
2
the facts that form the basis of this action, and that the facts regarding giving rise to the
3
prior lawsuit for “That ‘70s Record” were merely the “tip of the iceberg”.
4 5
B. June 2016 - Baker Discovers Secret Universal Royalty Statements
6
283.
7
Mr. Baker discovered Royalty Statements paid from Universal to Invisible Hand
8
Productions. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that these are Royalties for Direct
9
Licensing.
In examining the documents produced in the June 2016 subpoena response,
10
284.
11
solely to Clair Marlo, despite clearly listing Alexander Baker and others as authors
12
associated with many of the music uses reported.
13
285.
14
about 2007, contemporaneous with Clair Marlo’s action of secretly placing ownership of
15
Invisible Hand Productions into her own name, sole and separate.
16
286.
17
concurrently filed as EXHIBIT 24.
The Direct License Royalties are paid to Invisible Hand Productions, thus paid
Plaintiff believes that this Direct Licensing Royalty stream originated in or
As an example, the January-June 2012 Direct License Royalty Statement is
18 19
C. June 2016 - Baker Discovers Firstcom v. Sprout Lawsuit On June 20, 2016, Mr. Baker first learned of the 2007-2008 Firstcom v. Sprout
20
287.
21
lawsuit via an email from attorney Darren J. Schmidt, a copy of which is concurrently
22
filed herewith as EXHIBIT 22.
23 24
D. July 2016 - Baker Discovers Nir Averbuch Reallocation In July 2016, Mr. Baker discovered an email dialog between Firstcom, ASCAP,
25
288.
26
and Clair Marlo which had evidently taken place in 2010. The emails indicated that
27
former Invisible Hand collaborator Nir Averbuch had discovered 12 titles in which his
28
writer share was less than correct, while Clair Marlo’s writer share was more than correct.
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 44 ! of ! 60
Clair Marlo and Firstcom acted to repair this situation by changing the splits
1
289.
2
via a back-dated Writer Inducement. Mr. Baker had no involvement in this 2010
3
reallocation, and what purports to be his signature on the back-dated Writer Inducement
4
is a forgery.
5
290.
6
correctly. However, Mr. Baker does not know what the incorrect writer split values had
7
formerly been, nor whether any compensation was ever issued to Mr. Averbuch, or to Mr.
8
Baker.
Alexander Baker acknowledges that this reallocation set the writer splits
9 10
E. October 2016 - Baker Creates Blog, Marlo Requests Domestic Violence Restraining Order To Chill It
11
In late September 2016, Alexander Baker created a blog at http://
12
291.
13
bakervfirstcom.blogspot. The purpose of the blog was to inform the public and discuss
14
matters related to this lawsuit. When Ms. Marlo discovered the blog, her desire for
15
revenge against Mr. Baker intensified.
16
292.
17
request for Protective Orders under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act
18
(“DVPA”). The request seeks to restrain Alexander Baker from posting Judge Klausner’s
19
ruling against Clair Marlo, and from posting the allegations contained in this complaint,
20
which allegations Ms. Marlo characterizes as “abuse”, “harassment”, “stalking” and the
21
like.
22
293.
23
Request for Restraining Orders, she sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order
24
against Mr. Baker, prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 100 yards of either
25
of his two daughters, now ages 20 and 13. There are no allegations of any sort of violence
26
or nor any basis for Mr. Baker to be restrained from anyone, let alone his daughters,
27
whom he loves with all his heart.
On October 26, 2016, Clair Marlo filed into the pending Family Law case a
Ms. Marlo is so intent on revenge, that included in the October 26, 2016 DVPA
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 45 ! of ! 60
Presently set for hearing on December 8, 2016, Ms. Marlo’s DVPA request
1
294.
2
contains no allegations of Domestic Violence whatsoever, and is an attempt to chill Mr.
3
Baker’s rights to free speech, and to petition for grievances.
4
F. October 2016 - Baker Discovers Firstcom Subpoena Response
5
Incomplete
6 7
295.
