Thank you Google!!
This “scholar” from the legal community, has written a piece, hugely damaging to me, which would appear to have a Hollywood movie script in mind rather than any form of enlightenment for its narrow audience made up of law students, lawyers and judges (the “legal fraternity”). It suggests that the truth virus that infected James Frey’s brain in the writing of his memoir “A Million Little Pieces” may have been a mutation from embedded origins in U.S. law schools, where the art of withholding rather than changing truth in order to tell stories that win cases, is endemic.
It comes from one Hila Keren, a self-described visiting lecturer from the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Center for the Study of Law and Society, and is pedantically entitled: “Textual Harassment: A New Historicist, Reappraisal of the Parol Evidence Rule, with Gender in Mind”.
In it, she uses me to illustrate her thesis that there is a connection between the case of the contemporary “Hollywood Scandal” (stemming from Nicolette Hannah vs. me and Lynn Redgrave vs. me in Judge Gold’s Family Court), and pairs it with a four hundred year old British scandal involving Isabel, the Countess of Rutland.
Her article concludes that the flaws and biases underlying the Parol Evidence Rule remain acute and calls for a serious reconsideration of its justification. “In this way, this article offers an original, and hopefully useful argument against excessive formalist textualism in present-day contract law.”
Yes, Contract Law. The serious law student should read it in its entirety.
The contents of her thoughts expressed in the article betray her loyalty to the rule of law, and suggests that her true loyalty was to one Bettye Goldstein (sorry, Betty Friedan) who just died. She even admits to “a feminist chip on my shoulder” on page six.
Now, why do I care?
I care because I have a case on appeal in the Ninth Circuit against Lawrence Harvey Zeiger (sorry, Larry King), CNN and other celebrity pandering parties, which goes to the heart of what I consider to be a Civil Rights case, given that I am now shut out of the field of working entertainment professionals due to circulated nonsense such as this, deeply effecting certain of my constitutional rights.
Will anybody read this article? Only, she hopes, the most important people in the field of judicially run U.S. law.
The article was presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in Chicago (2004) and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society in Berkeley and, according to Keren’s own words, “Has benefited from the participants’ insightful remarks. For thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions along the evolvement of this project, I would like to deeply thank Kathryn Abrams, Ayelet BenYishai, Anthony Cox, Filippa Corneliussen, Danny Evron, Gerald Frug, Rosann Greenspan, Ron Harris, Tami Kricheli-Katz, Kurt Keren, David Lieberman, Mike Macnair, Charles McClain, Annette Nierobisz, Michelle Oberman, Gabriela Shalev, Derek Walker, Dvora Yanow and Eyal Zamir. Special thanks also go to Stephanie Blazewicz and Justin Brown of the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law who were so helpful in editing the article. I am also grateful to the Center for the Study of Law and Society in Berkeley for a unique interdisciplinary and international research environment and to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for generous financial support.”
Not a one of whom read the complete court record, which remains unsealed to this day.
If she or any members of her research/support group had read the record, they would have found that Nicolette’s attorney, James Eliaser, was upset that he had been ruled against, and made a motion for a new trial based on the parol evidence rule.
I filed a Motion to deny his request. The law is clear, and my objection included, inter alia, the following Points and Authorities:
“Where the validity of the agreement is the fact in dispute, this section does not exclude evidence relevant to that issue. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856(f). This section does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates, as defined in Section 1860, or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement, or to establish illegality or fraud. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856(f).”
If anybody had read the testimony of the plumber, Ernesto Hernandez, now, sadly, the child’s pretend father, they would find that he lied under oath about his involvement prior to the formation of the grant deed, revealed in the discovery of his concealed phone records. Due diligence would also expose the connection between Nicolette and pornographer Al Goldstein (why does the name-word “Gold” keep appearing in my life?). And the fact that I put a real estate lawyer on the stand who gave sworn testimony that he was halfway through putting the little house into a trust deed for the benefit of Zachary on instruction by me, when I ordered him to stop because I had just been attacked by Eliaser filing a lawsuit on behalf of Nicolette.
Decent and wholesome people might conclude that maybe, just maybe, I cared about the child’s welfare, and cared not about screwing the child’s mother. We were both long gone from that scenario. It had served its purpose.
I just sent the following e-mail to Keren at her published address which is email@example.com:
“I hope this will reach you.
I just came across your astonishing piece on me and Lynn Redgrave and Nicolette Hannah, and I must say I am more than shocked at your readiness to assume the worst about me, in order to write an eye-catching piece of ersatz melodrama.
Please tune in to my web page:
It will clarify for you the dilemma that confronted me back in 1998, and the reasons for my seemingly strange behavior as reported in the gutter press at that time. It is unfortunate for everyone concerned, especially young Zachary, that the truth is now out. I’ve held nothing back. It contains facts which would render your analysis devoid of credibility.
I do not take lightly that you wrote your piece without contacting me first. The ease with which you “filled in” the bits you did not know about, in order to write a simplistic and feministic diatribe against me, are certainly your first amendment privilege, but are more worthy of a National Enquirer journalist than a legal commentator, law student lecturer, and legal scholar.
The judge, John H. Reid, in Santa Monica Civil court, looked beyond the four corners of the grant deed towards fraud, as a result of the plumber being put on the stand and examined. Only the transcript, which I have, reveals what was really going on at that time.
Perhaps her attorney, James Eliaser, is a friend of yours, as he was the friend and ex-employee of Judge Arnold Gold’s lawfirm [Pachter, Gold & Schaffer, 1970-88, a concealed fact]. Judge Gold ordered me to pay Eliaser almost $200,000, and kicked me out of my home to get his hands on the escrow for his old chum. Gold is now a “judge for hire”, beyond the powers that keep such people in check.
Perhaps I should exercise my first amendment privilege and make an entry about you in my website, to warn law students away from your research methods, and biased analysis. And you actually lecture law students? Tell them how to bring malicious lawsuits and make money? No wonder our system of justice is so perverted.
Perhaps you should be involved in my current case against CNN and Larry King, in my appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Defendants may say they relied on the details of your “scholarship”, and it’s all your fault.
But mostly, you missed a far more interesting story, perhaps a bit too complicated for you to come to grips with, requiring some investigative work, and more than the protestations of your loser friend.
Regardless, I think you owe me at least an apology, and a nod to Eliaser, for his uncredited input.