Copyright 1998, Pamela Jean Curry, Personal Training Website
This page has not been edited, I don’t get paid here folks…it is just me sounding off or generally depicting the gist of some document, except I did take real paper notes during the Pamela Lee Anderson trial and those impression are based on my notes or trial commentary!
As of October 29th, 1998 the trial of Dux vs. Jean Claude Van Damme is being shown and commented on Court TV. It is a case for oral contracts and Dux accused Van Damme of stealing the idea for the screenplay for “The Quest” from a screenplay Dux wrote and had shown to Van Damme (spelling). This weekend I get good use out of my broom. Watch the trial because it won’t be reviewed here!Garrison v. Warner Brothers et al. Who is et al? Click here! A class action suit concerning the accounting methods of Hollywood and their system of calculating net profits. The Plaintiff’s pleading, minus exhibits, which includes a history of the motion picture film industry, is on file at the Court TV site. The Court TV site further warns that Court TV is owned by Time-Warner.
Amistad…Legal Complaint in Chase-Riboud v. Dreamworks, Inc.
Did Dreamworks infringe her copyright? The pleadings are online and at this point I do not know much about this action having not read it entirely. From at least a couple of television sound bytes it appears the Dreamworks attorney Bert Fields is a stereotypical corporate attorney scum. In point, on CNN he depicted Ms. Chase-Riboud as a perjuror, which is a serious accusation. Then he went on the describe the alleged perjury. Ms. Chase-Riboud and the defense have an arguement about whether an alleged “meeting” vs. “viewing” occured. It is a gross exaggeration, and in my opinion questionalbe ethically for an attorney to identify a point of interpretation of an act as perjury (perhaps this calls for the return of Bruno-a case in point). A further example, during my litigation The Ledger was asked to answer a set of questions, one being if I was guaranteed compensation for film work. The Editor, answering for the paper, with a duty to investigate, answered under penalty of perjury that I was “Never” guaranteed payment. The first set of answers from the Defendant and many admissions contained so many non-responsive answers that the Magistrate granted a request to file a second set of questions on the defendant newspaper. At that time I asked the exact same question requesting that the Photo Chief of The Ledger answer this portion under penalty of perjury. His answer to the exact same question was that I was “guaranteed payment” for film jobs completed. The Editor answering for the newspaper had a duty to gather the facts, that clearly was a point of perjury. The first and second set of answers to interrogatories have been cited or filed in my civil court case. This is a matter of fact and not interpretation. Dreamworks, even if they win, has already lost some of their integrity by attempting to win by any means.

Other cases of note are Reebock v. Tristar, which concerns their product placement in the movie Jerry McGuire and some related property rights issues in a case about a Screenwriter’s Divorce. The Ren and Stimpy show vs. Viacom is also worth a quick scan. Those are both at Court TV’s Library under “Other Cases” while the former are under “Business Cases”. Suit Talk is also following the Garrison v. Warner Brothers case. The moral of the story here was if you promise to use a product in your film in a certain manner in exchange for valuable consideration and you put it in writing – you should keep your promise! DEEE?
Hunter Tylo vs. Aaron Spelling? a REVISION IS COMING! This is only here because I have read continuous questions at Attorney Cones site about sex discrimination. He is not in the business of sex discrimination but quite frankly does a better job of answering those questions than Gloria Allred. I have long been disgusted by a situation that Ms. Allred creates every time she handles, or mishandles depending on your views, a case in holding that case up to speak for all other women, in this instance in the film industry. I do not like Aaron Spelling’s scripts for women and do not hold high views of women who knowing what this famous man writes, want the jobs. Spelling is no deceiver. This job was what it was, a sleeze character that Ms. Tylo signed a contract to play. Contrary to what Ms. Allred would have us believe, the real courage for Ms. Tylo is not suing with the fear of being blackballed, but would have been to say NO to her husband for the sake of being certain she could perform the role she signed up for! I don’t even watch Spelling’s shows but I know the jokes about the clothes, tight and short, even his own daughter wore on his shows! As for the other issues Gloria Allred would have us believe this case represents, yes they exist and are serious. Unforunately Ms. Tylo’s case is not the one to make the difference even if she wins, I do not believe this will change the way women are cast or real discrimination in the form of child bearing issues.
This is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t issue, because many women who are involved with men in the filmmaking community have the opportunity for more or better jobs!
Ms. Tylo’s husband is a working actor, for example.
F.Y.I., it is only jokingly that I have said in the past about a producer or agent of a producer , “sure I’ll have your baby”, at this site, because this is a serious issue for persons who are totally dedicated to their trade and want no other involvement.
Court Tv Old File Trial Case Link!
            Studio Faux hopes you watched the Pamela Anderson Lee trail on Court TV for more information on industry practices and oral contracts.  If you have an agent already, after seeing this you might want to send your agent that herbal memory aid, Ginko (especially if they work for U.T.A.- a Talent Agency where at least one agent had frequent lapses of memory on the witness stand)!  For those of you ouside of the U.S. this trial started on TV the last week of April and ran into the first two weeks of May.  The Court TV guest commentators are also Entertainment Attorneys and have included a  Director’s Guild Arbitrator.  Take this for what it is, what these individuals will say in court that they do, which is sometimes different than in real life!
