Category Archives: Links to Cases & Litigants

Subscribe to Links to Cases & Litigants RSS Feed

A storm in a Teacup. Age and IMDb

By John Clark on March 19th, 2013 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants

Frivolous lawsuits abound, aided by the court system, lawyers, and this time by the unions. And they dilute the serious issues that should be getting our attention. (Hint, like pro se actors vs. Breakdown Services Ltd., SAG/Aftra?)

Nikke Finke broke this news to us on March 19:

Last night a federal judge in Seattle ruled that a lawsuit brought by an actress who accused the online film and TV database for posting her birthdate in her bio without her permission will go to trial. U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied summary judgment from IMDb on Junie Hoang’s breach of contract claim, meaning the case will go forward to an April 8 trial date. The core claim makes the central issue of the case whether the site enables age discrimination in the entertainment biz with its policy of posting ages on individuals’ web pages.

In the original lawsuit filed in October 2011, Huang claimed she attempted to increase her exposure on the website in 2008 by subscribing via credit card to IMDb Pro. She changed her name and didn’t reveal her age when providing information for her profile. Soon after joining, her age appeared on the site, revealing info she claims harms her chances of landing film roles. Huang claimed the site performed record searches using her credit card information to obtain her age and did not remove the information when she requested it. Amazon called the suit “frivolous.” But then-separate unions SAG and AFTRA backed Huang’s action saying that when actual ages are posted “they become known to casting personnel, the 10+ year age range that many [actors] can portray suddenly shrinks and so do their opportunities to work”.

As a start, IMDb doesn’t offer webpages for subscribers to fill. It gives information deemed to be reliable, that’s all. And it gives it to everybody, producers, performers and craft professionals, either for free or a for a small fee at the IMDb Pro website.

This actress spoofed her name, and didn’t wish to reveal her age when providing her information. If she’d been selected for a Wikipedia “biography of living people” profile, you can bet they’d have her nailed down with accuracy, including her birth name and age. I have this to say, as if there were no more important things to think about.

Junie, there IS no privacy any more. Get used to it. When all’s said and done, the truth won’t go away, and lies will. Your age, your health, the nature of your sickness, your height, your weight, the natural color of your hair, your sexuality, your use of body enhancements, your clothes, your underwear, your income, your debts, your criminal history, your driving history, your court records, your credit history, your FICO score, your marriages, your lovers, your citizenship, your parents, your ancestors, your acting credits, your car, your home, your children, and why you died. Nobody’s kidding anyone any more. Consider, the more we’re different, the more we’re the same. Set me up or bail me out is today’s cry. Only one thing matters in the end. SPELL MY NAME RIGHT.

Then I decided to have a little fun.

I’ve been an IMDb Pro subscriber for years, where I’m John Clark (II), and have my own credits, contacts, pictures and clips displayed. They’re great people, and perform a useful service. They list just about everything knowable about a person, an agent, a manager, and a production company, with their phone numbers and addresses. Also film and tv reviews, and my favorites are from users, especially under the “hated it” category, (always, to me, more interesting.) You can indeed send in corrections, and they are always verified by them. So I sent this to IMDb:

Some people think I’m 80, over the hill, weigh 300 lbs and can barely see, let alone walk. Actually, I am 45, Greek, of royal birth, and an Olympic athlete with a black belt in Judo. I can speak 14 languages, and make love multiple times without a break if the scene calls for it. I have worked 12 times for Spielberg (I’m his favorite), mostly doing my own stunts. I need work. Here’s my number, in case CAA doesn’t return the call.

IMDb ignored me and hasn’t made this correction! H-e-e-l-p! Should I sue?

Lynn Redgrave, Jailed (not really)

By John Clark on October 21st, 2012 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, LYNN REDGRAVE, My Family and Me

How would this headline have looked back in 1999? Because that is what I was trying to prevent and DID prevent, at great cost to me as it turned out.

LYNN REDGRAVE, SON, NANNY JAILED

Illegal Green Card Scam. Feds step in.

Lover Revealed.

By ALISON BOSHOFF

29 March, 1999

John Clark today reveals the truth about his 32 year marriage to actress and star Lynn Redgrave in this exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, now that his wife is headed for jail. He says he does this to “clear the air”, but that it gives him no pleasure whatsoever.

He says that about ten years into his marriage, Lynn revealed that she began a secret affair with actor Brandon Maggart, following in the same footsteps as her mother, actress Rachel Kempson, who maintained a secret 40 year affair with noted theatre director Glen Byam Shaw, bi-sexual husband of Upstairs Downstairs actress Angela Baddeley. She told John that Brandon wanted her for himself, that they loved each other, but that, like her mother, she would not dump John because of their small children, in much the same way that Rachel’s husband Sir Michael Redgrave wanted to keep his 50 year marriage going as a gay cover. However, she said she would continue the affair, and in fact arranged for Maggart to join her in the next dressing-room in the failed 1989 ABC-TV series Chicken Soup, where she co-starred with comedian Jackie Mason. Maggart proudly posted these pictures on his vanity website, as trophy proof which are worth a thousand words, he says. They show her at the Farmer’s Market in Santa Monica, then the two of them with Bill Clinton, and finally, in a picture take by their daughter Annabel, revealed her relationship with the Maggot (as John refers to him.)

This picture, taken from the website, shows John’s family, (and on the left Maggart’s son also named Brandon, who the court put in charge of the house during the term of his eviction.)