8
Attached to that declaration were copies of several Firstcom contract pages, some of
9
which were not present in the June 2016 Firstcom subpoena response.
In October 2016, Ms. Marlo filed a declaration into the Family Law case.
10
296.
11
APPENDIX A and the songs listed in APPENDIX B, there may be more contracts with
12
forged or missing signatures, and more songs with false authorship registrations.
Plaintiff thus has reason to suspect that, in addition to the contracts listed in
13
G. November 2016 - Baker Discovers Universal Digital Royalty Settlement
14 15
297.
16
which Universal Music Group, parent of Firstcom Music, settled for $11.5 million against
17
allegations they “knowingly miscalculated” royalties due.
18
298.
19
and alleged that Universal engaged in an ongoing pattern of paying less royalties than
20
were rightly due, over a period of many years.
In November 2016, Mr. Baker discovered a recent class-action lawsuit in
The class-action case involved well-known and lesser-known musical artists,
21 22
///
23 24 25 26 27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 46 ! of ! 60
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1 2 3
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4
Violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) - Music Laundering
5
(Against Firstcom, Ken Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter, and Clair Marlo)
6
299.
7
Defendant Persons
8
300.
9
Kenneth “Ken” Nelson is a person, Jenifer Carpenter is a person, and Firstcom Music, a
10
Unit of Universal Music - Z tunes, LLC is a person within the meaning of “person” in 18
11
USC §1961(3) and §1962(c).
12
The RICO Enterprise
13
301.
14
Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter and Clair Marlo, associated together in fact by their common
15
purpose of Music Laundering, i.e. obtaining copyrighted musical works through forgery
16
and false promises, then realizing financial gain by selling commercial licenses to
17
unsuspecting good-faith purchasers.
18
302.
19
Nelson’s executive assistant at all relevant times. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Marlo are related in
20
that the two have executed more than 10 contracts during the relevant time. They are all
21
three related in that they have devised and executed the Music Laundering scheme.
22
303.
23
Enterprise - Mr. Nelson as the boss, Ms. Marlo obtaining music by fraudulent means and
24
continually feeding the Music Laundering pipeline, and Ms. Carpenter handling the
25
authorship data entry - persisted from before 2007 until 2015.
26
Pattern of Racketeering 1 - 18 USC §2319 - Criminal Copyright Infringement
27
304.
28
copyrights of Plaintiff Alexander Baker by obtaining recordings of his music under the
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. At all relevant times Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo is a person,
The RICO Music Laundering Enterprise consists of Firstcom Music, Ken
Mr. Nelson and Ms. Carpenter are related in that Ms. Carpenter has been Mr.
This structure of operation and management of the RICO Music Laundering
From 2007-2015, RICO Defendants repeatedly and continuously infringed the
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 47 ! of ! 60
1
false pretense that Mr. Baker’s authorship would be properly registered, and by forging
2
Mr. Baker’s signature onto copyright assignment contracts. Mr. Baker’s copyrights were
3
infringed for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain.
4
305.
5
Defendants did reproduce, did distribute and did sell commercial licenses for more than 1
6
of Mr. Baker’s copyrighted musical compositions, with a retail value in excess of $1,000.
7
Pattern of Racketeering 2 - 18 USC §1341 - Mail Fraud
8
306.
9
scheme to obtain royalty money due to Plaintiff by means of using the U.S. Mail to send
During each 180-day period from 2007-2015, the RICO Music Laundering
From 2007-2015, RICO Defendants repeatedly and continuously executed a
10
from California to Texas contracts bearing forged signatures, and contracts that were
11
unsigned, such contracts stating false authorship representations, and falsely indicating
12
that Invisible Hand Productions was solely owned by Clair Marlo.
13
Pattern of Racketeering 3 - 18 USC §1343 - Wire Fraud
14
307.
15
scheme to obtain royalty money due to Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent
16
authorship and producer representations transmitted by wire from Clair Marlo in
17
California to Firstcom in Texas, and from Firstcom in Texas to the Library of Congress in
18
Washington D.C., and from Firstcom in Texas to BMI and ASCAP in California.
