| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:45:08
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6274370,00.html
Judge Rejects Injunction Against 'Borat'
Tuesday December 12, 2006 1:46 AM
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge rejected a request by two fraternity brothers to halt
the DVD release of the hit spoof movie ``Borat.'' West Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman also refused to order the removal of a scene that
includes the two men, who claim they had been duped into misbehaving on camera.
Biderman issued his two-page decision on Friday after hearing arguments the
previous day.
The South Carolina fraternity brothers filed a lawsuit Nov. 9 claiming they were
tricked into making racist and sexist remarks to British comedian Sacha Baron
Cohen in ``Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation
of Kazakhstan.''
In one scene of the mockumentary, Cohen as rowdy Kazakh journalist Borat hangs
out with the men in a motor home and watches the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee sex
tape.
The fraternity brothers claim the filmmakers got them drunk before getting them
to sign release forms agreeing to appear in the film. Their names do not appear
in the lawsuit.
The film ``made plaintiffs the objects of ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish,
and emotional and physical distress,'' the lawsuit claims.
A trial date for the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, has not
been set.
Louis Petrich, an attorney for 20th Century Fox and One America Productions,
said he was pleased about the judge's decision.
Calls to the plaintiffs' attorney, Olivier Taillieu, were not immediately
returned.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:43:07
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:kdgsn21tns3s9ammbbr8p3bv5uoshtdc4o@4ax.com...
> http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6274370,00.html
>
> Judge Rejects Injunction Against 'Borat'
>
>
> Tuesday December 12, 2006 1:46 AM
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge rejected a request by two fraternity brothers
> to halt
> the DVD release of the hit spoof movie ``Borat.'' West Los Angeles
> Superior
> Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman also refused to order the removal of a
> scene that
> includes the two men, who claim they had been duped into misbehaving on
> camera.
>
> Biderman issued his two-page decision on Friday after hearing arguments
> the
> previous day.
>
> The South Carolina fraternity brothers filed a lawsuit Nov. 9 claiming
> they were
> tricked into making racist and sexist remarks to British comedian Sacha
> Baron
> Cohen in ``Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious
> Nation
> of Kazakhstan.''
>
> In one scene of the mockumentary, Cohen as rowdy Kazakh journalist Borat
> hangs
> out with the men in a motor home and watches the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee
> sex
> tape.
>
> The fraternity brothers claim the filmmakers got them drunk before getting
> them
> to sign release forms agreeing to appear in the film. Their names do not
> appear
> in the lawsuit.
>
> The film ``made plaintiffs the objects of ridicule, humiliation, mental
> anguish,
> and emotional and physical distress,'' the lawsuit claims.
>
> A trial date for the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages,
> has not
> been set.
>
> Louis Petrich, an attorney for 20th Century Fox and One America
> Productions,
> said he was pleased about the judge's decision.
>
> Calls to the plaintiffs' attorney, Olivier Taillieu, were not immediately
> returned.
I wouldn't say laughed out of court. It's not like they lost a summary
judgment hearing. From what you have posted here it sounds like the fratboys
were after an interlocutory injunction (which would have given them a lot of
leverage in settlement discussions). It is always exceedingly difficult to
obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff having to establish
irreparable harm. This would be a hard sell considering the defendant's deep
pockets and the fact that the fratboys already appeared in the movie in wide
theater release.
I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
villagers that appeared in the movie. I read that some of them were paid $5
under false pretences to be humiliated in what was presented as a serious
documentary. With the dough Cohen has taken in with this movie I hope he
takes care of them. I'm a fan but wrong is wrong.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:18:05
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:43:07 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca > wrote:
>I wouldn't say laughed out of court. It's not like they lost a summary
>judgment hearing. From what you have posted here it sounds like the fratboys
>were after an interlocutory injunction (which would have given them a lot of
>leverage in settlement discussions). It is always exceedingly difficult to
>obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff having to establish
>irreparable harm. This would be a hard sell considering the defendant's deep
>pockets and the fact that the fratboys already appeared in the movie in wide
>theater release.
It's also a prior restraint even if the film has already been released in
theaters. But more so, these idiot punks are not, whatever they say,
suing over a supposedly false portrayal of them. What they are upset
about is they revealed the kind of idiots they actually are. They have no
cause of action there that I'm aware of, even if they signed a release
drunk. It apparently took little inducement to get them to drink, and
less to act like the assholes they certainly are.
