The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Main: Heads up for June 6th judgment on C. Tolkien's lawsuit.

The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Main:
Heads up for June 6th judgment on C. Tolkien's lawsuit.

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 5 2008, 4:05pm

Views: 3062

Heads up for June 6th judgment on C. Tolkien's lawsuit.

Quote

<snip>
However, at a hearing on June 6 Christopher Tolkien will ask a Californian judge to back his claim that he can “terminate” film rights to The Hobbit. He is said to be furious with the New Line studio, which earned Ł3 billion from the Rings trilogy. Tolkien’s lawyers accuse New Line of “accounting chicanery”. Warner Bros, owner of New Line, declined to comment.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/...m/article3999008.ece

So place your bets.
I think the court will find NL in breach of contract, and they should pay what is owed to the Tolkien Trust.

May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
~~~~~~~~Gandalf~~~~~~~
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!

grammaboodawg
Immortal

Jun 5 2008, 4:38pm

Views: 2026

Absolutely, they should pay.

What Tolkien has had to go through with NL is balderdash! x 2!!

Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!

"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."

TORn's Observations Lists

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 5 2008, 4:51pm

Views: 1987

I wonder...

If this means that Christopher Tolkien will have to appear in court himself, or if his representatives can appear in his place? I can see the poparotsy now, staking out the best place for the picture. Cool

merklynn
Lorien

Jun 5 2008, 5:38pm

Views: 2087

So where are we now?

So are we back where we were a couple of weeks ago, when Times Online first published their article about this full of factual errors and false assumptions? What could we really draw out of the article in the end? That the law suit thing was still moving along. This latest article gives us a date but adds nothing new.

However, it does reiterrate this right to cancel the Hobbit films. So is the Times Online still full of baloney, or do we need to consider that yes, TH films are possibly going to get shut down before they really get off the ground?

Comment anyone?

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 5 2008, 5:47pm

Views: 1976

I only posted...

the paragraph about the time and place of the lawsuit nothing else in the article.

merklynn
Lorien

Jun 5 2008, 5:53pm

Views: 1947

Ok.... //

Elven
Valinor

Jun 5 2008, 5:54pm

Views: 1997

It is not the only part of the Suit & the Courts determination ....

The Plantiffs - which are more than the 'Tolkien Family' are asking the courts to determine certain parts of the contract "The Agreements" - which New Line Katja defends saying that what the Planiffs are asking for within 'The Agreements', do not exist.
One of these determinations is the right to terminate the Rights to the films and any further benefit from past, present or future film exploitations - which in turn will activate judgement on #3 below.

Plaintiffs look for the following judgement of outcome:
1. For compensatory damages in eccess of $150 million dollars;
2. For punative damages in an amount which, considering New Lines enormous worldwide wealth and income, is sufficient to punish New Line , to set an example and deter further such wrongful behaviour;
3. For a declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to terminate and cancel all future rights of New Line under the 1969 Agreements, including without limitation New Line's right to produce, distribute, and/or exploit future films based upon the Trilogy and/or the Films, as well as all rights to produce, distribute and/or exploit films based on The Hobbit, and without predjudice to the plaintiffs right to recover damages or to any other right or remedy of plaintiffs;
4. For a declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to receive 7.5% of the Gross Receipts (after the Artificial Payment Levy is reached) as to any films based upon Professor Tolkiens four literary works;
5. In the alternative, to the extent that the Court were to adopt any meaning of the 1969 Agreements contrary to the contentions of plaintiffs, that the 1969 Agreements be reformed to provide the meaning represented by New Lines predecessor-in-interest and understod by plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest and/or the intent of the parties to the 1969 Agreement; 6. For an accounting between defendants and plaintiffs;
7. For payments over to plaintiffs of the amount due from defendants as a result of the accounting;
8. For imposition of a constructive trust over all monies due and owing to plaintiffs, and any benefits and income derived therefrom by New Line;
9. For intrest at the maximum legal rate; and
10. for costs of suit and such other and further relief as the courts shall deem proper.

My thoughts ...
I think the Courts will determine in the Planiffs favour that the Agreements (Contract/s) are valid and that further legal action will proceed to determine the other aspects of the Suit.

I think tomorrows judgement will favour the plantiffs 80/20.

Cheers Elven x

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

(This post was edited by Ataahua on Jun 6 2008, 12:53am)

Smeagirl/Girllum
Gondor

Jun 5 2008, 7:50pm

Views: 1950

As Kristin Thompson wrote on her blog,

"this is probably a tempest in a teapot." So CT is speaking to or presenting something to the judge on June 6? That still tells us nothing about when the judge will issue a ruling. This is probably a very complex case, and there are going to be a lot more motions filed and other court proceedings going on before it's all done. Just look at how long the PJ - New Line dispute was going on before they settled.

I take all media coverage of lawsuits with a grain of salt. Legalese can be hard to understand at the best of times, and I'm sure even more so if you're trying to read something quickly to finish an article before deadline.

"He is a small thing, you say, this Gollum? Small, but great in mischief."

Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator

Jun 5 2008, 8:15pm

Views: 1946

Judgment?

A US lawyer might know this answer better than me, but in the jurisdictions I do know about it's incredibly rare to get judgment of the day of the hearing. Much more likely that the case will be argued and the judge will go away and think about it for at least a few days.

Figwit Still Lives!

Calling for a Figwit cameo in The Hobbit since May 2008

Nickey08
Bree

Jun 5 2008, 9:26pm

Views: 1920

Bottom line...

In Reply To

TH films are possibly going to get shut down before they really get off the ground?

Comment anyone?

That is a very REAL possibility.
Mad

http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 5 2008, 9:40pm

Views: 1975

No judgment, not even a hearing, really

As I have repeatedly stated before in other threads here, nothing substantial is going to happen tomorrow. It is not a hearing, it is a standard case management conference, in which the the judge will talk to the lawyers about where the case is going. In all likelihood there won't even be a trial date set. At most, the court might order the parties to mediation, since both sides indicated a willingness to mediate in their case management conference statements. CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN WILL NOT BE THERE!!!!!11 NO SUBSTANTIVE DECISIONS ABOUT ANY ASPECTS REGARDING THE CASE WILL BE DECIDED!

There is a hearing scheduled for June 24 (which the court wants to move to June 27) on New Line's demurrer and Motion to Strike. But those motions only involve two causes of action, one for fraud, and one for breach of a fiduciary duty. Even if New Line wins those motions, the only tangible result would be that they would be safe from punitive damages. It would have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether the plaintiffs would have the right to stop The Hobbit movies.