19
Injury to Plaintiff’s Business and Property
20
308.
21
of the RICO defendant’s violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). From 2007-2016, Plaintiff
22
Alexander Baker repeatedly and continuously sustained monetary injury by reason of the
23
pattern of Music Laundering, in the amount of royalty monies and contract monies he
24
would have received, had his authorships been registered correctly, and had his name not
25
been omitted from the work-for-hire contracts. Plaintiff was also injured in his
26
intellectual property by reason of the pattern of Music Laundering, such pattern depriving
27
Plaintiff of all or partial ownership of writer shares of copyrights rightly due to him.
From 2007-2014, RICO Defendants repeatedly and continuously executed a
Plaintiff Alexander Baker was injured in his business and property by reason
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 48 ! of ! 60
These injuries to Mr. Baker were a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of
1
309.
2
the violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). Mr. Baker is the most significant, but not the only
3
victim of the Defendants’ RICO Music Laundering Enterprise. Mr. Baker has been and
4
will continue to be injured in his business and property in an amount to be proven at trial.
5
310.
6
Nelson, Jenifer Carpenter, and Firstcom Music are jointly and severally liable for RICO
7
Racketeering.
Therefore, Defendants Clair Marlo a/k/a Clara Veseliza Baker, Kenneth “Ken”
8 9
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
11
(against Firstcom and Ken Nelson)
12
311.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
13
312.
As publisher, Firstcom Music and Ken Nelson owed a fiduciary duty to
14
Alexander Baker to exercise reasonable care to protect Alexander Baker’s right to collect
15
performance royalties for the song “See What The Animals Do”, which was performed
16
on Sprout at least 3500 times.
17
313.
18
falsely claiming that no performances had taken place, falsely claiming that Mr. Baker
19
had no right to sue Sprout even if such performances had taken place, and falsely
20
claiming that Firstcom would not sue regardless of whether performances had taken place
21
or not.
22
314.
23
on Mr. Baker, conditioning any and all future contractual engagement on acceptance of
24
Firstcom’s demand that Mr. Baker “sit down and shut up”, meaning Mr. Baker was
25
prohibited from suing, from collecting performance royalties, and from publicly
26
discussing the Sprout Promo Situation.
27
315.
28
suing ad agency Johnson & Murphy, ultimately settling out-of-court on terms favorable
Instead, Firstcom and Ken Nelson breached their fiduciary duty to Mr. Baker,
Firstcom further breached fiduciary to Mr. Baker by exerting undue influence
Firstcom further breached fiduciary duty to Mr. Baker by suing Sprout, and
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 49 ! of ! 60
1
to Firstcom, thus acting to greatly benefit Firstcom while deliberately prohibiting Mr.
2
Baker from collecting writer share performance royalties due, and from pursuing his
3
rights in a lawsuit, all to Mr. Baker’s detriment.
4
316.
5
Universal Music - Z Tunes are jointly and severally liable for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Therefore Defendants Kenneth “Ken” Nelson and Firstcom Music a Unit of
6 7
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8
Copyright Infringement - 17 USC §101 et. seq.
9
(against Sprout and Johnson & Murphy)
10
317.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
11
318.
Plaintiff Alexander Baker is sole Author and Producer of the Composition and
12
Master “See What The Animals Do”. Defendants Children’s Network, LLC a/k/a Sprout
13
and Johnson & Murphy Productions, LLC reproduced and performed “See What The
14
Animals Do” at least 3500 times on network television, when such rights to reproduce
15
and perform belonged solely to the Plaintiff.
16
319.
17
Murphy Productions, LLC are jointly and severally liable for 3500 instances of Copyright
18
Infringement.
Therefore Defendants Children’s Network, LLC a/k/a Sprout and Johnson &
19 20
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21
Fraud - Sprout Promo Situation
22
(against Firstcom, Ken Nelson and Clair Marlo )
23
320.
24
321.