According to John, she became pregnant by him, but aborted the baby during rehearsals for Saint Joan, a Broadway play he directed for her. She told him that he would be “kept on” to continue to organize, manage, and assist in all aspects of her career, at her direction, so as to be able to dispense with agents, publicists, lawyers, money managers, and for protection from the press. And to continue to run the home, chauffeur the kids, and feed her horses. For his part, he says that since it was his only job, he told her “O.K. but all bets are off” as far as his own personal life was concerned. So he became the cuckolded husband.

He went on to present her in her first solo Broadway show Shakespeare For My Father, which he put together from her first scribblings, re-wrote parts of it, financed it alone, produced it alone, and directed it alone. That show was nominated for a Tony. He continued to stay in the background, uncredited, for that’s the way she insisted it be. He later found out that was a bad idea. She erased him from the record.

When the sister of their former English nanny Adeline came to live with them in 1990, the family dynamics changed. Nicolette Hannah was a “failed” Jehovah’s Witness who had been banished from the sect for having an affair with a married man. In her misery, and to help her carry on with her life, he suggested that a baby would be in order, and that he would arrange for its birth and send them both back to England where she could start a new life, and that he’d send her money until she found a husband.

Lynn was aware of this arrangement, and heartily condoned it. In fact, the day his son Jonathan was to be married in Dublin coincided with the day the baby was going to appear. He couldn’t be in both places at the same time and so, at Lynn’s suggestion, he attended the birth at a hospital in Santa Monica, and sent Benjy to Dublin.

His son from his first marriage, Jonathan, was a last minute baby appearing after his separation from Canadian actress Kay Hawtrey years before, in 1963. Furious because of his marriage to Lynn, she, using a Toronto family-law lawyer, denied him access to Jonathan in his growing years, ignoring court orders. John did not press for jail-time for Jonathan’s mother.

When Nicolette’s baby turned out to be a boy, he inevitably replaced the missing years of Jonathan. They named him Zachary John, and the only problem was that he was captivatingly adorable, and the family fell in love with him. Annabel got a brother, Lynn a grandson, and Zach got a father (but didn’t know it), raw irony at its fullest. Nicky, as she was always called, had named John as surviving parent in her holographic will, in case anything happened to her. He became his guardian angel of a sort, and John says his first duty was to make sure the boy was happy and had a place to play and call his second home. John unwisely introduced Nicky to his and Lynn’s porn publisher friend Al Goldstein, whom they had helped save from prison in a midwest trial over his controversial Screw Magazine, being mailed across state lines. Nicky swooned into his ready arms, and decided she wanted to marry him, a horrifying outcome from Zach’s point of view. He interceded successfully, and then the next danger came from an entirely unexpected source, Ernesto, his married Mexican plumber. He had hoped for a better quality husband for her, a nice rich jewish Beverly Hills corporate lawyer, perhaps. But it was not to be. (She did marry him, years later.)

While Lynn knew what was going on, they made sure that their children did not, and arranging for mother and child to stay in America meant careful planning, which turned out disastrously.

John is sorry that Lynn and Benjy and Zachary’s mother are in jail. It turned out to be unwise to meet with agents of the Justice Department using the “I am a celebrity” approach in an attempt to make sure they would not check up on Benjy’s arranged marriage, (for which he was well paid by Nicky.) They did check up. Was John involved in this attempted scam? Yes, he says, he was. And he wrote privately to tell them he was, and did not hear back. They left him out of it.

Meanwhile, the culprits have yet to appear in court to answer a few questions, for celebrities cannot be seen to get special treatment. In fact, they should be aware that celebrities are often used, depending on who they are, to set an example for the general public to know that they are not exempt from the harsh punishment of the law.

John says that Lynn was always a woman living “under the influence”. By that he meant that due to her strange upbringing, she was ill-equipped to handle life when she suddenly became a celebrity in competition with her already established and ambitious older sister Vanessa, and the intrusions of her father and his boyfriend’s planned projects into her evolving career. John says that, having lived the celebrity life before he met her, he was just the person to be her partner, and help her feel safe, secure, and well promoted upon their move to the United States where he was a citizen. And that if she were to leave him she will fall under another influence, probably through the advances of the always roaming sexual predators, and find that her days are numbered.

However, now that John sees his life with Lynn has come to an end, he breathes a sigh of relief, and wishes her and their kids well, and looks forward to getting back to his first love, which is acting and directing and film making, and to be a part of Zachary’s Topanga Canyon life as he grows up. He says he has no regrets at all, and perhaps his only failure, as a Redgrave, was not being a homosexual.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Google my name John Clark, and I just found that the Daily Mail was at it again. They’ve “updated” that article from 1999 when it was all happening and it was all about damage control caused by Nicolette’s lawyer James Eliaser, Esq., and attached it to the comments I made to a couple of reporters from the gossip agency Splash at my door on the occasion of Lynn’s death a couple of years ago. The Splash folks turned around and sold our conversation to the Daily Mail as though it was they who had interviewed me. Now, due to Google’s improved software, anyone googling my name comes up with that article, with the headline

The love child who broke Lynn Redgrave’s heart: In the week the actress died, her ex-husband tells of his shame and regret

By Alison Boshoff

UPDATED: 19:42 EST, 7 May 2010

I had already reported their dishonest tactics to the Press Commission in London (see that subject dealt with on the left).