Here is the real kicker. Based on the language of the 1969 agreements, the plaintiffs would only have the opportunity to gain that right on a final determination by the court that New Line breached the agreements. Which means that there will be no decision on that issue until the case goes to trial, which is likely to be at least a year away and perhaps as much as several years. And then that decision can be appealed, which could delay things for another couple of years!

Unless a settlement is reached in the meanwhile, which would make it a moot point.

It really is disturbing to see such inaccurate reporting throughout the media (and including Kristin Thompson's blog).

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 5 2008, 9:54pm

Views: 1943

Even the CMC is postponed

Checking the court records again, it appears that the court has requested that even the case management conference scheduled for tomorrow by continued (postponed) until 6/27 so that it can be done at the same time as the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike (which makes perfect sense).

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Nickey08
Bree

Jun 5 2008, 10:16pm

Views: 1903

Thank you for posting this!

For those of us who are depending on employment out of this - it's a very important issue.

http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer

Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator

Jun 5 2008, 11:26pm

Views: 1900

Good luck!

You must so so excited at the prospects of two Hobbit films heading your way. What kind of movie work have you done so far?

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.

Ataahua's stories

Nickey08
Bree

Jun 6 2008, 12:08am

Views: 1902

...um...

Well, to answer your question, this will be technically the first film (keeping fingers crossed). I was invited down to NZ in 2006 for a different project that never panned out. I'm nervous as hell, because I'd prefer to cut my teeth on a small film. Regardless of what happens (whether I get hired or not), it's always beautiful down here, it's always interesting, and the folks here are always wonderfully sweet!
...thanks for asking...
Here's some of my work - most of it sucks:
http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer Unsure

http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer

merklynn
Lorien

Jun 6 2008, 12:49am

Views: 1854

Wow nice work!

Do you have a deviantart page? I can't stand MySpace and have a hard time navigating it. And you have my admiration for being in the movie industry and your prospective work on The Hobbit. Good luck, we will all be rooting for you! Smile

Here's hoping Miramar becomes as famaliar a name as Hollywood someday. I can dream can't I?

Nickey08
Bree

Jun 6 2008, 1:00am

Views: 1852

Thank you so much for the confidence!

If you do get the chance to come down and visit, hopefully you'll get the chance to meet Richard Taylor in person! I'm convinced he's the nicest person on the planet!
Blush

http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 6 2008, 1:06am

Views: 1885

I’m not going to pretend.......

I understand even half of this suit but, will this delay the movies that have yet to even begin to get started?

Quote

Here is the real kicker. Based on the language of the 1969 agreements, the plaintiffs would only have the opportunity to gain that right on a final determination by the court that New Line breached the agreements. Which means that there will be no decision on that issue until the case goes to trial, which is likely to be at least a year away and perhaps as much as several years. And then that decision can be appealed, which could delay things for another couple of years!

Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator

Jun 6 2008, 1:49am

Views: 1874

It's a notable point

that so many of the key people involved in Weta et al are genuinely nice people. That's got to make working there much easier when you're nostril-deep in long, intense jobs!

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 2:00am

Views: 1856

Hard To Say

New Line/Warners seems to be operating on the assumption that there will not be a problem, and I think they are on pretty solid legal grounds on that point (although I do think that they will end up agreeing to or being ordered to pay money to the plaintiffs). Is possible, however, that there will be sudden rude interruption to the festivities.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Nickey08
Bree

Jun 6 2008, 2:03am

Views: 1831

We'll see what happens in December

I've been hoping for those long hours you referred to ever since I saw the film "Frighteners" in the theater, and then "Heavenly Creatures" on video. As much as I appreciate the work and the dedication WETA has put forth towards the "Lord of the Rings" series, it's not why I'm drawn to them. You probably realize that they put that kind of dedication into EVERY project that comes to them. Whenever you watch a Wingnut film, or something that has had WETA's touch to it, a person gets the overall feeling that the people that made the film really had a s***load of fun while making it! That alone makes the movie a more enjoyable experience for the audience, rather than one that was conceived in a harsher environment.

With regards to this settlement, I certainly hope that it doesn't affect the films too badly. It would be not only a blow to the audiences around the world, but a blow to the New Zealand economy. With that said, I think I've said enough for awhile.

http://www.myspace.com/nickeydrayer

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 6 2008, 2:16am

Views: 1934

First thank you so much for helping to clarify this tangled.....

web that is the suit. Now do I understand this correctly, that tomorrows hearing may decide to postpone itself until 6/27? Which is the date for the other hearings? So that would mean no new news until 6/27 at the earliest date?
The reason I am asking is I have circled these dates on my calendar at home, for a reminder to look for the latest news on the suit.

In Reply To

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 2:22am

Views: 1843

Yes, that is essentially correct

Moreover, even if tomorrows hearing happens, which I doubt, there won't be any real news come out of it. Even the hearing scheduled for 6/27 is extremely unlikely to produce any news on the subject that we are all interested in (namely, whether the Hobbit movies could possibly be stopped).

And, you are welcome. Smile

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 6 2008, 2:30am

Views: 1829

Thank you for your patience

and your willingness to explain things in words that I can get my head around. Smile

Woodyend
Gondor

Jun 6 2008, 2:33am

Views: 1825

Thanks Elven for posting this info.

I think your 80/20 is spot on, and fair to both parties.

overlithe64
Rivendell

Jun 6 2008, 4:17am

Views: 1643

Yikes

Is that terminate all rights or just NL's option...would it simply revert back to Saul Zaentz? Or are they taking our precious away completely....

I know they deserve to be paid, but come on we need the films more than they need the cash....sigh.

Best case scenario...as I have mentioned before...NL gets booted out all together leaving us crook free....and the rights revert to Miramax and Saul...Film gets made and NL gets cast into the fires of mount doom, never to rear their cheating heads again. second choice...NL has to pay through the nose and we still get our films.

oooo I sound bitter. Evil

I am not obsessed... If I am, I am in excellent company.

(This post was edited by overlithe64 on Jun 6 2008, 4:19am)

Elven
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 4:32am

Views: 1646

Ah yes, I see where the confusion

lies here ... I used the word judgement. I dont think they will be making any judgements on this - as I have posted in earlier threads - maybe the 'start to determining' would have been a better word - but Ive also made note elsewhere that this isn't short term - and I don't think anything would be decided tomorrow - but I also dont think it will remain stagnent, and I think the Plantiffs will press ahead. Warners are defering to me - not looking to have anything determined.

Its possibly why pre-production starts next year as well - the Plantiffs (TE & Co.) are asking to be reimbursed for any monies gained from the upcoming movies as well - there's no point spending money or gaining it - if this project maybe halted in mid flight. That gives me the impression that possibly Warners are confident - but taking no more risks than is necessary - they had to get the film up and running - as did the Plantiffs have to get their case up and running - a time collision of sorts.