25
Alexander Baker that Firstcom Music would not sue Sprout for copyright infringement of
26
“See What The Animals Do”. Firstcom further falsely represented that Mr. Baker was
27
legally prohibited from suing Sprout. Finally, Mr. Nelson threatened that if Mr. Baker did
28
not “sit down and shut up”, meaning that if Mr. Baker sued, or took action to collect
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. Ken Nelson and an attorney on behalf of Firstcom Music falsely stated to
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 50 ! of ! 60
1
performance royalties, or publicly spoke a word about the Sprout Promo Situation to
2
anyone, that he would never be hired again. Clair Marlo participated in the conversation,
3
heard everything, knew the truth, yet said nothing.
4
322.
5
Sprout, and wanted to enforce his rights under copyright law, and wanted to collect
6
Performance Royalties due. But Mr. Baker believed Ken Nelson and Firstcom when they
7
said they had chosen not to sue, and believed that he was legally prohibited from suing on
8
his own behalf. Mr. Baker believed Ken Nelson when told that if he sued, or said
9
anything about the Sprout Promo Situation to anyone, that he would never be hired by
Alexander Baker relied on these false representations. Mr. Baker wanted to sue
10
Firstcom again.
11
323.
12
copyright infringement regarding 3500 performances of “See What The Animals Do”.
13
The parties there reached an out-of-court settlement, on terms favorable to Firstcom.
14
324.
15
by Firstcom, Ken Nelson, and Clair Marlo by forgoing his right to sue Sprout and / or
16
Johnson & Murphy, the value of such lawsuit to be proven at trial.
17
325.
18
Kenneth “Ken” Nelson, and Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo are jointly and
19
severally liable for Fraud.
In fact, Firstcom did sue Sprout and ad agency Johnson & Murphy for
Plaintiff Alexander Baker was damaged in reliance on the misrepresentations
Therefore Defendants Firstcom Music a Unit of Universal Music - Z Tunes,
20 21
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22
Fraud - Contracts In Appendix A
23
(against Clair Marlo)
24
326.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
25
327.
Defendant Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo represented to Plaintiff
26
Alexander Baker that Invisible Hand Productions was a husband-wife partnership.
27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 51 ! of ! 60
Mr. Baker relied on Ms. Marlo’s representation, believing that that his name
1
328.
2
and his interest was at all times represented in the contractual dealings with Firstcom
3
Music.
4
329.
5
unilaterally acting as Invisible Hand Productions. On December 3, 2007, Ms. Marlo filed
6
a Fictitious Business Name Statement in Los Angeles County, indicating that Invisible
7
Hand Productions was now owned solely in her name.
8
330.
9
business as Invisible Hand Productions.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Baker, beginning in 2007, Ms. Marlo executed contracts
Each contract listed in Appendix A was entered into by Clair Marlo, doing
10
331.
11
amount of 1/2 of the sum of all contract prices listed in Appendix A.
12
332.
13
as loss of future earnings, relating to a disparity of goodwill amassed at Firstcom Music,
14
who believed that it was Clair Marlo making all this profitable music, when in fact it was
15
Alexander Baker making it. The disparity in goodwill and loss of earnings is explicitly
16
indicated by Firstcom, who presently wish to continue working with Clair Marlo, while
17
wanting nothing to do with Alexander Baker.
18
333.
Mr. Baker was damaged in reliance on Ms. Marlo’s misrepresentations by the Mr. Baker was further damaged in reliance on Ms. Marlo’s misrepresentations
Therefore Defendant Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo is liable for Fraud.
19 20
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21
Fraud - Song Splits In Appendix B
22
(against Clair Marlo, Firstcom, Ken Nelson, and Jenifer Carpenter)
23
334.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
24
335.
Each and every song listed in Appendix B was solely authored by Alexander
25
Baker, or else authored in a percentage greater than as stated on the official registration.
26
336.
27
Baker and Clair Marlo, all writer shares were to be split equally between the two.
According to a long-standing oral “ghostwriter” agreement between Alexander
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 52 ! of ! 60
Clair Marlo represented to Alexander Baker that she would accurately convey
1
337.
2
writer split information to Firstcom.
3
338.