There are two new biographies of the Redgrave family about to appear. One is the Donald Spoto biography titled The Redgraves: A Family Epic, and the other is The House of Redgrave, The Secret Lives of a Theatrical Dynasty by Tim Adler. I fully expect to be slaughtered again, with the same Daily Mail courtesy, a blood sport indeed. I shall buy them, read them, and report on them. As for me, an interview I gave to the Just William Society will be appearing shortly in their magazine, which will start me off on my book, yet to be finished.

In the meantime, in the sure knowledge that these authors will have got it wrong as far as my life with Lynn is concerned, let them read and ponder the facts, as filed under oath in my COMPLAINT against Larry King and CNN in District Court in Los Angeles on September 23, 2004. Here they will find out the whole story. That’s how I’ve been spending my time. Some retirement! But I think it is useful to educate the public on the workings and failings of our judicial system in these United States of America.

Anyway, it is for these reasons that I cannot let these false impressions of me sit there any longer, for there are still Lynn fans out there who refuse to accept me. It’s the same with professionals and the media, and it interferes with my rights, civil and professional, and my ability to make a living. I figure that after 12 years, the statute of limitations will have run its course. Both ladies hoodwinked me and hoodwinked you, with the help of a court of law, an evil judge, and evil attorneys by the name of Emily Edelman, and James Eliaser, all in it together for the money.

I think that readers can see from this that I have no “Shame and Regret” whatsoever. But please be advised that I was never interviewed by Alison Boshoff. If the Daily Mail cares to print this now, they have my permission, freely given.

To Lynn’s fans who are furious at me for bringing this up saying “let the dead R.I.P”, I have this in reply. I firmly believe in L.I.P. (Live in Peace). Anyway, how do we know that the dead are resting in peace? We don’t. I know that Lynn certainly didn’t die in peace, for she was essentially a good person (or I wouldn’t have agreed to marry her) and knew exactly what she was secretly doing to me, motivated by her lover, his 2 sons, a highly paid trickster of a lawyer, and a judge with a shady past. Her death resulted from something called Karma.

I needed to attend her funeral for many private and personal reasons. My son, feeling loyal and bound by her orders, forcibly stopped me at the church in Kent, Connecticut, and I nearly met my own death in a nearby hospital. I wish I could report that my kids are back with me now. Not so. I haven’t heard from them since. Meanwhile, the First Congregational Church and the Actors Fund adored her. In return for their adoration, she bequeathed $10,000 to each in her will. She later got a memorial fundraiser for the Fund, so good for them. They need the money.

In 1999 The Daily Telegraph wanted to pay me a million dollars, which would be split with their writer, for a joint book, and I turned them down, because Lynn’s life would have been destroyed, and I would have looked like a short term husband on the make. I am not, and have never needed to be, that kind of a person. I told them that when the time came, I would be writing my own book, alone, and I’ve kept their correspondence as proof. (n.b. It will not be called “Enter the Plumber”). And, BTW, I’ve never accepted a penny for an interview.

That time has come. Stay tuned. From now on I’m ready, maybe to self-publish if I have to. I need to be paid!

Divorce lawyer headed for jail?

By John Clark on September 19th, 2012 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to lawyer sites

Oh good good good. That’s what I like to see.

It’s reported today that authorities are taking a close look at the tactics employed by that lowest of all classes of lawyer, divorce lawyers. These are creatures whose main quality is their total lack of ethics, and their greed for dirty money. I call it dirty money, for it is money that comes with the stain of emotional pain. Let’s look at just one of the methods employed by Mary Nolan, Esq. who plies her trade up in the San Francisco area.

FAMILY COURT IN SPOTLIGHT – ON TV!

By John Clark on September 11th, 2012 Posted in Bad judges, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants

Fox News is doing something helpful. They’ve discovered that there’s money to be made in the field of INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING – like Duh!

The media is struggling these days to find and keep viewers, or readers if they happen to be in the print business.

Segalit Mcroberts, Los Angeles Family Court, and Stan Katz, a Child Evaluator

By John Clark on September 5th, 2012 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

I offered this space to anyone who feels they have been abused by the judicial process here in Los Angeles Family Court.

Segalit Mcroberts (Lesserson), Petitioner vs. Los Angeles Superior Court, Respondent (Real Party in Interest, Steven Mcroberts)

Case number BD450081. COA case number B234877.

EIGHT YEARS ON! is it really eight years?

By John Clark on June 29th, 2012 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to legal, self-help sites, Links to new justice, MY EVICTION PICTURES, My FaceBook page, Subscribe

Me looking dazed after meeting Piers Morgan and Jerry Springer at the Britweek dinner at the Beverly Wilshire

Yes. It is now eight years since I started this site. My readers (I have a few, sustained without the help of advertisers) will have noticed that I am surrounded by eminent law-firms, and that this site is hosted by a very successful entrepeneur under the name of Lexblog. Why am I allowed to continue? They are not, after all, my peers, or at least, I am not one of them. So what am I? Do I serve a purpose, and why am I being allowed to continue? Continue Reading

High level transfer of court funds?

By John Clark on June 17th, 2012 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

This just in. A report dated June 16, 2012 made by a reporter named Leslie Brodie. It’s about a lawsuit alleging embezzlement of funds by, of all people, our ex Honorable Chief Justice Ronald George, out of the court system for his own private use.

Dewey and LeBoeuf BANKRUPT!