I dont know whats going to happen - it just feels like a volcanno is about to errupt over this at some stage.
Possibly there will be some great disruption to the films - I cant see them not going ahead though, even if they are delayed by a couple of years.
I have noticed that the reports bashing Christopher have died down -

We wait and see.
Thanks woodyend.
Cheers
Elven

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 5:08am

Views: 1622

Yes

In Reply To

I take all media coverage of lawsuits with a grain of salt. Legalese can be hard to understand at the best of times, and I'm sure even more so if you're trying to read something quickly to finish an article before deadline.

And even more if journalists try to squeeze a complicated legal case into a few lines - the possibilities for misunderstandings are good then ...

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator

Jun 6 2008, 5:11am

Views: 1636

Thanks, Voronwe

I used to be a legal journalist (ie a journalist writing about the law, and generally litigation) but that was in the UK so I'm not very au fait with the technicalities of proceedings in the US. I am however used to the mainstream media getting it all wrong on a regular basis. Gets me riled even now!

Figwit Still Lives!

Calling for a Figwit cameo in The Hobbit since May 2008

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 5:16am

Views: 1635

Want to add my own thanks to Voronwe

Lawyer language is bad enough to understand in my own language, but in a foreign language it's even worse, so I am glad that someone can explain it in a way even *I* am able to understand! Thanks, Voronwe! Smile

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 6:17am

Views: 1638

It is my pleasure

To WoodyEnd, Nickey08, Peredhil Lover, Eledhwen, and everyone else here, it is my pleasure! I am happy to be able to help interpret these complicated proceedings, particutlarly given the horribly inaccurate reporting that the media is doing. And if I say anything that is confusing, don't be afraid to ask for a clarification.

Smile

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Elven
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 6:20am

Views: 1650

Thank-you Voronwe ...

Thankyou for all your help with the clarification on the case! Cheers!! Smile

Quote

I get the impression that this case (regardless of tomorrows outcome if mediation is ordered and if that mediation takes place) would go ahead from the plantiffs point of view so that further down the track, 'The Agreements' are determined upon - otherwise Im not seeing what the point of the case would be - what do you feel?
Im not sure of the order of the way things are progressing. I thought it would be the other way around - for the Courts to determine the contracts validity first, and to then determine if the charge of fraud was applicable?

Quote

There is a hearing scheduled for June 24 (which the court wants to move to June 27) on New Line's demurrer and Motion to Strike. But those motions only involve two causes of action, one for fraud, and one for breach of a fiduciary duty. Even if New Line wins those motions, the only tangible result would be that they would be safe from punitive damages. It would have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether the plaintiffs would have the right to stop The Hobbit movies.

The above Motion to Strike - in itself, seems a case in itself - is that right?

Quote

Thats possibly why the Plantiffs have included the past, present and future exploitation of the movies gross profit reciept revenues in their complaint? So that if the movie is made they will still get paid.
So can the Courts determine which way and what procedures they will tackle first?
Or have New Line decided to take this avenue of approach (Motion to Strike) on these other issues so as to buy time?

Quote

Unless a settlement is reached in the meanwhile, which would make it a moot point.

Do you think Warners/New Line are being confident - or brazen?

Thanks for all your help!
Cheers Elven

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 7:12am

Views: 1698

Let Me Try To Clarify Further

Hi Elven!

Quote

Thankyou for all your help with the clarification on the case! Cheers!! Smile

As I said before, it is my pleasure! The folks here are so appreciative; it is very welcoming!

Quote

Yes, you are right on the money here. The main point of the case is to interpret the agreements, and whether New Line has breached them.

Quote

Im not sure of the order of the way things are progressing. I thought it would be the other way around - for the Courts to determine the contracts validity first, and to then determine if the charge of fraud was applicable?

Let me back up for second, and pedantically explain a bit about our legal system. Forgive me if this is getting to fundamental, but I think it might be helpful for people. Our legal system is divided into two parts, criminal and civil. The purpose of criminal law is punish individuals (including corporations, sometimes) for wrongdoing. The purpose of civil law is to try to make the individual who was wronged (including a corporation) "whole"; in other words to compensate them for the harm that they have suffered. This is a civil case, so it falls into the latter category. Civil cases themselves are broken into two categories; contract law and tort law. Contract law involves the breach of an agreement between two parties; the only damages that can be collected in contract cases are the economic damages that the breach of the agreement caused. Tort cases include, among other things, assault and battery, negligence, and fraud cases. In Tort cases, the plaintiff sometimes is entitled to more damages than just the economic damages, including "punitive damages" if it can be proven that the defendant acted with malice or oppression or fraud. In order to prove a case of fraud, it must be proven that the defendant made some misrepresentation that they knew or should have known was false, which the plaintiff relied upon, causing the plaintiff some harm. Normally it is difficult to allege fraud in a contract case unless it can be shown that the fraud induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. Here that is certainly not the case. The plaintiffs are alleging that New Line committed fraud by misrepresenting the profit figures. New Line is arguing that even if they did misrepresent the profits (which they deny), the plaintiffs can't argue that they relied on those representations in any way that harmed them. In other words, the contract already existed, and its terms were set, so there can't be any valid cause of action for fraud, even if the plaintiff's allegations were proven to be true. I think that is a pretty strong argument. The other argument that New Line is making in its demurrer is regarding the plaintiff's cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is usually some special relationship that exist for instance between a broker and his client, or a banker, or a trustee. I can't see what kind of fiduciary duty the plaintiffs are alleging existed between them and New Line, so I think New Line has a good argument here as well.

Quote

The above Motion to Strike - in itself, seems a case in itself - is that right?

The Motion to Strike is simply an attempt to remove the request for punitive damages. It is essentially an extension of the demurrer. They are arguing that since neither the fraud nor breach of fiduciary duty causes of action are valid, they are not liable for punitive damages.

Quote

Yes, I think that the Plaintiffs' real goal is to both get paid what they are owed for the previous movies, and make sure that they get paid what they are due for the future movies.

Quote

So can the Courts determine which way and what procedures they will tackle first?

No, not really. That is more up to the parties.

Quote

Or have New Line decided to take this avenue of approach (Motion to Strike) on these other issues so as to buy time?

No, I think there main goal there is to limit their potential liability.

Quote

Do you think Warners/New Line are being confident - or brazen?

Thus far I think they are being realistic and reasonable, whereas the Tolkiens lawyers are really being over the top (which is part of the reason why Christopher has gotten such bad press recently.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Elven
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 8:52am

Views: 1656

Oh! Interesting!! ...

Thankyou once more for all the time you have given over to this - its wonderful!!