4
her, trusting that she would accurately convey the agreed-upon writer splits to Firstcom.
5
339.
6
was false, because each song in fact was registered with unequal writer splits, in every
7
instance favoring Clair Marlo.
8
340.
9
known, that the songs listed in Appendix B were falsely registered, because Invisible
10
Hand Productions had delivered so many songs for so many years, with equal splits
11
between Alexander Baker and Clair Marlo.
12
341.
13
should have known, that the songs listed in Appendix B were falsely registered because
14
several of the Writer Inducement Contracts were not signed at all; others were signed
15
with incorrect dates; still others were signed with writer split percentages already decided
16
but no song titles even indicated.
17
342.
18
uphold accurate writer shares, and Mr. Baker believed and relied on such representations.
19
343.
20
representations in the amount of all money calculated as follows: For each song listed in
21
Appendix B, all money received by Firstcom in license fees, plus all money received by
22
Firstcom in performance royalties, plus all money received by Clair Marlo in
23
performance royalties.
24
344.
25
Kenneth “Ken” Nelson, Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo and Jenifer Carpenter are
26
jointly and severally liable for Fraud.
Alexander Baker relied on the representations made by Clair Marlo, believing For each and every song listed in Appendix B, Clair Marlo’s representation
Firstcom Music, Ken Nelson and Jenifer Carpenter knew, or should have
Furthermore, Firstcom Music, Ken Nelson and Jenifer Carpenter knew, or
Firstcom represented to Alexander Baker that it would use best efforts to Alexander Baker was damaged by his reliance on the above false
Therefore Defendants Firstcom Music a Unit of Universal Music - Z Tunes,
27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 53 ! of ! 60
1
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
Copyright Infringement - All Songs In Appendix B
3
(against Firstcom, Ken Nelson and Clair Marlo)
4
345.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
5
346.
Alexander Baker is author and producer, in whole or in part, thus rightful
6
copyright owner of compositions and masters, in whole or in part, on all songs listed in
7
Appendix B. All contracts relating to songs listed in Appendix B and purporting to
8
transfer copyright from Mr. Baker to Firstcom are forgeries, thus void for fraud. Clair
9
Marlo has infringed on Mr. Baker’s copyright by pretending to be Mr. Baker for the
10
purpose of transferring copyright, when such right to transfer is vested in the real
11
Alexander Baker. Firstcom has infringed on Mr. Baker’s copyright by reproducing the
12
masters, and by issuing licenses for music performance to third parties, on many of the
13
titles listed in Appendix B, when such rights to control reproduction and performance
14
belong to Alexander Baker.
15
347.
16
Kenneth “Ken” Nelson, and Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo are jointly and
17
severally liable for Copyright Infringement.
Therefore Defendants Firstcom Music a Unit of Universal Music - Z Tunes,
18 19
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20
Conversion - Invisible Hand Productions
21
(against Clair Marlo)
22
348.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
23
349.
Alexander Baker had a 50% ownership stake in Invisible Hand Productions,
24
having co-founded the business as a 50-50 partnership with Clair Marlo in September
25
1993, having filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement in Los Angeles County for
26
Invisible Hand Productions as a husband-wife partnership, and having been legally
27
married to Clair Marlo in the State of California from January 1995 - July 2016.
28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 54 ! of ! 60
Clair Marlo intentionally and substantially interfered with Mr. Baker’s
1
350.
2
ownership stake in Invisible Hand Productions from 2007 - present. Unbeknownst to Mr.
3
Baker, Ms. Marlo began unilaterally contracting with Firstcom in July 2007, doing
4
business as Invisible Hand Productions. Unbeknownst to Mr. Baker, on November 12,
5
2007, Ms. Marlo filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement in Los Angeles County for
6
Invisible Hand Productions as owned by “Clara Veseliza Baker - an individual”.
7
351.
8
from Universal paid to Invisible Hand Productions.
9
352.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Baker, from 2007-present, Ms. Marlo received royalties Mr. Baker did not consent to having Invisible Hand Productions placed solely
10
in the name of Ms. Marlo.
11
353.
