August 2008
IN THIS ISSUE:

REPORTING
Borat Lawsuits

ENTERTAINMENT
& SPORTS
Lawsuit Stands Against Law and Order Creator

Baseball and Steroids

BRIEFS
Will no one rid me of this turbulent bird?

Making a hit on Broadway

Pennies Don’t Fall From Heaven

Nor Have I Ever Stolen a Dog

SIDEBAR
Getting Hotter

TRANSITIONS
Crimes That Involve Moral Turpitude

Kickback Scheme

It's Not Always Like the Movies

Where Are They Now?

TRAVEL
Escape to Nantucket

Nantucket basics

BOOK REVIEWS
On the Lap of Gods
 By Robert Whitaker

BORAT LAWSUITS: page 2 of 4 ( go to page 1, 3, 4)nantucket flag

ENTER THE GYPSIES

While the lawsuit by the two frat boys garnered the most press coverage, the suit that is most intriguing (and potentially has the most entertainment value) is the suit originally filed by the Romanian gypsies against Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and others in the Southern District of New York.  The original complaint did not list Sacha Baron Cohen as a defendant, but named him in the caption as one of the “foreign nationals” who conspired with defendants to cause injury to plaintiffs.  The complaint stated that it was “predicated” upon the intentional and negligent acts committed against the plaintiffs, the Romanian Village of Glod, and the Plaintiffs’ protected ethnic group commonly known as “Gypsies” for the “sole purpose of exploiting them in order to make money through what Defendants hope would be a blockbuster film and would lead to other film projects from which these Defendants would benefit.”  The complaint alleged that the Villagers “and their ancestors have historically been the targets of racial, ethnic and other discrimination and are members of a class of persons protected by the laws of the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations and other international laws.”

In terms of relief, the complaint demanded (1) that the defendants apologize to the two named plaintiffs, the Village of Glod, as well as their “ethic (sic) group and people,” (2) that defendants be made to honor the promises they allegedly made to help the plaintiffs and their Village, and (3) that defendants pay “adequate compensatory damages and punitive damages.”  In addition, the complaint stated that the “Defendants should not be permitted to continue with other projects such as the film ‘BRUNO’ which is intended to portray Austrians in a bad light and/or hold them up to public ridicule.”

What to make of this unconventional complaint?  At a conference before Federal Judge Loretta A. Preska at the end of 2006, the lawyer representing Twentieth Century Fox stated that he planned to file a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In response, Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Edward Davis Fagan, was placed under the gun:

           

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY:  .  .  . The first cause of action is for a claim under Section 1983 of Title 42.  Indeed, that is claim as the Court well knows that can there is state action or some activity in the court of state law. There’s clearly no state action in this court. JUDGE PRESKA:  Mr. Fagan, what’s the state action here? FAGAN:  If I may your Honor .  .  .  .

JUDGE PRESKA:  Last time I checked, 20th Century Fox was not an arm of the U.S. government or any other. 

MR. FAGAN:  They’re not an arm of the U.S. government.

JUDGE PRESKA:  Is there any state action sufficient to support a 1983 action?

MR. FAGAN:  Your Honor, I’ll withdraw that cause of action.

JUDGE PRESKA:  Good, because we won’t have to brief it.

MR. FAGAN:  I don’t want us to waste time on anything other than those issues that need to be presented before the court.

JUDGE PRESKA:I appreciate that.  Second.

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY:  Thank you, your Honor.  Second is a claim Under Section 1985 under Title 42 and with respect to this claim, we certainly submit that the coverage of this section is for United States citizens, and therefore since both plaintiffs are foreign nationals that cannot take advantage shall I say, of Section 1985, that would be our position .  .  .  and we ask for dismissal.

JUDGE PRESKA:Have you had a chance to consider that?

MR. FAGAN:  I have, your Honor.  I also want to inform the court that we anticipate at the appropriate time adding Gypsies Wilma and Sinti, who are here in the Unites States who are United States citizens who have been discriminated against by this film.

JUDGE PRESKA:Were they in the film, sir?

MR. FAGAN:  No, your Honor, they were not in the film but the Sinti and Roma and Gypsy communities were specifically targeted and held up to ridicule in this film.  In the last two weeks, what we had is the head of the village, we’re talking about the foreigners now who empowered us to bring him into the case .  .  .

JUDGE PRESKA: A foreign national.

MR. FAGAN:  A foreign national, yes, your Honor.  Then we have in the last few days been contacted by organizations, Gypsies, Roma and Sinti organizations who are offended by the film, believe that the film is discriminatory against the Gypsies and their people and I believe that might be sufficient to do it, but at this moment in time .  .  . it is foreign nationals so far in this complaint.  As to Americans, it would be American Gypsies who were offended by this film.

JUDGE PRESKA:  We don’t have any yet, though.

MR. FAGAN:  We don’t yet.  .  .  .

JUDGE PRESKA:At the minimum, we agree there’s no 1985 claim here as the complaint is drafted today, right?

MR. FAGAN:  Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE PRESKA:Withdrawn, right?

MR. FAGAN:  Yes, your Honor.

Edward Davis Fagan, himself, could be a character in a movie. 

© Steven B. Sarshik.  All rights reserved.  The material on the site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used, except with prior written permission.