I'm just adding what I see as being tackled at the moment from your summery Smile

Quote

In order to prove a case of fraud, it must be proven that the defendant made some misrepresentation that they knew or should have known was false, which the plaintiff relied upon, causing the plaintiff some harm. Normally it is difficult to allege fraud in a contract case unless it can be shown that the fraud induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. Here that is certainly not the case. The plaintiffs are alleging that New Line committed fraud by misrepresenting the profit figures.

This is interesting because I think the plantiffs are basing the fraud on their own Periodical Statements recieved (and which are still being sent) - and what already has been discovered through the partial audit which was done in the last case which involved PJ ... (the below is my interpretation - from the FiindLaw article) ... and I find that the plantiffs have been charged millions of dollars as well ... This list below has already been determined by the courts from the First Audit?

In 2002 New Line started to send out the Periodical Participation statements. The statements, claimed by accounted methods, said that no one was owed any money. They periodically still send these out to the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs complained that the accounting methology was not right. New Line ignored and avoided the complaints made to them.

Ultimately in 2005 (3 years later) they allowed a partial audit of film 1; Fellowship of The Ring. In doing this they blocked and would not release certain documents pertaining to the reciepts and accounting methods used, they delayed and denied plaintiffs any access to documents to complete the audit properly. They defiantly refused any audits on film 2 and 3.

The partial audit of film 1 revealed ...
Substantial understating of Gross Reciepts on the films.
Understated and undisclosed revenue on video and ancillaries domestc and international - by hundred of millions of dollars.
Failing to calculate into the Gross Reciepts revenue and revenue derived from inhouse sales and distributions of their own or affiliates.
Substantially overstating costs and payments and bonuses to people.
Improperly claiming expenses - such as revenue due by contracts (zaentz and Miramax) as expenses.
Claiming receipt profits paid, as expenditures.
Claiming costs they never spent.
Forward accounting - claiming costs they hadnt paid or had intention to pay.
Failing to pay plaintiffs under the terms of the Agreements.
Falsely accounting revenues for the agreements to plaintiffs.
Charging Plaintiffs millions of dollars in 'over budget' penalties, phantom interest charges.
Allocating costs between films.
Not taking tax breaks and subsidies they were entitled to.
Failing to comply with terms of agreements made.
Failing to pay people.
Failing to supply documentation and destroying documents relaevant to the process of assessing the revenue generated.
Failure to properly determine the amounts of renevue owing to the plaintiffs.

Quote

New Line is arguing that even if they did misrepresent the profits (which they deny), the plaintiffs can't argue that they relied on those representations in any way that harmed them.

*can I laugh here* Wink

- sorry - its the part that says 'even if they did misrepresent the profits' ... see list above ....

On another note here: Due to PJ's case being settled out of court - do the above findings, regarding the Accounting Practises and the Periodical statements - hold as much weight then in this case? Or can they be used to secure an audit for films 2 & 3 even if the things on the list are not used as evidence of fraudulent practises (relating to this case)?

The planifs are saying:
NewLine, through its accounting personel and Senior Management have misrepresented and knowingly sent out the Participation Statements the plaintiffs have recieved, which concealed facts and were purposely a misrepresentation of the facts.

Each of the Participation Statements are false and fraudulent. They repeatedly reflect an innacurate revenue by means of innacurate accounting of costs and production charges which changes the Artificial Payment Levy. New Line aslo are aware that documents were purposely destroyed.

Quote

In other words, the contract already existed, and its terms were set, so there can't be any valid cause of action for fraud, even if the plaintiff's allegations were proven to be true. I think that is a pretty strong argument.

Claimed by the plaintiffs:

New Line has not held their contractual obligations set out in their Zaentz/New Line Agreements, nor have they in turn fulfilled their contractual obligations to United Artists.
NL have not been faithful to thier obligations or acted harmlessly to plaintiffs as stated in the contract.
NL continue to breech their obligations and conditions set out in the Agreements.
They have deprived plaintiffs of money owed and have cost the Plaintiffs money - (an amount to be determined).

Quote

The other argument that New Line is making in its demurrer is regarding the plaintiff's cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is usually some special relationship that exist for instance between a broker and his client, or a banker, or a trustee. I can't see what kind of fiduciary duty the plaintiffs are alleging existed between them and New Line, so I think New Line has a good argument here as well.

Would this be something regarded as fiduciary?
It may also have something to do with the TE plantiffs being a charity ... as to the income for charitable purposes?
I also feel that not only are the plantiffs trying to get a foothold on this for themselves - but possibly for other cases which, if the case (in full - or partially) goes in their favour, it opens the door for others which have not been paid - which has been noted to date as well.

The plaintiffs property must also be 'looked after' by New Line, and the relationship between parties should be manageable and respectful.
New Line has breeched it fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, which in turn has damaged the plaintiffs by having no regard to the plaintiffs rights in the matter.
The plaintiffs will assess the amount of damages and will seek to recover this amount when true figures come to light. These amounts are to deter New line from continuous behaviour of the kind alleged in the future.

I am not expecting you to answer to all this - but could you let me know if I've got a handle on this yet Smile

Thanks for clarifying some of the terminology too - that has helped alot.

Cheers Elven x

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

grammaboodawg
Immortal

Jun 6 2008, 9:17am

Views: 1626

Geez. Thanks for smoothing out the wrinkles

I just can't get my head around this stuff, but your explanation makes it clearer for me.

You'd think now that NL has essentially been absorbed by Warner, they'd want to resolve the issue and settle the dispute; not only for pr, but because it's the "right" thing to do. The thought of Christopher Tolkien (and the entire family) having this aggravation continue for several years (or even one) adds insult to injury, imho.

Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!

"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."

TORn's Observations Lists

Lost Hobbit
Rivendell

Jun 6 2008, 12:30pm

Views: 1625

Sad

So sad to hear all this..Don't want Christopher to stop Hobbit. We appreciate everything he did, but he can't just smash everything. Who can we rely on? Maybe some of his relatives who can tell him it's not a good thing for Tolkien fans to destroy their hopes for a movie.

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Jun 6 2008, 1:51pm

Views: 1615

Um...

since the producers haven't paid the Tolkiens the millions of dollars they're owed for The Lord of the Rings, why should they be allowed to make The Hobbit before they do so?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Jun. 2-8 for "Flotsam and Jetsam".

Aelfwine
Rivendell

Jun 6 2008, 2:29pm

Views: 1653

It would be New Line's fault, and no one else's

IF the Hobbit movie(s) get stopped, it will be due solely to New Line's fraudulent attempts to avoid paying what they owe to The Tolkien Trust.* Put the blame where it lies.

* Just as, earlier, NL made a fraudulent attempt to avoid paying Peter Jackson what he was owed. I remember how sympathetic everyone here was to Jackson; where is the similar sympathy for The Tolkien Trust (which, after all, is a charitable organization, not a private individual)?