12
the amount of 50% of all contract prices and royalties received by Invisible Hand
13
Productions from 2007-present. Mr. Baker was further harmed by the loss of his stake in
14
Invisible Hand Productions insofar as Firstcom Music Senior VP Ken Nelson now
15
wrongly believes that Clair Marlo created all that music all this time, wrongly believes
16
that Alexander Baker had no involvement with Invisible Hand Productions, thus is
17
unwilling to consider doing business with him in the future.
18
354.
19
business solely in her own name, was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Baker’s above
20
stated injuries.
21
355.
Mr. Baker was harmed by the loss of his stake in Invisible Hand Productions, in
Ms. Marlo’s conduct in unilaterally contracting with Firstcom, and placing the
Therefore, Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo is liable for Conversion.
22 23 24
///
25 26 27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 55 ! of ! 60
1
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
Conversion - Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work
3
(against Clair Marlo)
4
356.
Plaintiff now repeats and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
5
357.
Alexander Baker owned and had a right to possess the computer files
6
comprising over 20 years of his musical work, stored on many hard drives located in the
7
home recording studio, and referred to as “Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work”.
8
358.
9
Work by taking possession of the recording studio, and of the many hard drives,
Clair Marlo intentionally and substantially interfered with Mr. Baker’s Life’s
10
disallowing Mr. Baker into the studio for the purpose of making copies of his Life’s
11
Work; refusing to return or make copies of Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work.
12
359.
13
repeatedly requested and demanded that Ms. Marlo grant him access to the studio to copy
14
his Life’s Work, to no avail. Mr. Baker’s pleas fell on deaf ears.
15
360.
16
great monetary value as licensable musical works, remix elements, and other viable
17
commercial opportunities. Mr. Baker was further harmed by the loss of his Life’s work,
18
in that the computer file creation dates and revision histories could substantiate factual
19
claims relevant to this lawsuit. On information and belief, the true purpose Ms. Marlo has
20
converted Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work is to conceal the truth about who really made all that
21
Production Music for all these years.
22
361.
23
him access to his Life’s Work was a substantial factor, indeed the only factor in causing
24
Mr. Baker’s above stated injuries related to the loss of his Life’s Work.
25
362.
Mr. Baker did not consent to having his Life’s Work taken from him. Mr. Baker
Mr. Baker was harmed by the loss of his Life’s Work, in that it potentially has
Ms. Marlo’s conduct in locking Mr. Baker out of the studio, refusing to allow
Therefore, Clara Veseliza Baker a/k/a Clair Marlo is liable for Conversion.
26 27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 56 ! of ! 60
1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 3
On the First Claim for Relief (RICO Racketeering)
4
Special Damages - For business and property damages, the Court should award Plaintiff
5
an amount equal to the sum of all prices of all contracts identified in Appendix A, plus the
6
sum of all license fees generated by Firstcom on all songs listed in Appendix B, plus the
7
sum of all performance royalties rightly due to plaintiff but paid to others, such amounts
8
proven at trial, added together, and then trebled by statute, plus pre-judgment interest
9
according to statute, plus reasonable attorney fees (if any) and costs.
10 11
On the Second Claim for Relief (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
12
Constructive Trust - The Court should find that the January 13, 2000 Work-for-Hire
13
Contract between Firstcom Music and Invisible Hand Productions, with corresponding
14
Writer Inducement Contract between Firstcom Music and Alexander Baker, established a
15
Trust, with Firstcom Music the Trustee and plaintiff Alexander Baker a Beneficiary of
16
the Trust; and that such Trust obligated Firstcom Music to exercise reasonable care in
17
protecting Alexander Baker’s right to collect the writer share of performance royalties for
18
the song “See What The Animals Do”.
19
Recision of Contract - For breach of fiduciary duty, under the long-standing case of BMI
20
v. Taylor, the Court should rescind the January 13, 2000 Work-for-Hire contract between
21
Firstcom and Invisible Hand Productions, and rescind the corresponding Writer
22
Inducement Contract between Firstcom and Alexander Baker.
