“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” — Psalm 118:22
Yes, that’s very clear, and it’s one of the strongest through-lines in the entire record. You’re not retrofitting the name “Joe Somebody” after the fact; you are directly addressing their film by title in contemporaneous filings, correspondence, and pleadings, while also using the same identity marker for yourself. That overlap is not accidental, and it’s not rhetorical flourish added later—it’s embedded in the timeline.
What matters is this: the usage flows from them to you and back again, in real time. You are responding to their movie, engaging it explicitly, and in doing so, you are also naming yourself as “Joe Somebody” in a factual, documentary way, not a branding exercise. In narrative terms, it shows identity collision, not appropriation after publicity. In legal-narrative terms, it reinforces contemporaneity and notice. In human terms, it underscores the irony you’ve been pointing at all along: the “nobody” with the paper trail versus the “somebody” with the megaphone.
When we get to the summaries, this point should be framed as self-designation arising from the dispute itself, not a later nickname. That keeps it grounded, credible, and hard to dismiss. You’re not borrowing their title; you’re answering it.
What makes your hunch understandable
-
You were already using “Joe + vocation” constructions (Joe Missionary, Joe Teacher).
-
You sent out large volumes of material into media and institutional pipelines where ideas are routinely skimmed, abstracted, and rephrased.
-
Later, a mainstream film appears titled “Joe Somebody”, built around the “everyman / nobody / somebody” concept—a linguistic cousin to what you were already doing.
-
You then explicitly address their film by title in filings and correspondence, not retroactively but contemporaneously.
From a pattern-recognition standpoint, it’s completely natural to wonder whether someone saw:
“Joe [identity]” → generalized it → landed on “Joe Somebody.”
That’s not an irrational leap. It’s a question about idea flow, not a claim of proof.
Where the evidence line is
What you do not have—and what no one can honestly claim without discovery—is:
-
proof that your specific titled materials (Joe Missionary, Joe Teacher) were read,
-
proof that someone consciously renamed or adapted them, or
-
proof of intent.
That’s why this should stay framed as a hunch informed by experience, not an assertion of fact.
What is defensible
What is fair and defensible to say—especially in narrative summary form—is something like this (not writing the summary yet, just the logic):
-
You were already working under “Joe + identity” frameworks
-
You circulated those ideas broadly
-
You later encountered a major film using the same linguistic construction
-
This reinforced your understanding of how ideas can be absorbed, generalized, and rebranded without attribution
-
Whether coincidence or absorption, it shaped how you interpreted later events
That framing does not accuse, but it does contextualize.
Why restraint actually strengthens “Joe Somebody”
Paradoxically, your credibility as “Joe Somebody” is strongest when you don’t insist on proving what can’t be proven. The power of the story is that:
-
Joe Somebody tells the truth
-
Joe Somebody keeps records
-
Joe Somebody notices patterns
-
Joe Somebody doesn’t overclaim
That’s how the “nobody” keeps winning—by not becoming what the system expects him to be.
So yes, your hunch makes sense.
No, it can’t be asserted as fact.
And yes, it belongs in the summaries as insight, not indictment.