Carl F. Hostetter

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 3:21pm

Views: 1617

Yes, You Have a Good Handle On What the Allegations Are

Hi Elven. I'm not going to respond to your post piece by piece; I think that would end up getting too confusing. Generally speaking, you do have a good handle on what the allegations are.

The issue with the fraud cause of action is not whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded (argued) that New Line has made misrepresentations; they certainly have (and I think that that allegation is likely to be supported by the evidence, although that is irrelevant at this stage of the game). The real issue is whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that they relied on those misrepresentations to their harm. They are arguing that New Line's misrepresentations caused them to "refrain from taking action to protect their interests." The problem with that argument is two-fold. First, there is no indication that the plaintiffs ever believed the representations, and in fact they have been arguing about this since shortly after FOTR came out. But that is an issue of fact which shouldn't determine the demurrer. More important at this stage is the fact that they HAVE taken effective steps to protect their interests by filing this action. Even if they could successfully argue that the misrepresentation delayed their filing of the action, I don't see what harm they can argue that caused them, since they would still be entitled to whatever damages the breach of the contract caused, plus applicable interest.

Looking at the Complaint again, however, there is one allegation that I think they can rely on to successfully support the fraud cause of action, and ironically they have Peter Jackson to thank for it! At the very end of the fraud cause of action, they allege "on information and belief" that New Line has "destroyed documents to prevent the discovery of the true facts favorable to the plaintiffs." This is a direct reference to Jackson's suit, in which New Line was sanctioned for failing to produce documents. The plaintiffs may be able to successfully argue that the delay caused by the misrepresentations allowed New Line to destroy evidence, thus making it impossible to determine the true extent of the breach. That doesn't really seem to be their argument, though. There argument seems to be that the misrepresentations allowed New Line to retain millions of dollars that they were owed, and that that harmed them. I've never heard of such an argument being successful in converting a breach of contract case into a fraud case, but I haven't researched the question thoroughly, and more importantly I am familiar with California law, and this case is to be determined under New York law. The same basic legal principles should apply however.

As for the breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs allege that a fiduciary duty exists because the relationship between the parties is "a long-standing relationship of trust and confidence." I just don't see that has being sufficient to give rise to a fiduciary duty. But the court might want to give the plaintiffs and opportunity to expand on that. We'll see.

It is fairly rare for a cause of action to be thrown out on a demurrer, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened here. But the case will still go on.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Jun 6 2008, 3:22pm)

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 3:31pm

Views: 1618

It Doesn't Quite Work That Way

In Reply To

since the producers haven't paid the Tolkiens the millions of dollars they're owed for The Lord of the Rings, why should they be allowed to make The Hobbit before they do so?

N.E.B., the Tolkiens aren't actually asking to stop The Hobbit movies while it is determined how much money they are owed for LOTR. Pursuant to the language of the Agreements, they don't have the right to do that. The Agreements specifically provide that are not entitled to any kind of revocation until there has been a "final determination" by a court that there was a material monetary breach of the agreement. So they can't obtain any right to stop The Hobbit films until a final determination has been made that New Line owes them money for LOTR.

I don't think that there is any chance that a court is going to put the brakes on a project that will already we well on the way by the time any such final determination is made.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Jun 6 2008, 3:56pm

Views: 1598

Thanks for clarifying. //

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Jun. 2-8 for "Flotsam and Jetsam".

Elven
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 4:28pm

Views: 1610

There's a movie in this ya know ... LOL!! ...

The Ultimate Stand and Deliver ...

Thanks once more!
I can only assume there are documents which haven't seen the light of day - and some which will never see the light of day - I'm sure both sides have them - which will draw out as this progresses. I think the plantiffs are going in with as much ammunition as they can - possibly its the reason they waited so long as well.

I know there wasn't much said on Peter case, and how it came about that New Line ended up paying Peter ... but after thinking about some of the claims, especially those where New Line did some 'forward accounting' ie: made claims for spending on receipts and payments that they did not pay - I wonder if through that audit there was a 'forward payment made out to Peter, which was never recieved, or something like that - a tally of reciepts. The Plantiffs claim that New Line is with-holding money, and in doing so are acting as a surrogate trust. Now it would be interesting to know if within those receipts (from the last audit) they found payments which have never been made to the plantiffs.
Im just trying to get my head around the idea of why the plantiffs see NL as an involuntary trust - or holder of this money which the plantiffs need to calculate that they are owed. Yet on the money side of things, it seems also that NL have now been downsized and 'scattered' (both staff & paperwork - both critical to the case). I wonder if this downsizing also see's their Market Value drop - so NL on paper, is not worth as much as it was. Im assuming this was a strategy of consideration on Warners behalf. Though this being a matter where individuals might become liable personally, I have the impression that they couldn't wait to shakes Shaye and Lynnes hands and wave them off.
Wonder which island they're hiding out on? Smile

We will no doubt get some news soon enough.
Im just hoping it will be a reputable report if it comes through the media.

Thanks Voronwe!
Cheers Elven

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

Sunflower
Valinor

Jun 6 2008, 10:36pm

Views: 1592

Precisely.

I stand by my earlier argument that NL/Warner's might be far less confident about this case than they used to be, simply b/c the Estate has proved to be far more resilent and stubborn. The effective destruction of NL has not had the desired effect; (making them "just go away") in fact just the opposite. And that the Defendants (the Studios) are using tactics like the Demurrer and Motion to Strike (for starters) to delay the case--if they can't get it thrown out--so that the project will move forward as much as possible, and the judge will see how much far the project has come and take a "things are now in motion that cannot be undone" argument and pressure the Estate to settle out of court for a much-reduced sum, which ideally, from their POV, CT would take, just as Jackson settled for a far less sum than what he asked for in his suit.

Unfortunately for the Studios, CT has nothing to lose in a sense, as Jackson did. He was eager to move forward with other projects and get the Hobbit finally underway, and he was willing to make concessions as long as he was granted a set of conditions of his own--involdement as Exec Prodcuer and the right to pick his own director, Final Cut and complete creative control on the films, etc, (I'm guessing.) Which NL was too happy to grant if he would just GO AWAY. Which, once he settled, he did. The Estate, on the other hand, is not offering a carrot with the stick (and why should they? And what would they grant? They're a charity. And they have nothing to offer, and why should they? It was they who were stiffed.) So from the Studio's POV there is nothing to bargain with, and no quarter to give (in a fighting sense.) And as for media interpretation, even though CT may not interpret it this way--he is merely acting on behalf of his affairs and concerns, which lie far outside Hollywood--he is representing the "presecuted creative type" similar to a striking writer or actor, from the Studio POV. And he is being treated just as contemptuously.