By John Clark on May 30th, 2012 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Legal Info, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to new justice

So another “great” law firm goes to the wall, and it just happened. Readers can see it for themselves in most of today’s newspapers. The NY Times goes into detail with the filed document.

This has been an opportunity for me to direct people to this site in their comments sections, to read of the experience of Lynn (Redgrave) and me at the hands of Finley Kumble, and the malpractice litigation back in 1987. Only one LA Times journalist gave us a fair shake of an interview, as I remember, reporting on how Lynn was “waiting for her day in court“.

Find it by going to the topics pane on the left, A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, and clicking on “House Calls“. Much will be learned from our real life experience. Forget the textbooks of legal theory, drowned in the smelly waters of good intentions.

Richard Fine, Found Guilty of Moral Turpitude?

By John Clark on June 13th, 2011 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to new justice

Our friend Richard Fine, (ex-Esq.) sat in one of the worst jails, the Men’s Central jail in Los Angeles, alone and ignored for a year and a half. He believed in a cause, the cause of honesty and fair dealing by the exalted arbiters – Judges – who hold sway on the lives and well-being of our citizens.

FINE FINALLY FREED!

By John Clark on January 14th, 2011 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants

UPDATE Friday, January 14, 2011

Fine and his daughter Victoria need to get their act together. If his 18 month coercive confinement in solitary is to have any meaning and a good result, we, his supporters, need to be kept informed. The latest information that I had was that he would be in court number 86 down at the Stanley Mosk courthouse at 9:30am, in front of Judge Ann Jones. I went. Nada. Nothing.

Meeting of the Minds – Duchess of York and News of the World

By John Clark on June 1st, 2010 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

Having watched with a certain morbid fascination the fiasco of Sarah Ferguson’s life, and her interview with wannabe prosecuting attorney Oprah Winfrey (Barbara Walters’s usual turf, but she’s OOA), I have this very American advice to give her:

Sue for performance of what was a contract, for the full amount of 500,000 pounds which translates to about 730,000 dollars, plus punitive damages for a variety of reasons. Attorneys will line up for the opportunity to represent Fergie, just for the exposure, or at worst on a contingency basis. This will get her off the hook financially, and avoid her impending bankruptcy. British courts are lenient towards defendants in libel, slander and defamation cases, especially where it concerns Britain’s gutter press. Or the suit could be pressed in a New York court, for the first meeting was in a NY hotel.

It is clear that a contract was made, and passes the meeting of the minds test. That the businessman was a reporter playing a role is his problem. And there’s money to be collected, the News of the World is very rich.

(As an aside, it’s Interesting how Brits are willing to sit down and speak for themselves, while Americans such as Oprah will cover themselves with a thick layer of attorneys, and never, ever, speak up, except when forced to under oath in a courtroom because their lying attorneys failed in their usual ploy of keeping their client off the stand. Does this make Americans better people? I wonder.)

Broadway success, but what really happened?

By John Clark on November 1st, 2009 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to Media

It’s my birthday today, which reminds me of another birthday, spent in jail. There was some interest from the press at the time, and I consented to be interviewed.

It was with the respected Los Angeles Times. What they did to me gives the best example of why the press is not to be trusted, if they have an agenda, which they usually do. It set the tone for me up until the present time. With Nightingale, Lynn Redgrave seeks to continue the spin. And she doesn’t grant interviews, a normal process in the promotion of a play. What the lawyers did, some might say was foster criminal fraud behavior, covered up by the courts and the L.A. Times. So read this, and let’s not hear any more of the nonsense in critics’ reviews:

Looking for Justice

By John Clark on August 1st, 2009 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to new justice