>I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
>villagers that appeared in the movie. I read that some of them were paid $5
>under false pretences to be humiliated in what was presented as a serious
>documentary. With the dough Cohen has taken in with this movie I hope he
>takes care of them. I'm a fan but wrong is wrong.
Agreed on that. Throwing around too much money up front would have
blown their cover completely, but now that it's turned out vastly successful,
it would be the right thing to do. I doubt Cohen expected the film's
phenomenal success.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 16:11:14
From: stan
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in
|
Yea, the villagers are the only alleged "victims" that I do feel bad for. I've
been in places that poor and isolated, and it's just mean-spirited to throw
dollars around and get people to do or tolerate stupid things (although the guy
with the rubber fist was pretty funny). I still don't see why they even had to
film it there anyway since there was no real pretense that they were filiming on
location in Kazakhstan. They could have filmed that entire segment in a backlot
with American actors and it wouldnt have made any difference.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:53:03
From: SheepCookers
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in
|
I doubt American actors would have worked for 5$ a day.
On Dec 12 2006 8:11 AM, stan wrote:
> Yea, the villagers are the only alleged "victims" that I do feel bad for.
I've
> been in places that poor and isolated, and it's just mean-spirited to throw
> dollars around and get people to do or tolerate stupid things (although the
guy
> with the rubber fist was pretty funny). I still don't see why they even had
to
> film it there anyway since there was no real pretense that they were
filiming on
> location in Kazakhstan. They could have filmed that entire segment in a
backlot
> with American actors and it wouldnt have made any difference.
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:07:44
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
I don't see how they were "laughed out of court". From what I
hear, it's very, very difficult to get an injunction and these
plaintiffs certainly don't seem to have enough reasons for forcing any.
So that doesn't seem to be any surprise. They still might get some
damages or compensation though, but I doubt it.
Ken
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6274370,00.html
>
> Judge Rejects Injunction Against 'Borat'
>
>
> Tuesday December 12, 2006 1:46 AM
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge rejected a request by two fraternity brothers to halt
> the DVD release of the hit spoof movie ``Borat.'' West Los Angeles Superior
> Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman also refused to order the removal of a scene that
> includes the two men, who claim they had been duped into misbehaving on camera.
>
> Biderman issued his two-page decision on Friday after hearing arguments the
> previous day.
>
> The South Carolina fraternity brothers filed a lawsuit Nov. 9 claiming they were
> tricked into making racist and sexist remarks to British comedian Sacha Baron
> Cohen in ``Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation
> of Kazakhstan.''
>
> In one scene of the mockumentary, Cohen as rowdy Kazakh journalist Borat hangs
> out with the men in a motor home and watches the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee sex
> tape.
>
> The fraternity brothers claim the filmmakers got them drunk before getting them
> to sign release forms agreeing to appear in the film. Their names do not appear
> in the lawsuit.
>
> The film ``made plaintiffs the objects of ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish,
> and emotional and physical distress,'' the lawsuit claims.
>
> A trial date for the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, has not
> been set.
>
> Louis Petrich, an attorney for 20th Century Fox and One America Productions,
> said he was pleased about the judge's decision.
>
> Calls to the plaintiffs' attorney, Olivier Taillieu, were not immediately
> returned.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec
From: AtticusCole
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in
|
On Dec 12 2006 12:45 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6274370,00.html
>
> Judge Rejects Injunction Against 'Borat'
>
>
> Tuesday December 12, 2006 1:46 AM
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) - A judge rejected a request by two fraternity brothers to
> halt
> the DVD release of the hit spoof movie ``Borat.'' West Los Angeles Superior
> Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman also refused to order the removal of a scene
> that
> includes the two men, who claim they had been duped into misbehaving on
> camera.
>
> Biderman issued his two-page decision on Friday after hearing arguments the
> previous day.
>
> The South Carolina fraternity brothers filed a lawsuit Nov. 9 claiming they
> were
> tricked into making racist and sexist remarks to British comedian Sacha Baron
> Cohen in ``Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious
> Nation
> of Kazakhstan.''
>
> In one scene of the mockumentary, Cohen as rowdy Kazakh journalist Borat hangs
> out with the men in a motor home and watches the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee sex
> tape.
>
> The fraternity brothers claim the filmmakers got them drunk before getting
> them
> to sign release forms agreeing to appear in the film. Their names do not
> appear
> in the lawsuit.