I feel that this case may turn out to be one of the most important Hollywood court battles since Olivia De Havilland successfully won her landmark battle to free herself from an oppressive Studio system that locked her into a contract to complete films she did not wish to. Many argue that that case was the beginning of the end of the Studio System of the golden era and ultimately led to its breakup. If CT was just asking for monies from LOTR that would be bad enough. But asking for profits from the upcoming films...if he won this, from the Studios' POV it would set a horrible precident, in that in the future, "creative types" could sue their studios for creative accounting abuses--which are part of the system going back to the beginning of Hollywood-- and win. It would open the door to a potential flood of lawsuits from "abused creative types"...again, from their POV. Which would be like opening Pandora's Box. So that is why I (sadly) feel that NL/Warners will NOT back down...there is too much at stake. It is a philisophical thing, and all about studio power., and the underpinnings of the way business is done by the studios. And the very high profile of the case makes it all the more dicey. The ramifications are HUGE.

What's 7.5 % of 2 billion? Some $150 million dollars? And that's just box office, theatrical returns. That's not counting ancillary profits, merchandise, potential profits from DVD's etc. Which could be a whole 'nother case in itself.

So that is why I am following this with such apprehension. I honesty don't see where it will end.

BTW.....I want to add my thnaks to the chorus! Voronwe, you're a peach! Kristen Thompson should see this thread!

(This post was edited by Sunflower on Jun 6 2008, 10:43pm)

Beren
Bree

Jun 7 2008, 12:09pm

Views: 1557

your answer is exactly what i was thinking!

Thanks Carl! Finally saying the correct thing... I always find it strange how the media can leave out some of the most important facts. It is indeed 'Tolkien Trust' versus 'New Line' and the Tolkien Trust is not 'only Christopher Tolkien' and is a 'charitable organization'... which means no profit for the Tolkien family, but profit for those in need! If the Hobbit movies get's stopped then only New Line's greed is to blame!

In Reply To

'It is fulfilled. Even now a Silmaril is in my hand.' - tolkienlibrary.com

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 7 2008, 3:35pm

Views: 1554

Not True That It Means No Profit for the Tolkien Family

I'm sorry to keep throwing a wet blanket on people's cherished beliefs, but it simply isn't true that Christopher and the other family members are suing solely on behalf of the charitiable Tolkien Trust. They are suing both in their capacity as trustees of that trust, and in their capacity as trustees of the "J.R.R. Tolkien 1967 Discretionary Settlement" which is a private discretionary trust, "whose beneficiaries are descendents of J.R.R. Tolkien." How any proceeds would be split between the Tolkien Trust and the Tolkien Discretionary Settlement I don't know, but if it all were to go to the Trust, there would be no need for them to specify that they are suing in their capacity as trustees of the Discretionary Settlement.

It really would behoove people to check their facts before they get too high on their horses.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Jun 7 2008, 3:54pm

Views: 1552

Oh, behoove!

As ever, your sharp eye for the details is much appreciated. To me it doesn't matter, though: whether New Line cheated Tolkien's heirs or a charitable organization, they should pay. Aelfwine's comparison to the Peter Jackson suit is apt. However, I take exception to this part of Aelfwine's statement:

Quote

I remember how sympathetic everyone here was to Jackson; where is the similar sympathy for The Tolkien Trust...

On these boards, there were about as many people grumbling about Peter Jackson's greed then as about Christopher Tolkien's greed now --wrongly in both cases, by my lights-- and I think the consensus on TORN in both instances has been that New Line is at fault.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Jun. 2-8 for "Flotsam and Jetsam".

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 7 2008, 5:50pm

Views: 1542

I Agree Completely

In Reply To

Yes, I agree completely. I have no objection at all to the Tolkien family and the publishers filing this lawsuit, and I believe that in all liklihood New Line wronged them (as they did Jackson, as well as, perhaps most objectionably, some of the lesser known actors that participated in the films). My guess is that the biggest obstacle to settlement at this point isn't agreeing to a monetary figure for the breach of the agreement as to the LOTR films as much as it is agreeing to a formula to ensure that the plaintiffs are paid what they are owed for the new films without having to have repeat performance.

Edited to add: I also want to reiterate that I find the media campaign to malign Christopher Tolkien disgusting and unconscionable.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Jun 7 2008, 5:54pm)

Elven
Valinor

Jun 7 2008, 6:11pm

Views: 1521

Hear! Hear!! //

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

Sunflower
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 12:30am

Views: 1511

I thought....

that I had sprinkled my post with enough "from the Studio's POV" statements to make it clear that what I was typing was not MY opinion, but my post was so long I guess it was confusing. My apologies. *Sigh*.

Voronwe, *of course* you are right that in reality it is the Estate that has "more to lose" than the Studios or Jackson do and did. They may have more time to wait than Jackson did; they didn't have projects moving foreward etc, but you are right, there is more at stake. It's important for them to get satisfaction here, b/c there are abuses of accounting and trust, and there are monumental Crimes against Art, which this falls under. This concerns their families' rightful income, past present and future. They don't deserve the treatment that recording artists still get (and this is so much bigger.)

As for people on here railing against PJ's greed...my mind boggles. I am well aware, for example, of certain sectors of the NZ media highlighting the seeming dual nature of PJ (hero to his actors, vs savvy businessman)....I am NOT singling out NZ BTW, it's just the first example that comes to mind! :)--but this beggars belief. Since when does an artist not deserve what he or she should be paid? He would not have bought the suit if he did not have a problem. And it was also Saul Zaentz and a LOT of the LOTR cast---as evidenced by the fact that nobody showed up for the NL 40th anniversary party. It wasn't PJ's greed; it was the fact that unlike everyone else in Hollywood who routinesly gets screwed, he actually put up a fight. They're not used to that. It comes I think of his not being of the Hollywood system and maybe not knowing better, his being an outsider. But thank God for such "recklessness", I say. IMO, his (semi) successful outcome clearly encouraged the Estate...now if would just bear some results Crazy

diedye
Grey Havens

Jun 8 2008, 4:33am

Views: 1551

This could get real ugly...

A snippet from The Times Online:

Quote

This weekend, JRR Tolkien’s family should know the date they go into legal battle against New Line. The Warner Brothers-owned studio grossed $6 billion from The Lord of the Rings and yet, according to Hollywood’s voodoo accountants, still failed to make any profit to split with the Tolkiens.

To nonlegal eyes, the case favours the Tolkiens. But there is a wild card to be played – Christopher Carrie, who claims he was molested as a boy in a Birmingham church by Tolkien’s oldest son, Father John Tolkien, a scoutmaster, who denied it all before his death in 2003.

This week, Carrie is in LA after meeting John Schulman, top lawyer at New Line-Warner Bros, about turning his religious encounters into a movie. If this were a Hollywood fantasy movie, of course, the evil studio bosses would merely leak the prospect of a film in a newspaper diary, and the clan would slink away like Gollum. But they didn’t, and $160m is at stake. So expect it to get orcish, with some big, scary lawyers on the warpath.

//

Who in their right mind would fork over any amount of money to make a movie on something that hasn't been 100% proven and opens them to even more lawsuits?!

*bangs head on desk*

Join the "Save " Campaign

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 5:49am

Views: 999

I understood

perfectly well that you wrote that form the supposed POV of the Studio, but of course, I know your opinions about how these studios usually seem to work, or at least a certain one Wink

Accounting tricks may have been rather common among all studios, but I remember that James Cameron explained somewhere that he does an audit with his studio for every movie. That NL absolutely refused that and even destroyed papers to prevent it is to me the best proof that they betrayed everyone far beyond what is common. So I am rather sympathetic for everyone who is suing NL.

Another thought: Considering the financial problems, these hidden profits were obviously not put back into NL, unlike Peter's profits who were spent to build up NZ's film industry, but vanished in the pockets of Bob Shaye and maybe a few others. Another reason why I am much more on Peter's side.

Anyway, I would be sad when the Tolkien Estate lawsuit delayed - or, worse, prevented - the Hobbit movie, but I am still of the opinion that they have every right to sue.

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 6:05am

Views: 1015

Exactly.

Quote

Who in their right mind would fork over any amount of money to make a movie on something that hasn't been 100% proven and opens them to even more lawsuits?!

*WHEN* there would have been a trial and the whole story proven true, okay. But based only on mere rumour? Fie. That's slander. And - where comes this new accusation from?? The media have not exactly the reputation of supporting the Tolkiens, anyway. I wonder if to believe that there is even one grain of truth behind this new meanness?

And anyway, it's interesting that they bring that up just now, isn't it?

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Elven
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 6:37am

Views: 999

This person ..

also has a book relating to this ...
and the comment (you know the one liners that previewers write) relating to the book comes from ... the Sunday Times.

.

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!

Khamul
Registered User

Jun 8 2008, 9:44am

Views: 1030

One small point...

A slight aside, but why would the Tolkien Trust have the ability to gain veto rights (which is being widely reported) to any future films; including The Hobbit? Yes, their 'aggreement' may entitle them to money, but NL (or Warner) do not own the rights to LotRs and The Hobbit. They have them under (soon to be expired?) license from Saul Zaentz (Tolkien Enterprises). So, although they may be successful in stopping NL from making The Hobbit (if this is even their purpose amongst all the speculation); surely the film rights are still owned by SZ, and he can still re-license film rights at some later date, to some other party. Yes/No?...

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 12:23pm

Views: 998

Well

I am no lawyer and can't judge that, but according to the complaint itself the Tolkien Estate asks only to take the rights from New Line, at least that is how I understand it:

Quote

plaintiffs are entitled to cancel and terminate all future rights of New Line under the 1969 agreements, including without limitation New Line's right to produce, distribute and/or exploit future films ...

(bold emphasis mine)

You can read the full text here:
http://news.findlaw.com/...newline21108cmp.html
(It's quite long and dry, but at least the original)

Btw, welcome!

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

(This post was edited by Peredhil lover on Jun 8 2008, 12:25pm)

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 2:52pm

Views: 1003

Yes, that is correct, but ...

Peredhil, you are exactly correct that what the plaintiffs are asking for is the right to terminate New Line's rights to make these films. Presumably, if they were to do that, the rights would then revert to Saul Zaentz. But it is very questionable to me that they would be able to obtain the right to do that. New Line holds it rights to the films as a license from Zaentz, which is essentionally a separate but related agreement. I don't think there is any legal authority to support the proposition that the plaintiffs could terminate a separate agreement between New Line and third party who is not even named as a defendant in the case (as opposed to terminating or revoking the actual 1969 Agreements themselves). This is one of the reasons that I am very suspicious as to whether there is much likelihood that the plaintiffs could be successful on this theory. I'm surprised that New Line did not include a challenge to that cause of action in its demurrer.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 6:18pm

Views: 965

Thank you for clearing that up!

My knowledge suffices to say that Tolkien Estate is not trying to prevent any Hobbit film, as it is reported often, but only the rights of New Line in particular. But I was not sure about the question if they could do even that - I simply don't know enough about this sort of stuff to be sure and am glad that you are here and always so helpful in explaining! Smile

To me, that sounds promising Wink

I truly want the movie, though I want NL to pay the Estate, too, of course.

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

diedye
Grey Havens

Jun 8 2008, 6:56pm

Views: 1002

It's not new...

... the accusations came out when John Tolkien was still alive, but too mentally and physically ill to testify on his own behalf.... and perhaps that is why the Church made the settlement. But it must be noted that it was the Church that made the settlement, not the Tolkien family. When the settlement was made, the family emphasized that they had made not agreements or concessions or admissions of guilt and I believe they even sued to get an injunction against Carrie to stop him from printing the allegations, which ultimately led him to post his story on the web. It's ironic, though, that, for a man who says he wants the world to know the truth about what happened to him, he hides the most important chapters of the book and one can only access them for a fee. And now this supposed movie deal... me smells a rat... or rather a large sssneakin' sssnake.

Join the "Save " Campaign

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 8 2008, 7:20pm

Views: 993

I never heard that story before

This sort of thing happens, of course, but I don't believe it without proof. And particularly not when the circumstances are so odd.

Hm ... Carrie only went to the public when John Tolkien wasn't able to testify any longer? And probably when at least FotR was released and the hype started, as John died in 2003? Curious timing. And he sells his story in this way? You are right, that smells after ... how's the English expression? A bandwagon jumper?

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Solicitr
Gondor

Jun 8 2008, 8:18pm

Views: 1089

Here is what

Royd Baker-Tolkien has posted about this Carrie person:

Quote

10 Facts about Christopher Carrie

1. Carrie has a criminal record which would prevent him working with children or vulnerable adults.
2. Carrie is a fraudster who has tried for many years, unsuccessfully, to defraud and extract money from the Catholic Church, the Tolkien family and other celebrities.
3. Carrie is well known to local and national police. He has been contacted by them on numerous occasions with regard to his threatening behaviour.
4. Carrie has admitted that he lied about his sexual abuse in order to extract money from the church. (The Sun, 14th September 2004). Carrie said: 'It was mischievous of me; but when there's money on offer...';
5.Carrie did not live within 100 miles of John Tolkien when at the time of the alleged abuse.
6. Carrie has never won a legal case against another party.
7. Carrie has never sued anyone who has challenged his self published lies.
8. Carrie part owns Luna Internet. This is the only reason his website still exists.
9. Carrie is trying to sell the film rights to his fictitious life story on ebay for Ł1 million. No one has bid for it.
10. Carrie is currently a struggling IT worker who lives at * ** Address deleted * you can contact him there.

I should add that the settlement Carrie got out of the Birmingham diocese was chump change: what's known in the business as "making him go away" for less than the cost of litigation.

BTW, Carrie's unhinged website claims that not just John, but Michael, JRR, CS Lewis, Fr Francis Morgan, and the Inklings collectively were *all* pederasts, and that their meetings in Lewis' rooms were actually devoted to molesting little children 'dressed up like elves and fairies.'

The man is scum. Or deranged. Or both.

(Unfortunately, he's safe from libel actions because dead men can't claim defamation).

(This post was edited by Solicitr on Jun 8 2008, 8:20pm)

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 9 2008, 4:44am

Views: 961

Thank you!

Interesting. It confirms my opinion that these accusations have quite a smell to it.

Quote

BTW, Carrie's unhinged website claims that not just John, but Michael, JRR, CS Lewis, Fr Francis Morgan, and the Inklings collectively were *all* pederasts, and that their meetings in Lewis' rooms were actually devoted to molesting little children 'dressed up like elves and fairies.'

*That* is laughable and the best proof that he is lying. He's overdoing it way too much to be taken seriously. Well, I doubt he'll find anyone to make this film - at least not in the way he wants. One about him as he truly is, however ... Evil

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Solicitr
Gondor

Jun 9 2008, 11:23am

Views: 949

However

apparently Time Warner is willing to use the mere threat as a big club in the Tolkien lawsuit, which goes beyond despicable into conduct for which there are no words permissible on a family website.

Peredhil lover
Valinor

Jun 9 2008, 12:52pm

Views: 966

There are days

when I am feeling that Sunflower with her opinion about the big studios is hitting the nail on the head ...

Oh well, we'll have to wait and see if Warner truly dare to do that!

I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.

Khamul
Registered User

Jun 9 2008, 6:50pm

Views: 937

Voronwe_the_faithful pretty much reiterated my point...

...which was basically aimed at all those worried about the film(s) not being made. The case for the Estate (or Tolkien Trust) terminating NL's rights to make the films seems slim. Even if they succeed, Saul Zaentz will probably be able to re-negotiate with Warner (who can't, I don't think, be directly held responsible for NL's 'hollywood' accounting); using some legal shenanigans...

I couldn't care less if the films are made or not. But some people seems positively worried that Christopher has put a big spanner in the works; which does not seem to be the case.

Sunflower
Valinor

Jun 16 2008, 3:14am

Views: 915

*Thanks. evil grin:)*

On a side note--not that it matters at all in this discussion--do you guys know something? I could kick myself for not knowing this before,(what kind of a fan am I?) but apparently, I share a birthday with Christopher Tolkien (Nov. 21).

Ah, I now understand him a LOT better. We sound a lot alike, personality-wise.
Both Scorpios. Evil

I lift my mug to you, Sir!

(This post was edited by Sunflower on Jun 16 2008, 3:22am)

Just Ice
Registered User

Jun 16 2008, 7:17pm

Views: 921

What Royd Posted???

I am new to this forum so please excuse me if I offend sensitivities.
Royd Tolkien's 10 facts about Christopher Carrie got Royd into big trouble. Firstly he's made subject of a police warning of harassment, and secondly Carrie's suing him in the High Courts London.
Your point about the settlement with the Birmingham diocese is totally inaccurate!
As to your 'unhinged website' comments Carrie at no time says the Inklings molested children!
'The man is scum. Or deranged. Or both.'
Your assessment does not fit the man I know and whose books I've read.
Have you read any of his book?
It's just not true that Carrie took advantage of 'the dead men and defamation' agenda.
Carrie published his first book long before TLOTR 1st movie was released and long before John Tolkien died.
Yes Carrie is in LA following Warner coming to visit him in London, but please don't jump to conclusions.
The Carrie I know would not cheapen his story by aiding extortion.

No doubt what I've said won't please and "shooting the messenger" syndrome will come into play.

Solicitr
Gondor

Jun 16 2008, 7:45pm

Views: 897

Yes, I have

read his disgusting rant posing as a 'book.' And at the time I read it (as a 'web-book' it's subject to revision at any time) it did indeed carry allegations against the Inklings, JRR Tolkien, and Fr Francis, claiming in fact that paedophilia had in effect been passed down the generations.

Carrie has also publicly posted a claim that Christopher and Simon Tolkien traveled to Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch to -er- indulge in forbidden pleasures. Looney and sick.

And, yes, the amount Carrie accepted from the Church was risible. A nuisance settlement.

It's amusing that you claim Carrie would never 'aid extortion', since he tried to blackmail Fr John (and even admits it in so many words). Just as he admitted (in the Press) that he made up the molestation story.

BTW, Carrie is under a restraining order as a result of threats directed towards members of the Tolkien family.

The man is scum. Or deranged. Or both.

Which means you, if you are Carrie himself (CC frequently posts under psudonymns on forums where his sewage is discussed).

Just Ice
Registered User

Jun 18 2008, 12:41am

Views: 874

You are wrong

Carrie never tried to blackmail Fr John and the admission you claim was in the press never was, if it was show me. You are quoting from messages posted by Royd and other sycophant's trying to portray Carrie as the lunatic scum you think he is.
No doubt you have seen the article in 'Times Online' written by John Harlow a journalist employed by the Sunday Times.
John Harlow is employed ultimately by Rupert Murdoch who owns Harper Collins Publishing. Harper Collins own the publishing rights to JRR Tolkien's books.
Ok so tell me why does Harlow commend Carrie so highly in the quote displayed on Carrie's web site?
I suspect you will conclude Harlow and Murdoch are 'scum deranged or both' just like Carrie is.
Come on fella get real do you really believe Carrie made those postings about Simon Tolkien (a London lawyer) and Michael Jackson.
Can't speak for Jackson but Simon Tolkien you gotta be joking, he'd have Carrie before the courts in the blink of an eye!
Once again you are plain and simply wrong Carrie is not under a restraining order, Royd Tolkien is though.
I don't think I've got much more time to banter with you, why do I feel I'm sowing my seeds on stoney ground.
I'll finish leaving you with this to ponder over.
JRR Tolkien was a great writer. Michael Jackson a wonderful performer. Both were victims of their respective childhoods so too was Fr John as you will know if you really did read Carrie's book. They were victims, that takes nothing away their greatness. Don't you think it's important to know the facts of history, or at least consider.

Solicitr
Gondor

Jun 18 2008, 12:48am

Views: 867

I love the fact

that you cite as a 'character reference' a Fleet Street hack as ignorant and unreliable as Harlow.

Just Ice
Registered User

Jul 11 2008, 10:03am

Views: 805

The word is

Christopher Carrie is on the same island Unsure