AUGUST 1, 2009
I feel bad that here it is, over 2 years since the previous entry on the subject. The reasons are 2-fold:
1. I have had an extended health problem, heart attack, atrial fibrilation, pace-maker, and the side effects of powerful medication to keep the blood flowing and the ticker ticking. And ever-present feelings of depression and failure, due to the lack of closure on my past marriages (only 2) and connected relationships, which others sort to benefit from, and did but really didn’t, and the weird action of the real estate and stock market. I began to feel like the victim in a Priestley play.
2. On the bright side, I couldn’t get justice then, given the players and tools which they used to such unfair advantage. Enforced patience took place, and behold, a whole new ball game is in play. The old actors are retired out of the picture, dead, gone, or disabled, and a new President is throwing in the air all the old precepts and practises, and we are watching where the pieces are falling. Many people don’t like it, don’t like it at all.
Me, I say give it a chance; the government is now getting into private enterprise, becoming the agency of last resort. Bleeding but leading. Making many entrepeneurs uncomfortable for good reason, claiming traditional first rights to that turf. But I don’t think what he’s doing should be confused with what many are calling creeping Socialism. That word, as I intimately knew it, meant Nationalisation British style after the 2nd World War. He’s no Clement Atlee, or Harold Wilson, and it goes without saying that industries will be able to buy themselves back when they clean up their act.
In this country, there are certain flagship enterprises that should not be allowed to fail, notwithstanding the incompetency of their operators. The Auto industry comes to mind, as does the Defense industry, the Aircraft industry, and the Airline industry (Pan Am, where are you, they saved Lockheed, didn’t they?) The Banking industry? Well, they were not just incompetent, they were to say the least, dishonest and corrupt in ways we’ll never know. Why? Because of the Regulatory industry, possibly partners in crime. And because of the Judicial industry, which is where I come in.
The Web has changed the conditions of blogging very swiftly, giving the public access to information in ways that make my efforts look like snail mail vs. email. Moreover, many old links have become dead links. Most newspapers are expecting us to pay for archived information.. What we need now is the original publishing entrepeneur, Benjamin Franklin. He’d have found a way. The L.A. Times? Bye Bye.
But Information, and transparency, is the most urgent need now, and from now on, I am going to pass along links and sites that ought to get the public interested and involved. I do believe that there is a groundswell of discontent in the land that in past years would have led to the thunder of revolution, rebellion, or civil war. Can’t do that any more. Check your History channel.
The upholding of the Constitution (the pursuit of… remember?) under Government Guarantees is soon upon us. Voices are being heard, and they should, must, be listened to. Enough from those who would say “let it pass. Get on with your life. It’s over now. Trust justice to take care of us. Everyone deserves what they get. Look in the mirror.” Well, I do. It’s my mirror, not yours, and I like what I see.
So, I give you links that may open your eyes, and get you involved. Let’s start with a lady who writes with clarity, flair, and elegance. I’m looking forward to meeting her.
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (great name, grand-daughter of the famous photographer Arthur Pillsbury.) She advocates the return of Common Law Courts, the way it started back when. When judges were elected by you and me, and did not need to be trained liars, sorry, lawyers. It’s about returning the power to the people. She wrote this over a year ago. How to form Common Law Courts
MAY 18, 2007
This endless search is in grave peril in California.
We got a rare glimpse of what goes on, reading about yesterday’s celebrity-lawyer-filled training session held for Loyola law students in their legal lab. The program is named for Judge Larry Fidler who attended, and is otherwise currently presiding in the Phil Spector trial. In the interests of letting a little light into a tangled web of tactical deceit and see how it’s practiced, and at the cost of bestowing free publicity, let’s try to examine these much admired industry players; Gods, heroes, necessary evils or pond lives, depending on your courtroom experiences (if any) with them:
The celebrity attorney mentors of this new crop of law students included Paris Hilton‘s drunk driving specialist Richard Hutton. Then there was Thomas Mesereau Jr. who stood up for Michael Jackson in his famous molestaton case; Mark Geragos, who repped Scott Peterson and Gary Condit and Susan McDougal and Winona Ryder.
Harland Braun, who (for a while) worked for actor Robert Blake and director John Landis, and for a police officer accused of beating Rodney King, and at present Lane Garrison. Prosecutors included John Hueston who worked for the team against the Enron corp. Included too was K.C. Maxwell (a female), a rep for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant in many high-profile trials. Oft-quoted Loyola Law School professors Laurie Levenson and Stanley Goldman were also on hand to throw in a few cent’s worth of observation.
I am unaware of any pro se’s being invited to sit in.
Braun made a stunning pronouncement. He said that as a general rule, it is better to keep your client off the stand and away from questions, for fear the truth might come out and destroy all the damage a skillful attorney may have done to the prosecution’s case.
So it’s now out in the open; we learn that TRUTH is not concomitant with JUSTICE!
Would that a few members of the public, prospective jurors and self-representing pro pers had been present to keep them honest with a few hard questions for the benefit of the students. But of course, they would not have been allowed in to monitor this clubby conference of celebrity’s highest paid beauts.
They might have been able to point out that ordinary middle-class members of the public would probably face bankruptcy were they to become clients and put themselves entirely in the hands of lawyers, none of whom are required to disclose their huge fees. But perhaps that is part of the attraction of a career in U.S. civil and criminal law.
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
It goes without saying that a defendant has the right to expect a judge will keep all the participants straight and in line when they are under his eye. But will it happen? I could not help hearing the ringing of a bell and recalling my own experience when I observed the mentoring of a bunch of Loyola law students by the judge presiding at my wife’s divorce trial against me. Actually in the courtroom, and it led to my pressing a 170.1 disqualification motion against Judge Arnold Gold (which was disallowed and failed – by him, of course.) Here’s how I did it:
My Motion to Disqualify

Georges Marciano & Judge Elizabeth White

By John Clark on July 29th, 2009 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges

I don’t know Mr. Marciano, never met him, and I don’t wear Guess jeans. I also have no interest (yet) in his run for governor of California. So why do I bring him up here?

Because, folks, what he’s doing will be of enormous help to pro pers and pro ses everywhere, so pay attention.

He was in, and because of the heavy-handed actions of another gorilla judge in Los Angeles Superior Court, is now out, of a lawsuit, and it’s costing him a default judgment of millions of dollars which includes punitive damages. And by the way, I have no feelings about the merits of the case he got involved with one way or another, because it hasn’t come to trial, and I can’t examine it.

Unlike most self-represented defendants, he is a multi-millionaire (he and his brothers founded Guess? Jeans), so he uses powerful lawyers who smell his money and will work hard for him (maybe). Here’s what I know:

1. He is Jewish, not a wannabe jew like me, and like Madoff, not afraid to attack other jews. By that I mean that Madoff treated everyone as equals.

2. He is not a celebrity, so the celebrity factor is absent.

3. When he writes to Governor Schwartzenegger, he gets a reply, unlike me who was ignored.

4. Judge White will not dare send him to the Twin Towers to prevent him showing up for his court date, unlike what Gold did to me. On my birthday, too. Judicial abuse. Elder abuse. Terrorism run amok in Family Court, tolerated by the authorities. Unless you’re profiled as part of a socio-economic minority.

