My name is Kirk Johnston, and I brought suit against the members of Nickelback and Warner Chappell for copyright infringement upon learning that my song Rock Star had been stolen. I'm asking the US Supreme Court to review my legal questions that were ignored at the district court and Fifth Circuit court of appeals.

Where I have presented competent expert evidence from a musicologist concerning the substantial and striking similarities of the hooks of the two works, is it legally appropriate for the court to disregard this evidence at the summary judgment stage in favor of its own opinion concerning the differences of the two songs, therefore denying me a right to a jury determination on the issues of substantial and striking similarity?

Where both parties have presented admissible testimony of competing musicology expert opinions, is it legally appropriate for the courts to resolve disputes and make factual determinations at the summary judgment stage concerning the similarities and differences between the hooks of the two songs, therefore denying me a right to a jury determination on the issues of substantial and striking similarity?

Where I have presented credible third party witness testimony concerning the confirmed receipt of a demo tape containing my copyrighted work by the head of A&R at defendant Roadrunner Records's parent label Universal Records (along with an invitation to attend the local New York showcase performance of my copyrighted work), is it legally appropriate for the courts to disregard this access evidence at the summary judgment stage when considering defendants' "reasonable opportunity to hear" my copyrighted work, therefore denying me a right to a jury determination on the issue of access?

Similarly, is it legally appropriate for the courts to make a factual determination of a "bare possibility of access" at the summary judgment stage without considering all my credible access evidence, therefore denying me a right to a jury determination on the issue of access?

In this case, where the "discovery rule" clearly applies, is it legally appropriate for the courts to deny me the right to discovery of defendants' profits more than 3 years prior to the onset of the lawsuit, therefore denying me a right to a jury determination for the full scope of available damages?

Whether the courts can disregard expert evidence and make factual determinations on substantial-similarity and access at the summary-judgment stage, denying the plaintiff's right to a jury trial