           Tuesday, May 27, the opinion in this case was critiqued on Court TV.  The Plaintiff’s lost because in the opinion of the Judge there was no contract. Importantly, Ms. Lee’s ex-manager was not in a legal position to bind her.  Further the court held she had never agreed to the issues of simulated sex, those rights to shoot the film that way were never taken out of the legal contract drafted for her to sign.  According to one expert, the court even went further in stating that neither her agent at that time, who appeared to have delegated his job to another agent without her knowledge, nor her manager even appeared to have the authority to bind her…or something like that.  As for the commentary that this is some kind of case that young girls going to Hollywood should be aware of I say BULL.  If you present yourself as someone who can be exploited physically, at any age, the risks are profit makers will take advantage of that. It is only in Hollywood that signs of that exploitation manifest themselves more clearly.
          Except to the simplest of minds, Ms. Lee exhibited a lack of talent, industry knowledge, and professionalism in contracting regardless of the business she was in, thereby she was still the loser in this case.
           I personally do not watch these type of films and do not care if they even get made.   Much of this trial was a waste of my time but I’m certain those salacious bastards at Time Warner got their ratings worth out of their Court TV investment this week!  It isn’t exactly news that most independents are in competition for funding from many of the same resources.
           One producer testified that Time-Warner and Kushner-Locke would not finance his film unless Pamela Lee was signed to do simulated sex!  Time-Warner, last corporate report & 10K I saw, was a Court TV stockholder.  Kathy Ireland, who replaced Pamela Lee in the movie, also has been a frequent featured model in Time’s yearly Sports Illustrated Bathing Suit Issue.
Politics galore or was that Pussy galore 007? Don’t look to learn about the courts on this channel because their coverage has bias and motive.
           Suit Talk reported that Dustin Hoffman is suing Castle Rock Productions for breach of an oral contract. Castle Rock is a Turner Corporation Company, which in turn is a Time Warner property/partner. So when do we get the Court TV reports on that lawsuit? Will they just choose to save their own company the embarrasment of a trial and settle out of Court TV?

             Furthering my points below, on June 2, 1997 CNN had a guest speaker from a Knight Ridder paper to comment with others on the Paula Jones case. That is to say whether the President really exposed himself to Ms. Jones!  In 1986 it was a Knight Ridder employee who when giving her opinion to me about what I might do in a sexual harassment situtation she told me that a member of management at a Knight Ridder paper had exposed himself to her in a company elevator!  Further, in 1987 the last newspaper I interviewed with before acting on an EEOC complaint was with Knight Riddder.  I was interviewed by someone whose actions I found alarming because he seemed connected to the newspaper where I had my original complaint.  In 1991, the person whom I walked out on an interview with at the Knight Ridder newspaper was convicted of lewd acts on children while taking their pictures at the newspaper where he was graphics editor.   Court documents of this Bradenton, Florida case are available . Another paper claimed that he had been doing this for a period of ten years and that the Knight Ridder management had knowledge but turned their heads to these acts.  This strongly supported my case because I was allegedly told that they could and would provoke violence against me, and that management did and would turn their heads to violence on the premises.
Further, details of what was happening in my case relative to a pattern of alleged non-actions by  law enforcement connected to the Bradenton case would shock the conscience.  By “violence” against me I mean alleged physical attack, hit and runs, and attempted homicide.
  I’ve seen Disney’s OPERATION DUMBO DROP, They disobeyed orders!
              Adding that nobody gives the mentally deficient a place to sound off as well as CNN does. An Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Preparedness in Detroit, expressed concern that women were receiving unfair advantage repeatedly.  She also gave her opinion about the woman B-52 pilot. I guess when you’re as sheltered as Elaine CNN is a good place to give your opinion, so safe, because CNN never, never, never has experts that talk about issues that are labeled classified by the N.S.A..   That includes the fact that our government considers electronic and psychological warfare growing and greater risks than military weaponry.  The fact that computers have been used to disenfranchise women and engage them in forms of warfare that include new forms of prostitution and slavery. I write this when I don’t even like women and do not tend to disagree with Elaine on one point. Women who lie for men and have their children, as opposed to compete with them for money and titles, often receive more favorable treatment. I personally am aware that in some high skilled male dominated fields it takes ten times the work and ten times the sacrifice of other things one could be doing in your life, like having relationships, for a woman as compared to a man. There are organized methods and schemes by which woman are entrapped and abused. Many times it is other women, with lesser goals who participate in these games.
The Private Movie Company vs.
Pamela Anderson Lee
as of May 13th the Judge dismissed the Promissory Estoppel count against Ms. Lee. This case is no longer available at the Court TV website.