5. I couldn’t afford to sue Judge Arnold Gold. My lawyers took all my cash (over $600,000), and Gold evicted me from my mortgage free home to raise more cash which he then gave to the other side’s lawyers. He left me with less than three thousand dollars as my community property share of the proceeds, after looting my family’s inheritance. Read all about it on this site.

My life is too short, and besides, he already gave me a heart attack. And as a pro se, I would have continued to be treated with contempt by the American justice system, the media, and the L.A. Times. I would have been thrown out of court, possibly to spend what’s left of my life on the sidewalk.

Marciano is suing judge Elizabeth White in Federal Court, and also accusing California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George of ignoring Constitutional guarantees. Ron George must be taking notice, and getting a little nervous, especially as Marciano hired Ron George’s son as his lawyer. Brilliant move. Hope it doesn’t backfire at the California Supreme Court level, George would have to recuse himself. Too obvious a conflict of interest. Same goes for the Judicial Council, who oversee the ethics of not yet "retired" judges. Stay tuned for this, could be a lot of fun.

So, read all about his Constitutional case on Marciano’s website. It’s full of really useful information. Put it in your Favorites folder. And remember, he’s paying millions to his lawyers, and the other side’s lawyers. It won’t cost us a cent! We’ll be intellectual piggy-backers!

We applaud what he’s doing, and we support his cause. Let him know that we do, he supplies his personal contact numbers. Let’s hope he’s successful with his appeals, reverses judge Elizabeth White, and gets into court so his case can be heard. And if he’s still up for Governor, we might even vote for him. For sure he’d check new judge applications closely for their mental health, job suitability, and worthiness to be paid out of our tax dollars.

GEORGES MARCIANO

Filed paperwork

I have one message for Mr. Marciano. THIS IS RIVETING. GO FOR IT! WE’RE WITH YOU AND WE’RE WATCHING THIS FASCINATING POWER PLAY… AND WAITING FOR OBAMA TO GET INVOLVED …

Anthony Pellicano – Showtime!

By John Clark on June 19th, 2007 Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants

Anthony Pellicano was a very popular guy around Hollywood’s celebrity legal circles for many years, and for his safety remains in prison pending trial, where one is led to believe he is very happy to be.

He and 5 others were indicted for tapping into phone lines and selling information to whomsoever arranged for the activity, parties to litigation of course, through their lawyers.

A much delayed trial is scheduled to go forward next February 2008. The section of the law which is involved is RICO (see under Topics to the left), and one who got caught up in the enterprise is a prominent celebrity lawyer by the name of Terry Christensen. Now this Esq. is asking for a separate trial to take place PRIOR to Pellicano’s on the basis that he had nothing to do with the racketeering, after all, he only had 34 tape-recorded conversations with him, and paid him $100,000. Read about this HERE.

Meanwhile, a number of esquires around here are sweating like Rodney Dangerfield doing his act, except his was for show.

NOTORIOUS CASES

By John Clark on August 10th, 2006 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

COURT TV provides an extraordinary, extensive, and thoroughly researched listing and discussion of famous cases. They deal with guilt and innocence, detail courtroom tactics, and provide references to point you in new directions.
Click on any one of the headings, but be warned, your day may fade away as you become absorbed and involved.
Notorious Cases list

Pitching Ideas – Legal Update

By John Clark on July 1st, 2006 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

You pitch an idea to a production company, nothing happens, and later you find your idea being used in a script.
What to do?
It’s long been established that you can copyright a manuscript, but not an idea. But wait!
Legal theory says that if you suspect that your idea has been hijacked, you can sue. On what grounds?
Try these: Misappropriation. Misrepresentation. Unfair Competition. Unfair Business Practices. Interference with Business Advantage.
The Copyright Act, passed by Congress in 1976, served to place idea thefts under the copyright heading, and it became exceedingly difficult to prove a similarity of ideas, whereas a completed writing was more straightforward, where substantial similarity has to be proved.
Then in 1999, one Jeff Grosso sued Miramax over his submitted script “The Shell Game” which in his opinion appeared later as the movie “Rounders”.
Copyright actions are heard in Federal Court, not state, and a judge dismissed the suit, usual result.
But the Ninth Circuit, on appeal, while dismissing the copyright claim, found that there was an IMPLIED CONTRACT, and his claim could stand. The chief judge, in her opinion, wrote that “a contract sometimes may be implied even in the absence of an express promise to pay.”
Contract matters are heard in State Court, not Federal.
Attorney Gail Migdal Title, (who Lynn and I had the misfortune to come up against in our fight with Universal Television over the fiasco of House Calls), heads the fight that producers are waging to get this ruling overturned. Lew Wasserman is gone now, so without his backing, perhaps their task will not be that easy.
She and her team have now petitioned the Supreme Court for their interpretation of the law, pointing out the inherent conflict, which in theory could give rise to opposite results. Stay tuned for this, it will effect all writers.

McLibel!