23
Declaratory Relief - In light of the rescinded January 13, 2000 contracts, the Court
24
should declare that copyrights to both Composition and Master of the song “See What
25
The Animals Do” is awarded to sole author and sole producer Alexander Baker. The
26
Court should declare therefore that Plaintiff Alexander Baker has standing to sue
27
Defendants Sprout and Johnson & Murphy for statutory damages regarding their
28
infringing uses of “See What The Animals Do”.
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 57 ! of ! 60
1 2
On the Third Claim for Relief (Copyright Infringement - Sprout Promo):
3
Statutory Damages - For statutory damages of (at least) 3,500 infringing performances
4
of “See What The Animals Do”, the Court should order Defendant Sprout and Defendant
5
Johnson and Murphy jointly and severally to to pay not less than $2,625,000 and not
6
more than $105,000,000 to copyright holder Alexander Baker.
7 8
On the Fourth Claim for Relief (Fraud - Sprout Promo Situation):
9
Special Damages - In an amount equal to the value of the 2007 lawsuit Universal Z-
10
Tunes, LLC v. Children’s Network, LLC (aka Firstcom v. Sprout), such amount to be
11
proven at trial.
12
Punitive Damages - In an amount the Court deems reasonable to punish the defendants,
13
to make an example of them, and to discourage future such conduct.
14 15
On the Fifth Claim for Relief (Fraud - Contracts in Appendix A):
16
Void Contract - The Court should find the long-standing oral Ghostwriter Agreement
17
between Alexander Baker and Clair Marlo, which provided that Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo
18
would divide writer share equally, is void for fraud, and / or void as unconscionable.
19
Declaratory Relief - The Court should declare all authorships of all songs listed in
20
Appendix B to be set according to actual authorship.
21
Special Damages - For all songs listed in Appendix B, in an amount equal to all licensing
22
fees received by Firstcom, plus all performance royalties received by Firstcom, plus all
23
performance royalties received by Clair Marlo.
24
Punitive Damages - In an amount the Court deems reasonable to punish the defendants,
25
to make an example of them, and to discourage future such conduct.
26 27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 58 ! of ! 60
1
On the Sixth Claim for Relief (Fraud - Song Splits in Appendix B):
2
Void Contract - The Court should find the long-standing oral Ghostwriter Agreement
3
between Alexander Baker and Clair Marlo, which provided that Mr. Baker and Ms. Marlo
4
would divide writer share equally, is void for fraud.
5
Special Damages - For all songs listed in Appendix B, in an amount equal to all licensing
6
fees received by Firstcom, plus all performance royalties received by Firstcom, plus all
7
performance royalties received by Clair Marlo.
8
Punitive Damages - In an amount the Court deems reasonable to punish the defendants,
9
to make an example of them, and to discourage future such conduct.
10 11
On the Seventh Claim for Relief (Copyright Infringement - Production Music):
12
Declaratory Relief - The Court should declare that Alexander Baker is the copyright
13
owner of each musical work listed in Appendix B, in the percentages indicated in the
14
column “splits - actual” .
15
Modification of Contract - For each licensing contract entered into between Firstcom
16
and any third party purporting to grant performance license for a song listed in Appendix
17
B, the Court should modify such contract to substitute Alexander Baker in place of
18
Firstcom, so that Mr. Baker “steps into the shoes” of Firstcom, requiring Mr. Baker to
19
assume all rights and obligations under these contracts, as if entered into by Mr. Baker in
20
the first place, while not affecting the rights of any non-party.
21
Statutory Damages - In the amount of not less than $750 nor more than $30,000,
22
multiplied by the total number of songs in Appendix B.
23
Actual Damages and Profits - As an alternative to statutory damages, and at Plaintiff’s
24
election, for each song in Appendix B, in an amount equal to all license fees generated,
25
plus all performance royalties received by Firstcom, plus all performance royalties
26
received by Clair Marlo.