Ms. Lee was sued on a few different theories of legal recovery including Promissory Estoppel and Breach of Oral Contract based on the fact that she had allegedly pulled out of a movie the week before shooting was to start. This forced the production company, who had a contract to produce several made for cable movies in an apparent racy manner, to replace her with the model Kathy Ireland. Ms. Ireland did not have the International following that Ms. Lee has with Baywatch. According to the Private Movie Company, they lost millions, about 5, because of the change in actresses for the leading role. They expected to make their money by selling foreign rights. During the course of litigation the fact that no international rights had actually been presold and that only one letter of interest from Germany was the basis for their several million dollar demand was debated. Ms. Lee stated she had refused to negotiate until the Private Movie Company removed simulated sex scenes from the picture. What those scenes consisted of and whether she refused to negotiate until a revised script was completed were debated, as well as industry practices as to shooting and production of scenes where a Nudity Side Letter is required under S.A.G. (Screen Actor’s Guild) contract with the Production Company. A production company using S.A.G. actors must sign an agreement with S.A.G. that they will operate within certain guidelines. Check out the S.A.G. link at the Film Studio Faux’s FilmLynx for more information.
 Sanford Meisner, as an acting coach, has been quoted as saying is takes twenty years to become an actor. By the end of this trial many of the American public will be lead to believe it takes a couple of nude scenes and a few years running around in a bathing suit on a network series.
Sure, check the ties of the multi-media owners of Court TV, Channel 38, and you will find those owners have a few network series of their own. There is a growing body of evidence, starting with my own civil action and going on to the even better publicized actions of George Clooney, that monoplies are manipulating their talent with their own coverage of them and possibly attempting to give the public a skewed perspective of how independent filmmakers do business to bolster their own corporate images.  Imagine that.
Then it can get even worse. The evening coverage of this trial has been graced by a rather lighthearted and less biased coverage than the day version. Nancy Grace made a reputation as a prosecutor by knowing what truth is, while many attorney’s would still be looking for more evidence to get at the truth. In short Ms. Grace came to the law by mistake, she turned to the law after she lost her fiancee in a homicide, as such she is every victim’s dream. In my perspective, as someone who pursued the study of law for ideological reasons, she is the worst example of what justice should represent in America. Justice is balance, she is biased; Justice is blind, she …well ok… she just may be blind too because tunnel vision, which gives her a win as a prosecutor, is not consistent with unbiased reporting.
Is this mess of attorneys with conflicts of interests, principles of agency gone astray, agents & managers with bad memories, the way Hollywood does business?
TESTIMONY OF NOTE, On the Witness Stand:
Vicki Shapiro, Attorney & Director of Legal Affairs
for S.A.G. (Screen Actor’s Guild)
She testified she is the director of legal affairs at a labor organization representing 9,000 persons. Prior to that, for six years, she was with a private law firm that was the outside counsel for S.A.G. After testifying that she was familiar with contract negotiations she stated that she has never directly negotiated a contract. Although short, during her testimony she confirmed that 1) a nudity side letter does not have to be signed before production begins and 2) as a fact managers have negotiated contracts for S.A.G. members, as opposed to agents. In fact that is quite common. In her duties at S.A.G. she’s arbitrated cases where the manager gave testimony.
According to at least one guest commentator an Entertainment attorney, it is. He mentioned the State of California courts are seeing the impact in the form of lawsuits against attorneys who abuse their privilege while representing multiple clients despite their own conflict of interest. Under California State Law both clients in that conflict must sign a waiver, a written waiver is required. In this case the Defendent, when she was called to testify by the Plaintiff, stated that there was no alleged conflict. She had no attorney representing her in this contract negotiations.
Although it appears her ex and/or sometime attorney was representing the Producer at negotiations in what that attorney describes as an exchange for a credit on the film.
Commissary Break Anyone!
See and Compare, (oh ya like Ben Efriam can compare to that cheezy Lynch girl) the oral contracts case brought against Kim Bassinger that was a predecessor to this case.
Click to get Kim’s case to come out of the closet!
This case has been linked from Studio Faux’s Booklist since the beginning of Studio Faux a few months ago!
Boxing Helena was a tribute to cheezy sexist doctors everywhere and to film director’s daughters,
although talent isn’t inherited in the film business you can always act like it is!
Sanford Meisner on Acting, by Sanford Meisner & Dennis Longwell with an Introduction by Sydney Pollack (1987, at xv).
The Ruby Teal Censorship Link Page!
      Bibliography, Excerpts of Resources on Technology Abuse.
  Pamela jean Curry’s Published & Unpublished still FILM works.
Film Sampler for Viewing only, Page 1   &    Page 2
  The Slumbering Sentinel by C.G. Weeramantry, Excerpt
  Fear on Trial by H. Faulk, excerpt     Karen Sue Foley’s Blacklisting excerpt
Civil Case Evidence Page, FCC Letters& More    FCC Letter One, Technology Abuse
FCC Letter 2   FCC Letter 3
FCC Seal, Letter of Secretary of FCC Authenticating other letters
 FBI Reply to Inquiry: Investigating Satellite Surveillance, Privacy Invasion
F.B.I. Affidavit attesting to the Authenticity of the Letter of August 1987
Library of Congress Reply to Research Inquiry on Books on Blacklisting
 Library of Congress Affidavit 1, Authenticating the above Letter.