By John Clark on April 15th, 2006 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

This case in England has everything and does it all for me. It pits two underdogs, David Morris, an unemployed postal worker, and Helen Steel, a community gardener for the local council, against the towering McDonald’s Corporation in a case where, as environmental activists for Greenpeace, they had made allegedly disparaging statements about the company concerning their employment, food, and substandard “green” practices, which they distributed on the streets in a pamphlet.
The defendants took on their own case pro se, and fought for what became the longest running court case in British legal history. They fought in the appeals court of the Law Lords and later the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and even sued Scotland Yard successfully in their accusation that the police had cooperated with the corporation to their detriment.
While they ultimately made their case that the statements were substantially true, McDonald’s won a victory of sorts, with damages valued at around $100,000, never collected, and deemed to be Pyrrhic in the sense that it was for them a public relations disaster.
For the details of this splendid case McDonald’s Restaurants v Morris & Steel, read up on it HERE.
You will read the following:
On 15 February 2005, the pair’s 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) concluded when the ECHR ruled that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government pay the original defendants �57,000 in compensation. The ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people’s lives and the environment (which violates Article 10) and criticised the biased nature of the trial due to the defendants’ lack of legal aid, the complex and oppressive nature of the UK libel laws, and the imbalance in resources between the parties to the case (which violates Article 6).

The Granddaddy for defamation suits, NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)

By John Clark on March 31st, 2006 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

Much mischief has been done to the themes treated here, for this case concerned itself with the utterances and writings of ordinary people, including the press, towards public paid officials, critical of them in the conduct of their official duties. The public officials sought to protect themselves from criticism using the then laws of Alabama towards defamation. It would be hard not to agree with the court’s findings, in overturning Alabama law.
Where, then, the mischief?
It is to be found in the definition of “public figures.” Our founding fathers were concerned with protecting the free speech of all who would criticize public officials in the performance of their duties.
But celebrities? Upon the inclusion of any and all celebrities, defined perhaps as those who willingly or otherwise get involved in disputes “in a public or private manner”, upon this shaky ground a whole industry has grown. And in many cases it has brought huge suffering to those so defined, and immeasurable harm to their innocent children. Now, anyone can become the subject of malicious gossip about their private lives.
Mr. Justice Brennan said, in his opening remarks on behalf of the highest court of the land, “We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protection for speech and press limit a State’s power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.”
The question of whether a non public official’s “official conduct”, an obsurdity on its face, would be held to the same standard was not before the court.
A huge leap of understanding on the part of greedy profit-seeking members of the public media, and their constitutional lawyers.
It is time that the Supremes re-defined the laws of libel, as it pertains to those who, by any definition, are not “public officials”, or “government officials”.
And if I am accused of making a self-serving statement, then yes, indeed I am.
Download file

AMD VS. INTEL

By John Clark on June 29th, 2005 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

This looks to be a doozer of a case. Here is the complaint, it’s about monopolistic practices alleged by AMD against Intel.
Useful for the purposes of seeing a Complaint in Federal Court very expertly put together by professionals.
AMD vs. Intel

By John Clark on January 28th, 2005 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

The Debacle of Family Court
A family law attorney’s article in today’s Los Angeles Daily Journal gives us a current status report on this court’s procedures, and California law or lack thereof, under which decisions affecting human relationships are made.
We are told the following, as of now, in this Year of our Lord 2005:
- That pre-marital or post-marital agreements are a good thing to enter into with the help of attorneys and accountants, but they may or may not be upheld in court.
- That custody “move-aways” may or may not be upheld, depending on circumstances.
- Domestic Violence Allegations proved with the help of attorneys “trained in both Criminal and Family Law” to be either true or false, should determine the outcome.
- Support Waivers in pre-marital agreements only to be permitted if the agreement was made with both sides having attorney representation. However, a court can still rule that the agreement is “unconscionable” if enforced.
- Contracts made during marriage between spouses regarding property ownership have conflicting views in the courts and may or may not be upheld.
- Valuation of goodwill generated by a celebrity through endorsements, record contracts, movie contracts, and public appearances is nil. But a self-employed professional earning $200,000 a year (attorney, accountant, therapist?) could be assigned goodwill of $125,000.
- As of January 1, 2005, it is unclear whether the courts will uphold community property and support rights of “registered partners” retro-actively.
- Collaborative Law. This is an alternative method of divorcing which involves a team that works together to resolve the issues brought forth by the breakup of the family. The team consists of the parties’ attorneys, coaches for the parents to help with the emotional side of the conflict, a financial planner, and a parenting specialist for issues of custody and visitation. One kicker is that in the event it falls apart, both attorneys must resign, and the cost easily exceeds the more usual methods!
- California Family Code section 2024.6 can have the court seal any pleading that reveals the assets and liabilities of either party at their request.
- Child abduction. The States have come up with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and the Feds have come up with Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. And internationally, there is a widely signed Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
I SUBMIT that the nature of the above material is misleading garbage to the underlying issues in order to save a flourishing industry. Read my sidebar, The Plight of the Pro Se.
I SUBMIT that the authorities are simply busy throwing out the baby with their stale bath water.
I SUBMIT that the average Joe and Jane on the street care about their kids, conceived their babies in love, and simply want to be a part of their growing-up years.
I SUBMIT that a baby is initially organically and viscerally a part of the psyche of the parent, both of them.
I SUBMIT that due to the failure of the authorities (read the legislators, the courts and the attorneys) to come up with an answer that embraces this fundamental human concept, there are Joes and Janes in this world who, distrusting the enormous powers of the authorities, will do drastic things including killing either themselves and/or their partners and/or their babies. And/or other people unrelated to their domestic problems.
I SUBMIT that such people CAN SOMETIMES lose their sanity, and their ability to survive in the new world selected for them by attorneys, forensic accountants, medical experts, child “evaluators”, judges, the courts, and at the end law enforcers.
WHENEVER I READ ABOUT A PUBLIC TRAGEDY, SUCH AS LAST WEEK’S TRAIN WRECK WHERE A SUICIDAL MAN CAUSED THE DEATHS OF ELEVEN PASSENGERS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE, I say to myself that investigation of the circumstances will reveal that a domestic issue in crisis lies at the bottom of it. And even these same authorities say that there is no form of security or protection existing that will protect the public from that type of incident.
I CALL UPON OUR GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARTZENEGGER, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, TO USE HIS AUTHORITY TO FORM A TASK FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING A SOLUTION.
IT WILL SEEK TO BREAK THROUGH THE FAMILY COURT LEGAL RITUALS WHICH ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY MOST PEOPLE, ARE SELF-DEFEATING AND TIME-CONSUMING AND SUBJECT TO FINANCIAL FRAUD AND ABUSE, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS, AND BREAK NEW GROUND. IT WON’T BE POPULAR WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED LEGAL COMMUNITY, MANY OF WHOM ARE MEDIA ATTENTION SEEKERS WITH A BUILT IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT IT MAY PREVENT FUTURE “ACCIDENTS” THAT TAKE THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Nicolette Hannah Clark v. John Clark BF 013155 (filed January 1999)