>
> The film ``made plaintiffs the objects of ridicule, humiliation, mental
> anguish,
> and emotional and physical distress,'' the lawsuit claims.
>
> A trial date for the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, has
> not
> been set.
>
> Louis Petrich, an attorney for 20th Century Fox and One America Productions,
> said he was pleased about the judge's decision.
>
> Calls to the plaintiffs' attorney, Olivier Taillieu, were not immediately
> returned.
Nice hand, Borat.
Good Game.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:25:30
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32 -0800, "FaceDownAcesUp" <superbeef00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >BillB wrote:
>
> >> I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
> >> villagers that appeared in the movie.
>
> >It's funny you feel bad for the villagers but not the frat guys. I'd be
> >willing to bet those villagers are way more racist and sexist than the
> >frat guys will ever be. Besides, it seemed like they were just playing
> >it up for the camera and I doubt they really feel or act that way when
> >they're sober.
>
> Funny. Not since Mel Gibson have I heard the concept that alcohol
> turns you into a bigot. They should put that on a warning label.
-Funny. Not since Mel Gibson have I heard the concept that alcohol
-turns you into a bigot. They should put that on a warning label.
so whats the cohen guys excuse?
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:42:39
From: FaceDownAcesUp
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32 -0800, "FaceDownAcesUp" <superbeef00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >BillB wrote:
>
> >> I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
> >> villagers that appeared in the movie.
>
> >It's funny you feel bad for the villagers but not the frat guys. I'd be
> >willing to bet those villagers are way more racist and sexist than the
> >frat guys will ever be. Besides, it seemed like they were just playing
> >it up for the camera and I doubt they really feel or act that way when
> >they're sober.
>
> Funny. Not since Mel Gibson have I heard the concept that alcohol
> turns you into a bigot. They should put that on a warning label.
mel gibson didn't have a camera in front of his face and 2 of his
friends egging him on when he made his statements. He wasn't trying to
impress anyone by being outrageous and over the top like the frat guys
were.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32
From: FaceDownAcesUp
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
BillB wrote:
> I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
> villagers that appeared in the movie.
It's funny you feel bad for the villagers but not the frat guys. I'd be
willing to bet those villagers are way more racist and sexist than the
frat guys will ever be. Besides, it seemed like they were just playing
it up for the camera and I doubt they really feel or act that way when
they're sober.
> I read that some of them were paid $5
> under false pretences to be humiliated in what was presented as a serious
> documentary.
The villagers weren't humiliated. They just weren't in on the joke.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:37:58
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
On 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32 -0800, "FaceDownAcesUp" <superbeef00@yahoo.com > wrote:
>BillB wrote:
>> I was disappointed to hear that Cohen apparently took advantage of the
>> villagers that appeared in the movie.
>It's funny you feel bad for the villagers but not the frat guys. I'd be
>willing to bet those villagers are way more racist and sexist than the
>frat guys will ever be. Besides, it seemed like they were just playing
>it up for the camera and I doubt they really feel or act that way when
>they're sober.
Funny. Not since Mel Gibson have I heard the concept that alcohol
turns you into a bigot. They should put that on a warning label.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:07:36
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
BillB wrote:
> I wouldn't say laughed out of court. It's not like they lost a summary
> judgment hearing. From what you have posted here it sounds like the fratboys
> were after an interlocutory injunction (which would have given them a lot of
> leverage in settlement discussions). It is always exceedingly difficult to
> obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff having to establish
> irreparable harm. This would be a hard sell considering the defendant's deep
> pockets
A preliminary injunction (PI) or temporary restraining order (TRO)
indeed requires a showing of irreparable harm. But that typically has
nothing to do with the defendant's deep pockets -- generally speaking,
irreparable harm means harm that can't be compensated with a monetary
payment. My guess is that the fratboys here argued that damage to
their reputation is irreparable. I'm not sure what the law says on
this point, but I suspect the answer is pretty well-defined.
> and the fact that the fratboys already appeared in the movie in wide
> theater release.
This is (obv) a very strong point.