27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 59 ! of ! 60
1 2
On the Eighth Claim for Relief (Conversion - Invisible Hand Productions)
3
Special Damages - In an amount equal to 50% of the value of contract prices received by
4
Invisible Hand Productions from 2007-present, plus 50% royalties paid to Invisible Hand
5
Productions, plus 50% of present value of Invisible Hand Productions, such amounts
6
documented and proven at trial.
7
Punitive Damages - In an amount the Court deems reasonable to punish the defendant,
8
to make an example of her, and to discourage future such conduct.
9 10
On the Ninth Claim for Relief (Conversion - Mr. Baker’s Life’s Work)
11
Special Damages - In an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for lost commercial
12
opportunities directly attributable to the loss of his Life’s Work, such amount proven at
13
trial and deemed reasonable by the Court.
14
Punitive Damages - In an amount the Court deems reasonable to punish the defendant,
15
to make an example of her, and to discourage future such conduct.
16 17
Dated this 28th day of November, 2016
18 19 20 21
Alexander Collin Baker
22
Plaintiff Pro Se
23
Phone: 323-313-7653
24
[email protected]
25 26 27 28
Baker v Firstcom et al - RICO Music Laundering Complaint - page 60 ! of ! 60
1 2
APPENDIX A
3
List of Falsified Contracts Between Invisible Hand and Firstcom
4
EX #
Contract Date
Project Description
1
2005_01_12
HM-078 Happy Songs, EVO046 Latino Uno, EVO048 Radio Rock Reload, SEE-001 Action Adventure, SEE003 Emotional-Heartwarming
forgery
$
51,000.00
2
2007_07_26
DF-01 Escape Plan, DF-02 Unstoppable, DF-03 Completely Covered, DF-04 Text Me + Elements, DF-05 Transcendent Image
missing
$
80,000.00
11
3
2008_02_25
AXS014 Blenders
missing
$
9,750.00
12
4
2008_09_12
DF08 Investigations EVO122 Rhythmic Underscores
missing
$
28,000.00
5A
2009_01_01
DF06 More Action More Drama, DF07 Personal Stories, DF09 Information Update
forgery
$
17,500.00
16
5B
2009_01_01
DF10 Positive Profiles
missing
$
17,500.00
17
6
2009_05_12
EVO131 Step Into The Holidays, EVO129 Not Too Hard Rock, EVO130 Acoustic Cinema
missing
$
39,000.00
19
7
2010_01_15
EVO-138 Beach Baby
forgery
$
13,000.00
20
8
2010_05_18
EVO-145 Happy Happy Holidays
forgery
$
13,000.00
21
9
2010_07_14
EVO-148 Soaring Rock Anthems, HM-096 Gleefully
missing
$
28,500.00
22
10
2010_12_02
EVO-152 Latin Vibes
missing
$
13,000.00
23
11
2011_03_17
EVO-159 Stories: Mixed Moods
missing
$
13,000.00
24
12
2012_03_01
OM168 Tones and Drones, OM169 Drama Beds, OM170, OM171 Hits, Booms and Accents, OM172 Risers and Fallers, OM173 Loops and Rhythms and OM174 Sweeps and Transitions
forgery
$
15,000.00
13
2012_03_20
EVO174 Twilight Rock: Dramatic Themes for the Undead
missing
$
13,000.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
13 14 15
18
25 26 27 28
APPENDIX A - page !i of !iii
Status of Plaintiff’s Signature
Contract Price
EX #
Contract Date
3
14
2012_09_09
EVO183 Evolving Patterns
missing
$
13,000.00
4
15
2013_01_17
EVO186 Latin Pop 2
forgery
$
13,000.00
5
16
2014_01_09
EVO211 Epic and Inspired
missing
$
17,500.00
6
17
2015_01_20
That ‘70s Record aka The ‘70s Mix Tape
forgery
$
17,500.00
1
Project Description
2
7
Status of Plaintiff’s Signature
Contract Price
credit back for “70s Record already litigated
$ (17,500.00)
Total
$ 394,750.00
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
APPENDIX A - page ii! of iii !
1
APPENDIX B
2
List of Songs With False Authorship Registrations
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
APPENDIX A - page !iii of ! iii
