|
|
|
John Landis not Thrilled with Michael Jackson
Legal Business |
2009/01/29 09:08
|
Michael Jackson cheated director John Landis of his 50% share of profits from the Thriller video for the past 4 years, Landis' representative Levitsky Productions claims in Superior Court. In a separate complaint, Landis sued Jackson and Nederlander of California, which allegedly offered Jackson $400,000 for dramatic rights to the video.
Levitsky says Landis directed and co-wrote the 14-minute Thriller Video and Documentary in 1983 and is contractually entitled to a half share of the profits.
It claims Jackson and his defunct corporation, Optimum Productions, have refused to provide accounting or pay royalties for the past 4 years. The claim includes profits from Thriller video-related rights to video games, toys, comic books and DVDs.
In his complaint against Jackson, Optimum and Nederlander, Landis says Jackson did not have his permission to license the dramatic rights, for which Jackson allegedly has received, or will receive, $400,000 from Nederlander.
Landis and Levitsky are both represented by Miles Feldman with Liner Yankelevitz amp; Sunshine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girl Says Officer Forced Her into Oral Sex
Court Watch News |
2009/01/28 10:12
|
A girl says an Ulster County deputy sheriff forced her to perform oral sex on him under threat of arrest. She claims Ulster County knew deputy Jeffrey Geskie was unfit to be an officer as citizens had sued him and the county twice before for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts.
nbsp; nbsp; The girl, now 18, says she was sunbathing legally in Marbletown at 2 p.m. on June 2, 2008, when Geskie, in uniform, approached her, claiming she was trespassing. She says he searched her purse, and claimed to find drug paraphernalia.
nbsp; nbsp; The complaint continues: Deputy Sheriff Geskie then indicated in sum or substance that if the plaintiff did not remove her clothes, she would be arrested, placed in prison and he would notify her prospective college institution of her arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. Deputy Geskie recorded the name of her future college in a note. Deputy Geskie, while in full uniform and with his service weapon on his person indicated to the plaintiff that, in sum or substance, that she had three options:
(1) go to prison and have her school informed of her arrest;
(2) perform oral sex upon him; or
(3) have sexual intercourse with him.
Deputy Geskie further ordered the plaintiff that upon the removal of all of her clothes, she was [to] spin around for him several times so that he could see all of her exposed, naked body. Under color of law and under direct threat of incarceration and imprisonment, Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie did force the plaintiff to have oral sex with him including ejaculating in the plaintiff's mouth and face. Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie forced her to perform oral sex while he was wearing his uniform and under the threat of incarceration.
The complaint adds: On two separate occasions, Deputy Sheriff Geskie, the County of Ulster and the Ulster County Sheriff's Department have been sued by members of the public for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts. (See attached Exhibit 'A,' Boos v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 1:07-cv-00828 filed on 8/15/07, and Exhibit 'B,' Krom v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 06-CV-0760 filed on June 19, 2006).
Upon information and belief, following the previous complaints against Deputy Sheriff Geskie, no action was taken by the municipality, County of Ulster, or the Ulster County Sheriff's Department. More egregious is the fact that the Ulster County Sheriff's Department awarded Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie meritorious service awards for 2005, 2006 and 2007 despite having knowledge of his previous unlawful acts against citizens and the public at large. Said awards condoned the acts of Deputy Geskie.
nbsp; nbsp; She demands $15 million. She is represented in Federal Court by Joseph O'Connor of Kingston. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mass. court orders Madoff associate to testify
Headline Court News |
2009/01/27 14:24
|
| A Superior Court judge has ordered an associate of alleged Ponzi scheme mastermind Bernard Madoff to testify before Massachusetts securities regulators after he failed to appear at previous hearings.pLawyers for Robert Jaffe had argued that Secretary of State William Galvin's attorneys did not have the authority to require Jaffe to testify./ppSuperior Court Judge Stephen Neel on Monday ruled that Jaffe must comply with the subpoena by Feb. 6./ppGalvin says Jaffe brought Massachusetts investors to Madoff and that those clients lost millions of dollars when his alleged $50 billion scheme collapsed./ppJaffe has said he had no knowledge of Madoff's actions and he was also a victim. His attorney, Stanley Arkin, said he was considering an appeal./ppWe are going to evaluate today's ruling and are considering an appeal in this very important issue of fundamental law, said Jaffe spokesman Elliot Sloane./ppGalvin said he's eager to move ahead with the investigation of Madoff's actions in Massachusetts. He said residents who lost money identified Jaffe as a conduit to Madoff./pp(Jaffe) has claimed he's a victim. If he's a victim he needs to tell us about it, Galvin said. We know he was the person who brought investors to Mr. Madoff. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules for worker over retaliation
Headline Topics |
2009/01/27 14:23
|
| Workers who cooperate with their employers' internal investigations of discrimination may not be fired in retaliation for implicating colleagues or superiors, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday.pThe justices held that a longtime school system employee in Tennessee can pursue a civil rights lawsuit over her firing./ppThe court voted to reverse the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to employees who merely cooperate with an internal probe rather than complain on their own or take part in a formal investigation./ppThe Cincinnati-based court was alone among federal appeals courts in its narrow view of the civil rights law, which was already understood to bar retaliation against people who complained about harassment and other discrimination./ppThe question here is whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation. We hold that it does, Justice David Souter said for the court./ppVicky Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