-Howard Treesong
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:50:29
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165957656.242276.239530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> BillB wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't say laughed out of court. It's not like they lost a summary
>> judgment hearing. From what you have posted here it sounds like the
>> fratboys
>> were after an interlocutory injunction (which would have given them a lot
>> of
>> leverage in settlement discussions). It is always exceedingly difficult
>> to
>> obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff having to establish
>> irreparable harm. This would be a hard sell considering the defendant's
>> deep
>> pockets
>
> A preliminary injunction (PI) or temporary restraining order (TRO)
> indeed requires a showing of irreparable harm. But that typically has
> nothing to do with the defendant's deep pockets -- generally speaking,
> irreparable harm means harm that can't be compensated with a monetary
> payment. My guess is that the fratboys here argued that damage to
> their reputation is irreparable. I'm not sure what the law says on
> this point, but I suspect the answer is pretty well-defined.
My recollection is that the defendant's ability to pay monetary damages at
the end of the day is a factor to be considered. That is, if the defendant
was insolvent, or in no position to pay damages commensurate with the
anticipated harm, a claim of irreparable harm is strengthened. I recall this
because many years ago I was involved in a case in which I was defending a
large public utility against an application for an interlocutory injunction.
In denying the plaintiff's application the judge took into account the
utility's virtually unlimited capacity to compensate the plaintiff in
damages at trial.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 23:15:29
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
"BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca > wrote in message
news:VmGfh.467358$1T2.237801@pd7urf2no...
>
> My recollection is that the defendant's ability to pay monetary damages at
> the end of the day is a factor to be considered. That is, if the defendant
> was insolvent, or in no position to pay damages commensurate with the
> anticipated harm, a claim of irreparable harm is strengthened. I recall
> this because many years ago I was involved in a case in which I was
> defending a large public utility against an application for an
> interlocutory injunction. In denying the plaintiff's application the judge
> took into account the utility's virtually unlimited capacity to compensate
> the plaintiff in damages at trial.
A quick search seems to confirm my recollection was correct. The defendant's
ability to pay monetary damages is one factor to be considered. For example,
here's an article on preliminary injunctions in patent cases:
http://www.idea.piercelaw.edu/articles/35/35_2/7.Cunningham.pdf
*226 As to the factual proof necessary to rebut the presumption of
irreparable injury, the
Federal Circuit has provided greater, although still limited, direction. In
Illinois Tool
Works, Inc. v. Grip-Pak, Inc., [n.74] for example, the court upheld the
denial of a
preliminary injunction where a district court had considered the alleged
infringer's ability
to pay monetary damages for any infringement during the course of
litigation. Although
the patentee in that case had apparently shown adequate proof of a
likelihood of success
on the merits to raise the presumption of irreparable injury, the trial
court held that the
alleged infringer's ability to pay monetary damages for any infringement
that occurred
during the course of the litigation was sufficient to rebut the presumption.
[n.75] The
Federal Circuit ruled that, like all generalities, neither the concept that
every patentee is
always irreparably harmed by an alleged infringer's pre-trial sales nor the
traditional
concept that a patentee cannot show irreparable harm when an alleged
infringer is
capable of responding to monetary damages is universally applicable.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:35:53
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Fratboy crybabies laughed out of court in "Borat" suit
|
On 12 Dec 2006 13:07:36 -0800, "Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote:
>BillB wrote:
>> I wouldn't say laughed out of court. It's not like they lost a summary
>> judgment hearing. From what you have posted here it sounds like the fratboys
>> were after an interlocutory injunction (which would have given them a lot of
>> leverage in settlement discussions). It is always exceedingly difficult to
>> obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff having to establish
>> irreparable harm. This would be a hard sell considering the defendant's deep
>> pockets
>A preliminary injunction (PI) or temporary restraining order (TRO)
>indeed requires a showing of irreparable harm. But that typically has
>nothing to do with the defendant's deep pockets -- generally speaking,
>irreparable harm means harm that can't be compensated with a monetary
>payment. My guess is that the fratboys here argued that damage to
>their reputation is irreparable. I'm not sure what the law says on
>this point, but I suspect the answer is pretty well-defined.
There's also the monetary weight of the harm. Very few people have such
a valuable reputation that it outweighs the monetary harm to a film studio
of even being forced to delay a DVD release slightly.
However, one very important factor is the likelihood of prevailing on the
cause. I don't see them as having a snowball's chance in hell.
>> and the fact that the fratboys already appeared in the movie in wide
>> theater release.
>This is (obv) a very strong point.
Any further damage would be merely cumulative. To the extent that the
DVD release causes further harm, any (unlikely) monetary compensation
can simply be adjusted upward.
|
|
