MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

It’s Crazy MF-ing Lawsuit Week!!!

Wow… it’s raining insane.

Last week it was Protocol Pictures’s rambling, wacky, eating M&Ms off the floor lawsuit against The Weinstein Company for bouncing in and out of an animated movie.

And now, the rambling lunacy of Charlie Sheen turned into a legal document!

I have always heard about the might of Marty Singer… but I am a little shocked that he let this one out with his name signed at the bottom.

The opener…

Magic.

I also like the idea that Charlie is suing for everyone else on the show. Like they would trust their favorite coke addict to hang onto their money. Ha! Set-up… punch!

There is an argument to be made that Charlie Sheen didn’t do anything that clearly triggered WB’s right to terminate his contract. Like every other pundit out there offering an opinion, I have not read Sheen’s contract with WB and I can only go by what people who have claim is in it.

This document doesn’t do anything to clarify the situation. For instance, Sheen’s team has told media that there is no “morals clause” in the contract. Warners has said that there is a clause that can be enforced if they think Sheen committed a felony, even if not charged. Sheen’s filing today repeatedly points out that WB didn’t take this kind of action when he had committed other felonious behavior and, in fact, gave him a contract extension. So while arguing hypocrisy by WB – not a legal issue here – Sheen’s team seems to be admitting that he does have a contractual vulnerability and that WB somehow lost their right to enforce it because they didn’t enforce it earlier.

This kind of, ” or forever hold your peace” kind of argument runs all through the document, sometimes confusingly working against Sheen. For instance, the repeated claims that Sheen was abused for years by Lorre “solely to harass and frustrate Mr. Sheen” are now being claimed as proof of a conspiracy against Sheen, even though no action was taken by Sheen until last month, in the midst of his rehabbing process.

Likewise, while Team Sheen claims the Sheen has been fired in retaliation for the “Chaim” comments about Lorre on the radio show, it also argues that Lorre had breached the showrunner agreement before the radio show, demanding that the show’s season end on March 25, instead of April 8. Why? Because, it seems, March 25 was when the show’s season was supposed to end before Sheen was hospitalized. Another conspiracy that lets Sheen off the hook.

Interestingly, one of the “key” points are the vanity cards that Lorre runs at the end of his episodes. Five are cited. Only one refers directly to Mr. Sheen. and they seem to lay out a long history of problems Sheen brought to the show, not harassment by Lorre. They include:


Oddly, I would not identify any of those comments with myself were someone I was working with published them. Another does refer specifically to “hooker in the closet,” which I assume Marty Singer is getting a trademark for Sheen on as I type.

My favorite turn, however, is the 8th Cause of Action, which is truly hilarious.

“Lorre believe, and has stated publicly, that Mr Sheen suffered from physical and mental maladies, but Lorre nevertheless repeatedly made offensive, derogatory and damaging comments about Mr. Sheen an his alleged Physical and mental maladies…”

It gets better…

Referring to the radio show, “Mr. Sheen fought back against Lorre using the same court of public opinion that Lorre used. The fat that Sheen’s defense of himself as far more effective than Lorre’s harassing and degrading comments cause both Lorre and WB to take the ultimate retaliatory action against Mr. Sheen.”

#Winning!

But there’s more… wait for it…

Yes, ladies and gentlemen… Charlie Sheen is claiming to be physically and mentally disabled!!!

(cue the streamers and balloons and the Jerry Lewis MDA Orchestra playing, “What The World Needs Now… Is Love Sweet Love…”)

Anyway… the two interesting claims in the document are that WB is refusing to pay Sheen’s backend on the show. Hard to believe. The word “timely” is used, so it may be just another irrelevant log on the fire based on a check he thinks he should have gotten some weeks ago. If WB is claiming they can withhold backend on work already done, that should be a slam dunk for Team Sheen. A third option is that WB is now withholding backend money based on the idea that they are countersuing Sheen for damages and that they will hold onto this money in anticipation of the win. Also pretty silly.

The second interesting, but highly unlikely claim is that Lorre wanted to sink this show because he has a better deal on other shows. If a lost season of the show will cost Charlie Sheen $100 million or more, it will cost Lorre multiples of that. Spite can be a powerful thing, but throwing away hundreds of millions over it? Tough argument to make.

What the document lacks is much of any real legal positioning against the contract. It only argues, repeatedly, that WB didn’t have the right to terminate because this is personal, not professional.