By John Clark on January 10th, 2005 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

This was the Grand-daddy of my cases, this started everything, and the filing downtown at Superior Court by James Eliaser, Esq. was intercepted by The National Enquirer, and the London Times, People Magazine, The Daily Mail, and so on and on, as could have been expected.
My readers are asked to put themselves in my shoes. First check out under “My Family”, the entries under Zachary, my youngest son.
There, you will see that Zach is a great kid, born under circumstances that should have enabled him to have a great start in life, but it was denied him by just about everyone for reasons that you should have been been able to follow, and more especially by the court who should have managed the case in a circumspect way.
Anyway, what follows is part of the court record, for I made sure to get it on the record in my case.
My first inkling that something was amiss was when I came across a note that Zach had scribbled to his young friends Sam and Hank (whom I did not know). I had recently employed Ernesto, my plumber, to re-pipe the little cottage with copper pipe. He had done so, but I was not then aware of his reputation with the women of Topanga.
View image
I inspected the little cottage, and came up with much graphic evidence of what had been going on. I questioned Zach further, and he then gave me the following letter which he had not yet delivered to his friends.
View image
Now I was as troubled as he was, for apparently he was expecting me to lead him and his friends and help them run away from their homes! Oh boy.
I decided upon the following course of action. If Ernesto and Nicolette wished to carry on together, it was no business of mine, but certainly they should not be doing it while the kid was in the house, just the other side of the wall. I resolved to meet with Ernesto where he worked, which was as the caretaker at Topanga’s Theatricum Bottanicum, the local theatre created by Will Geer. He did not know I was wired, and this is part of what I recorded.
View image
Judge Gold read this into the record during trial, and I thought he did it as a way to get it in, because certainly I had no right to be secretly recording our conversation. What I did not know was that he had plans to retire right after my second trial, the one with Lynn, which took place just a month after this one.
After his rulings, I lost Zachary, I lost my house, I lost most of my money, I lost most of my possessions, I appear to have lost my cases (but it’s not over yet) and now it seems I have lost all of my children.
Well, I’ve gained a new wife, and I’ve gained this new way to record the events leading up to it, for all to see.

Hollywood lawsuits – an Overview

By John Clark on January 7th, 2005 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

John Cones, a lawyer, has written a well-researched book on the subject of how business is transacted in Hollywood, and what happened when things didn’t go as planned, although a cynic may wonder that things did in fact go as planned (the cost of doing business theory.) Buchwald, Garner, Welch, Newman, Hoffman, Brando, Beatty, Goldberg, Fonda, Hepburn are among dozens who got involved in lawsuits with, it’s safe to say, one or more of all of the major film studios, usually over profit participations and other contractual issues. The years of waiting wasted, and in some cases the destruction of careers, is depressing. This is a lengthy excerpt from his book.
How the Movie Wars Were Won

Knievel v. ESPN, (9th Circuit, January 4, 2005)

By John Clark on January 6th, 2005 Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants

First interesting case of the new year, I’d say, about Defamation.
The Ninth, not unanimously, found for the defendants “as a matter of law”.
ESPN is a subsidiary of Walt Disney, Inc., and Knievel sued in State court in Montana, where he lives, and the case was later transferred to Federal court there.
Seems that ESPN took pictures of Evel with his arms around his wife, and another woman, not identified. Then they ran the picture, and others, on their website, and captioned it “Evel Knievel proves that you’re never too old to be a pimp.”
The justices looked at all of the pictures, and the captions. They found that some others made somewhat less objectionable fun of the subjects. One showed a woman in a black dress, and it said that she was “lookin’ sexy, even though we all know she is hardcore.” Another showed a man wearing shades “…so the ladies can’t see him scoping.”
The court backed the federal judge in Montana.
I found it interesting, because it deals with the division between funny and serious.
We’ve all been in situations where we straddle the fence of this divide, hoping to get the best of both worlds. But there is no bright line.
We say something in a kidding fashion, and the target decides to treat the remark as serious. And sometimes we say the funny bit in order to be taken seriously, and get ignored. And we actors know it is much harder to do comedy, every time – but I digress.
For this court, context was all.