Like or hate WB or Chuck Lorre or The Weinsteins, the facts laid out in these two lawsuits are miles away from anything that could seriously float in a court of law. Unless the attorneys are holding something back – and these documents have DNA of their spleens all over them – the arguments are, for the most part, laughable. This doesn’t mean they will be thrown out overnight. Nor does it mean that they won’t both be settled. The facts of the Weinstein suit, in particular, are bizarre and hard to follow, and actually money may well be owed.

It also doesn’t mean that either party may be capable of making a serious legal case out of their situations. There just isn’t anything real in these documents. They are, ironically, public relations documents. “Hey, it WB didn’t like all the drug use, they should have said something in Year Four.” “Poor charlie. That Lorre is a prick!” Yadda yadda yadda.

All in all, these are epic pieces of legal writing, because they are so funny. People will – seriously – be studying them, especially the Sheen document, for years to come.

Singer’s filing actually reads like it was re-written by Sheen to add personal invective and the manic repetition of phrases that Sheen has been babbling on with over the last two weeks. It reads like a drug addict’s claim… everyone is responsible but me.

Sadly, I feel like this whole thing is still heading to a very dark place for Sheen. Every step seems to be deeper into the hole. And little doubt, Sheen has 10s of millions or more dollars coming his way, so only tragedy seems in a position to slow his roll.

Wow.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “It’s Crazy MF-ing Lawsuit Week!!!”

  1. SheenPower says:

    SIZZLE, LOSING, BYE!

    Anyone who isn’t 100000% in Sheen’s Korner should be waterboarded at Guantanomo.

    BOW TO THE SHEEN.

  2. movielocke says:

    yeah, the most damning thing about it is that it took WB two weeks to fire Sheen. WB took their time and I imagine covered all their bases.

    But this is boring. The second Cars 2 Teaser arrived yesterday and it’s outstanding, our 400 million grosser of the summer just became clear. The only question is if this will clear a billion world wide for Pixar.

    http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hdtrailers.html

    and is it just me, but the ominous opening indicates two things, 1. Pixar is playing the plot cards close to the vest and 2. Big Oil is going to be the villain. And those two things mean there is going to be a lot more critical love available for this sequel than there was for the first film (remake of Doc Holliday = yawn). And just by the fact that the sequel is entirely different (spy film/action film/not-bigboynow-drama-nor-love-story) that the sequel is probably more original, and probably a much better film indicates that film critics will be falling over themselves to lavish praise on the film. A pixar film that everyone expected to be a misfire but that everyone loves instead will be a story journos can’t get enough of. And it’s worth mentioning that Finding Nemo was expected to bomb hard.

  3. cadavra says:

    Actually, the last several Pixar films save TS3 were expected to bomb. (Talking cars? Cute rat? Silent robot? Old guy in a floating house? No f’ing way.) I loved the original CARS, but I must say that kicking Mater up to co-star status concerns me, as he was the one weak link in the original (IMHO, of course).

    As for the whole Sheen thing, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you wanna make really big money in this business, become a lawyer.

  4. Winning says:

    In Sheen We Tru$t.

  5. Triple Option says:

    The one against Weinstein Company didn’t seem like much but maybe some out-of-pocket and contractual terms may be due. But the belief that they’re somehow entitled to $40 Million cuz that’s what other successful movies have made is so far beyond a stretch that to me it weakens their position for being yanked around and due money that they may’ve actually been owed.

    This lawsuit by team Sheen reminds me of a former co-worker of mine and her vet. I could not believe how much money he was charging that girl any time her dog sneezed. All done to placate her but I don’t know what if anything that poor dog needed. She was always worrying. Apparently the dog wasn’t getting better. The only one who slept alright each night was the vet. I imagine Charlie’s atty saying, “There, there, Charlie. We’ll bring up the place cards, OK? That’ll stand up in a jury and you’ll get all the money they tried to take from you when you were O.D’d at Cedars.” Like, seriously, how do people live with themselves after exploiting emotionally feeble people? I guess in team Sheen’s legal camp they can say it covers the pro bono work that they do.

    I really feel no sympathy towards CBS and feel it would serve them right having this blow up in their face. But neither do I think Sheen is owed money for episodes not shot after being fired. Too bad both can’t lose.

  6. Krillian says:

    Poor Chuck Lorre. Roseanne, Brett, Cybill, now Charlie. At least he had Jenna & Thomas and Johnny & Jim in his corner.

    Sheen’s cooking show on Funny or Die was dang funny though. Looking forward to him conquering all channels. Would like to see him use his warlock powers to vaporize the wizards at Waverly Place. He needs to debate Glenn Beck now. This needs to happen.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon