WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF AMERICAN WRITERS
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU TELL IT TO THE JUDGE. THE SETTLEMENT IS NOT PART OF THIS LETTER, AND WILL BE EXAMINED SEPARATELY.
WILLIAM RICHERT
Plaintiff in pro per
Service at Attorney's last address/email
March 19, 2009
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL CIVIL WEST
RICHERT, an individual, Plaintiff V.
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST, INC.
Defendant.
CASE NO. BC 339972
(Related to: Webb v. Director's guild of America, Inc.
and Osmond v. Screen Actor's Guild, Inc.)
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Carl J. West
Hearing Date: March 23
Time: 10:00 A.M.
600 Commonwealth Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
DEPT: 311
TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY NEVILLE JOHNSON, HIS FIRM, AND DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND TO DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY OF RECORD
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that William Richert, in pro per, respectfully moves this Court to Deny the Application for Dismissal of William Richert and (2) Substitution of Maude Retchin Feil for Pearl Retchin.
The motion to deny is made with reference to the following facts:
WHEREAS new information has been discovered within the past 10 days that Lead Plaintiff William Richert believes will substantially and materially change the terms of this settlement,
WHEREAS for 10 months Plaintiff William Richert was denied information that his co-plaintiff was deceased, and not "Pearl Retchin, An Individual" as stated on each and every one of the Plaintiffs and Defendant's pleadings to court,
WHEREAS A dead plaintiff cannot be said to be “similarly situated” as other class plaintiffs, a basic requirement of class action lawsuits as defined by U.S. Congress,
WHEREAS Dismissal of William Richert as Lead Plaintiff may prejudice the rights of the class as defined in the Settlement Agreement,
WHEREAS The purpose of requiring court approval of a class settlement and court approval of the dismissal of a class action is to protect the interests of the class and its members. (See La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Ca1.3d 864, 871; In re Microsoft 1- V Cases (2006) In the circumstances of a class settlement, the entry of dismissal, governed by rule 3.770, may be inconsistent with a judgment, and
WHEREAS a Class Champion in a class action lawsuit is required to place the interests of his/her class above his/her own,
WHEREAS Plaintiff William Richert acknowledges he asked to be removed in public protest and to protect his good name and peace of mind, but he has since realized such a private protest abandons the true interests of the class he represents since 2005,
WHEREAS Lead Plaintiff William Richert is the only named plaintiff writer "similarly situated" to the writers of all classes affected by this dispute, being a novelist and screenwriter of audio visual works sold abroad, both union and non-union, and also made knowledgeable by 4 years as Lead Plaintiff on this lawsuit,
WHEREAS Class action un-certified plaintiff Maude Feil was paid foreign levies in advance of settlement from Defendant’s attorneys, money not given to other class members and thus introducing a conflict of interest,
WHEREAS the proposed replacement for Pearl Retchin, Maude Feil, was not approved by the court prior to submission of proposed settlement agreement,
WHEREAS named plaintiff Ann Jamison cannot represent non-union writers in the settlement as she is not a non-writer – as falsely stated by Neville Johnson in his letter of February 26, 2008, but the daughter of one,
WHEREAS signed contracts not given in evidence have been discovered between the WGA and the Studios and certain foreign collection societies which directly and fundamentally contradict sworn representations made by Emma Leheny and others in court, thereby staining the case with possible perjury,
WHEREAS the Defendant Writers Guild of America have based their entire case on certain German patent office documents – like Weapons of Mass Destruction --which have never been produced in evidence and which are contradicted by signed documents acquired by Plaintiff s lawyers but not introduced as evidence in Court until included as Exhibits in this Motion,
WHEREAS contracts newly discovered by Plaintiff show that the WGA, in undisclosed agreements with the DGA, WARNER BROS, PARAMOUNT, DISNEY, COLUMBIA, SONY, UNITED ARTISTS, UNIVERSAL, WARNER BROS TELEVISION and others have colluded to denied union members and non-members the protection of their civil rights to authorship under the Berne Convention of 1989, and denied their
membership rightful representation against the studio claims to authorship, claims which Federal Judge Morrow says were illegal,
WHEREAS the WGA and DGA signed contracts with Studios for writers that dismissed the union’s own Minimum Basic Agreements without informing members,
WHEREAS the above named studios have been partners and accomplices with the WGA DGA and SAG in more than a dozen contracts, but hitherto have not been named in this lawsuit as co-signers of all agreements and therefore equally responsible and liable,
WHEREAS the WGA has failed to show that it provided copies of the Proposed RICHERT VS WGA SETTLEMENT agreement to appropriate Federal Officials such as THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, and appropriate State Officials, in accordance with the statue 1715,
WHEREAS in Congress' 1711. "Definitions: the term "class" means all of the class members in a class action,
WHEREAS the parties for Defendant and Plaintiff have falsely agreed in declarations to the courts that “there are no unusual legal issues” when there are absolutely unusual legal issues involved in this case,
WHEREAS Neville Johnson has failed to zealously protect the class against an ongoing and future takeover of screenwriter’s and author’s rights and money,
WHEREAS in 2006 the Amended Complaint accepted by the court was filed with 2 of 3 Named Plaintiffs representing themselves in PRO SE,
WHEREAS Pearl Retchin chose to represent herself and her subclass in Pro Se when alive,
WHEREAS Neville Johnson’s motion to relieve himself as William Richert’s counsel effectively removes him from being a lawyer for any of the plaintiffs in this case, leaving the settlement class without representation,
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING AND THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PLEADS FOR JUDICAL INTERVENTION AND ASSISTANCE.
WILLIAM RICHERT ASKS THAT NEVILLE JOHNSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED, AND FURTHER:
1.) LEAD PLAINTIFF WILLIAM RICHERT requests that THE APPLICATION TO DISMISS BY ATTORNEY NEVILLE JOHNSON be denied and turned upside down, and that Neville Johnson, Nicholas Kurtz and Paul Keisel be dismissed with prejudice as class attorneys for the Authors they have failed to represented,
2.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that new lawyers be hired to represent the both the Plaintiffs and Defendants under the supervision of appropriate Federal or State regulators, since the WGA also
claims to represent the Plaintiff in its capacity as a Federal union, and Plaintiff believes their conduct is actionable under both State and Federal law.
3.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that until suitable lawyers be found he continue to represent the class named "for settlement purposes" in the settlement "in pro per" for all American writers and their legal heirs who have been or will be impacted by this settlement and its unusual and profound copyright issues.
4.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that the WGA and Neville Johnson file a COPY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with the national regulatory agencies the US Congress require to see it after ten days, led by at DOJ by Eric H. Holder, in California by Jerry Brown, and by Steve Cooley in LA County.
5.) THE LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that all foreign levy contracts signed by the WGA and provided by them in support of their contention they didn't commit fraud or conversion be given in evidence to the court.
6.) THE LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that all others in his class especially those directly effected by foreign levies be notified immediately wherever they may be found, as in libraries and universities, in film schools and on the internet, so they may join the Plaintiff in seeking a replacement lawyer and justice for the widely dispersed class of non-union and union American writers.
PLAINTIFF WILLIAM RICHERT PLEADS FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO DISMISS, AND FOR TIMELY REMOVAL OF NEVILLE JOHNSON et. al. AS CLASS COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM AND HISTORY
Since September 2005 I have represented various classes of American writers in a class action “On behalf of those similarly situated” who’ve had money taken from the illegally by the Hollywood unions and Studios acting together for at least 18 years.
On January 15, having been constantly been denied my client rights by attorney Neville Johnson, and to let this be known in the only way I knew, I went to court and asked that my name be taken off the case and asked that I be removed as a class representative. I told Judge West that I had read the settlement and would never be able to agree to it.
Two weeks ago I received the “Application for Approval of Dismissal of William Richert” and (2) Substitution of Maude Retchin Feil for her deceased mother, Pearl Retchin.
In a macabre revelation, these documents informed me that my co-plaintiff had been dead ten months and nobody told me, or the court, even though her name was on the final settlement awaiting approval and appeared on every other motion as if she were alive.
In effect, there was a corpse in the courtroom.
I also discovered that the newly-substituted class plaintiff, Pearl’s daughter, named in documents only after the settlement was presented to the Judge, had just recently been paid foreign levies even though the intended writer had been dead since 1971 and declared “untraceable” by the WGA. Mr. Retchin made 2 films in 1956 and 1957.
Although the WGA has provided no accounting of foreign levies since 1990, and has not paid out the 20 million its been holding even after the lawsuit was filed, the union managed to find money to pay Maude Feil since her mother died 10 months ago.
Did the WGA suddenly discover and cash checks written in fifty years ago? And how were those finds divided between the unions and the studios.
As their modus operandi for decades, most of Norman’s money was taken by the studios, who claimed they were authors of his work.
WGA doesn’t mention if it was taking money 50 years ago, whose authority they acted under. And if they weren’t collecting foreign levies then, what kind of money did Emma Leheny pay Maude Feil?
In stupefying contrast: since 2005 the Guild has been unable or unwilling to provide me and thousands of other writers any accounting or records of money they have gotten on our behalf, including personal titles of mine like THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK and THE HAPPY HOOKER – totally non WGA -- and A NIGHT IN THE LIFE OF JIMMY REARDON and WINTER KILLS, which are currently selling in Europe and have been for many years.
How can the WGA pay out foreign levies royalties earned 50 years ago when the WGA wasn’t even collecting them, according to them? AND PAY THEM to a disputed class rep and to no one else? Where did they find them? Did they come from the studio coffers? And why would the studios help the unions locate money in this CLASS ACTION lawsuit?
When I finally managed to obtain a copy of the proposed settlement, I read that the entire agreement was based on the WGA’s allegation that nobody else would collect millions in foreign royalties for American writers unless they did because German “patents” prevented this.
No such “patents” or “patent office regulation” actually exists regarding American writers, screenwriters and novelists.
Upon reviewing the documents underlying all the contentions made by the WGA, it was overwhelmingly evident that the WGA and DGA had perjured themselves in saying they were given no choice but to accept this money, these millions, all these years, without accounting for them or paying them to the living writers and others who died never knowing that somewhere, their work had earned royalties, in itself an award for writers.
While the WGA and DGA claim their misdeeds were forced upon them under stiff opposition, The German, French, Lithuanian, Italian, Mexican and other contracts show just the opposite.
William Richert’s new discovery reveals that it was not the “German Patent Office” (imagine reading those complex legers and records) but more simply and truthfully it was the WGA who asked foreign agencies to be the sole collector for American writers, and who asked the collection societies to continue share up to 85 percent with the studios.
The WGA said they had a hard time reading these “foreign language” contracts, even though all but one (and the one from Switzerland I’ve just introduced) are in plain English, as the Exhibits show.
While these contracts were presented to Neville Johnson long ago in discovery, I do not believe they were ever properly introduced in court, where they belong.
Maybe Mr. Johnson, intent on settling, never bothered to read them. That would be the kindest explanation.
The 109th congressional mandate for class actions is as clear as can be: the plaintiffs in a class action must be “similarly situated.”
From her grave, and even with the best previous intentions, Ms. Retchin could not possibly represent her class.
Yet in filing after filing and motion after motion, since the beginning of June 2008, for almost a full year, both sets of lawyers have put her name forth as if Pearl were out buying new writing software.
In a courtroom seeking justice for tens of thousands of writers, it is preposterous to have the voice of a corpse as a stand in.
It was disingenuous and misleading for Mr. Johnson to invite “all of you,” that is: we 3 Plaintiffs, to the Joel Grossman mediation when one plaintiff was 85 and on her deathbed, a second was misrepresented as being a non-union writer, and the third- me - sent outraged notice that Mr. Grossman was a signer of the agreements that set this scandal into motion in 1990 and was unfit to mediate this settlement.
It was mendacious to portray Ann Jamison as a fair class rep for non-union writers when she is not a writer at all, but heir to her father Thames Williamson, not a member of the WGA but of the Screen Writers Guild, working between 1938 and 1957. It is sleight-of-hand to portray Ms. Jamison as class representative for the “similarly situated” when there are thousands far better situated to represent the class, starting with William Richert.
It is typically misleading that Ms. Jamison is included in the proposed settlement agreement as if she her father’s role was active and contemporaneous instead of occurring back 1938, before the WGA existed.
The settlement is evidence that Mr. Johnson, against the lawful fiduciary interests of his clients, willfully accepted all of the WGA’s false claims as legitimate, in spite of the evidence to the contrary in signed union/studio contracts and in opposition to our original complaint for fraud and conversion and other things.
Emma Leheny and Tony Segall cannot be said to represent the true interests of their WGA writer clients because they’ve allowed whistle blowers to be paid nearly one million dollars to conceal evidence, and because they have hidden contracts that show union members have denied their rightful share of more than a billion dollars over the past quarter century, with the WGA, DGA and SAG labor unions; approval and connivance.
The DGA recently settled, promising to tell all their members and non-members the details. But there is little more than a single page describing the settlement; actually, only the title page. The rest of the settlement is missing.
Like the WGA, the DGA spreads the following falsehood on its website, where the true and accurate settlement can nowhere be found:
“The Guilds and the Companies also agreed, based upon a condition initially imposed by the German patent office, that the Guilds would distribute levies collected for all U.S. directors and writers regardless of whether they were Guild members and regardless of whether the film or television program was covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Following the resolution of the dispute between the Guilds and the Companies, the Guilds entered into comparable agreements with representatives of independent producers and distributors. The portion of the combined author's share the DGA has obtained has steadily and significantly increased over time from 15% to 50%
No “German Patent Office” regulation has ever been shown to exist. The entire statement is bogus and, in effect, perpetuates an ongoing fraud and 50 year license to steal.
There are a lot more writers in the US than directors, who have no direct issue with copyright. In almost all cases a director can said to be “hired” in recognition of his achievement. But writers are “inspired” and belong to the category of creators, not workers.
If enacted this settlement will deprive American writers of just copyright enforcement and royalty payment in perpetuity, and put into law the studio’s claim they own the copyright of writers, ignoring the Berne Convention of 1989 which changed the old rules.
In the language of the system: Who’s gonna sue Fox or Universal over subverting the Berne Convention? Berne who?
This settlement will give the WGA and DGA and sister unions of the AFL-CIO something they couldn’t achieve in the 2008 strike that cost Los Angeles 2.9 billion dollars, threw thousands out of work and created the “havoc” that destroyed lives: namely, a legal mandate to collect funds for thousands of non-union writers and tens of thousands of ”new media” internet writers, who will thereafter be “known” to the activist unions, and be forced to share royalties with them.
As I understand it, a fraud is committed when a dead person’s name is used to apply for credit.
What kind of crime is committed when lawyers representing two groups of leading American writers use a dead widows name to push through a mendacious settlement involving an entire class of human beings?
Neville Johnson, Nicholas Kurtz, Emma Leheny, Tony Segall all swore together in the August, 2006 Amended Complaint that the case was not “complex” and that “there is nothing unusual in this case.” Perhaps not, to Madoff, Enron and AIG.
Vast sums of money are not the real treasure here.
For our society and culture, the real treasure is the freedom to write. No “PENCILS DOWN” as the WGA cries, for all humanity.
Proper union representation is a civil right.
Writing is not a union or labor activity, subject to regulation.
Writing is a human activity, and belongs to everyone. Copyright is a human right.
While not rating very high perhaps in the hierarchy of today’s tragedies occurring both in the US and around the world, the events taking place in this Los Angeles Superior Court regarding copyright ownership can dictate freedom for American writers for years to come. At least the Indians got paid fifteen bucks for Manhattan. These particular unions want our future and for us to pay them to take it. When it appeared that Mr. Johnson would find a way remove me from this case no matter what I did, since preventing a settlement makes me a bad class rep, apparently, while publicly withdrawing can be a legitimate protest, in January I appeared before the Honorable Judge West, and asked, basically “please take this cup from me.”
Now it appears I may have to drink the whole damn thing.
But there will be lots left to drink for other writers in the spigot in the barrel in the stream from the rain along the rivers and the oceans into the vast expanse above our heads, where the thoughts and dreams of writers roam.
I can only have written the foregoing because I believe in the fairness of our judge, and the depth of his concern and the care he took to listen to me in his courtroom. I could not say these things otherwise.
And so, For the reasons stated above, and considering the Exhibits Attached in Evidence, I hope and pray that the Honorable Judge Carl J. West will deny Neville Johnson his request to dismiss William Richert from this case, and will allow him as Class Champion to continue his work unhindered until justice prevails, or writing ceases, whichever happens first.
Sincerely,
William Richert
American author, screenwriter, actor, director
Lead Plaintiff in pro per
RICHERT V. WGAW INC. et. al.
EXHIBITS ENTERED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION:
WILLIAM RICHERT
Plaintiff in pro per
Service at Attorney's last address/email
March 19, 2009
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL CIVIL WEST
RICHERT, an individual, Plaintiff V.
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST, INC.
Defendant.
CASE NO. BC 339972
(Related to: Webb v. Director's guild of America, Inc.
and Osmond v. Screen Actor's Guild, Inc.)
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Carl J. West
Hearing Date: March 23
Time: 10:00 A.M.
600 Commonwealth Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
DEPT: 311
TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY NEVILLE JOHNSON, HIS FIRM, AND DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND TO DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY OF RECORD
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that William Richert, in pro per, respectfully moves this Court to Deny the Application for Dismissal of William Richert and (2) Substitution of Maude Retchin Feil for Pearl Retchin.
The motion to deny is made with reference to the following facts:
WHEREAS new information has been discovered within the past 10 days that Lead Plaintiff William Richert believes will substantially and materially change the terms of this settlement,
WHEREAS for 10 months Plaintiff William Richert was denied information that his co-plaintiff was deceased, and not "Pearl Retchin, An Individual" as stated on each and every one of the Plaintiffs and Defendant's pleadings to court,
WHEREAS A dead plaintiff cannot be said to be “similarly situated” as other class plaintiffs, a basic requirement of class action lawsuits as defined by U.S. Congress,
WHEREAS Dismissal of William Richert as Lead Plaintiff may prejudice the rights of the class as defined in the Settlement Agreement,
WHEREAS The purpose of requiring court approval of a class settlement and court approval of the dismissal of a class action is to protect the interests of the class and its members. (See La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Ca1.3d 864, 871; In re Microsoft 1- V Cases (2006) In the circumstances of a class settlement, the entry of dismissal, governed by rule 3.770, may be inconsistent with a judgment, and
WHEREAS a Class Champion in a class action lawsuit is required to place the interests of his/her class above his/her own,
WHEREAS Plaintiff William Richert acknowledges he asked to be removed in public protest and to protect his good name and peace of mind, but he has since realized such a private protest abandons the true interests of the class he represents since 2005,
WHEREAS Lead Plaintiff William Richert is the only named plaintiff writer "similarly situated" to the writers of all classes affected by this dispute, being a novelist and screenwriter of audio visual works sold abroad, both union and non-union, and also made knowledgeable by 4 years as Lead Plaintiff on this lawsuit,
WHEREAS Class action un-certified plaintiff Maude Feil was paid foreign levies in advance of settlement from Defendant’s attorneys, money not given to other class members and thus introducing a conflict of interest,
WHEREAS the proposed replacement for Pearl Retchin, Maude Feil, was not approved by the court prior to submission of proposed settlement agreement,
WHEREAS named plaintiff Ann Jamison cannot represent non-union writers in the settlement as she is not a non-writer – as falsely stated by Neville Johnson in his letter of February 26, 2008, but the daughter of one,
WHEREAS signed contracts not given in evidence have been discovered between the WGA and the Studios and certain foreign collection societies which directly and fundamentally contradict sworn representations made by Emma Leheny and others in court, thereby staining the case with possible perjury,
WHEREAS the Defendant Writers Guild of America have based their entire case on certain German patent office documents – like Weapons of Mass Destruction --which have never been produced in evidence and which are contradicted by signed documents acquired by Plaintiff s lawyers but not introduced as evidence in Court until included as Exhibits in this Motion,
WHEREAS contracts newly discovered by Plaintiff show that the WGA, in undisclosed agreements with the DGA, WARNER BROS, PARAMOUNT, DISNEY, COLUMBIA, SONY, UNITED ARTISTS, UNIVERSAL, WARNER BROS TELEVISION and others have colluded to denied union members and non-members the protection of their civil rights to authorship under the Berne Convention of 1989, and denied their
membership rightful representation against the studio claims to authorship, claims which Federal Judge Morrow says were illegal,
WHEREAS the WGA and DGA signed contracts with Studios for writers that dismissed the union’s own Minimum Basic Agreements without informing members,
WHEREAS the above named studios have been partners and accomplices with the WGA DGA and SAG in more than a dozen contracts, but hitherto have not been named in this lawsuit as co-signers of all agreements and therefore equally responsible and liable,
WHEREAS the WGA has failed to show that it provided copies of the Proposed RICHERT VS WGA SETTLEMENT agreement to appropriate Federal Officials such as THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, and appropriate State Officials, in accordance with the statue 1715,
WHEREAS in Congress' 1711. "Definitions: the term "class" means all of the class members in a class action,
WHEREAS the parties for Defendant and Plaintiff have falsely agreed in declarations to the courts that “there are no unusual legal issues” when there are absolutely unusual legal issues involved in this case,
WHEREAS Neville Johnson has failed to zealously protect the class against an ongoing and future takeover of screenwriter’s and author’s rights and money,
WHEREAS in 2006 the Amended Complaint accepted by the court was filed with 2 of 3 Named Plaintiffs representing themselves in PRO SE,
WHEREAS Pearl Retchin chose to represent herself and her subclass in Pro Se when alive,
WHEREAS Neville Johnson’s motion to relieve himself as William Richert’s counsel effectively removes him from being a lawyer for any of the plaintiffs in this case, leaving the settlement class without representation,
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING AND THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PLEADS FOR JUDICAL INTERVENTION AND ASSISTANCE.
WILLIAM RICHERT ASKS THAT NEVILLE JOHNSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED, AND FURTHER:
1.) LEAD PLAINTIFF WILLIAM RICHERT requests that THE APPLICATION TO DISMISS BY ATTORNEY NEVILLE JOHNSON be denied and turned upside down, and that Neville Johnson, Nicholas Kurtz and Paul Keisel be dismissed with prejudice as class attorneys for the Authors they have failed to represented,
2.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that new lawyers be hired to represent the both the Plaintiffs and Defendants under the supervision of appropriate Federal or State regulators, since the WGA also
claims to represent the Plaintiff in its capacity as a Federal union, and Plaintiff believes their conduct is actionable under both State and Federal law.
3.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that until suitable lawyers be found he continue to represent the class named "for settlement purposes" in the settlement "in pro per" for all American writers and their legal heirs who have been or will be impacted by this settlement and its unusual and profound copyright issues.
4.) LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that the WGA and Neville Johnson file a COPY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with the national regulatory agencies the US Congress require to see it after ten days, led by at DOJ by Eric H. Holder, in California by Jerry Brown, and by Steve Cooley in LA County.
5.) THE LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that all foreign levy contracts signed by the WGA and provided by them in support of their contention they didn't commit fraud or conversion be given in evidence to the court.
6.) THE LEAD PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that all others in his class especially those directly effected by foreign levies be notified immediately wherever they may be found, as in libraries and universities, in film schools and on the internet, so they may join the Plaintiff in seeking a replacement lawyer and justice for the widely dispersed class of non-union and union American writers.
PLAINTIFF WILLIAM RICHERT PLEADS FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO DISMISS, AND FOR TIMELY REMOVAL OF NEVILLE JOHNSON et. al. AS CLASS COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM AND HISTORY
Since September 2005 I have represented various classes of American writers in a class action “On behalf of those similarly situated” who’ve had money taken from the illegally by the Hollywood unions and Studios acting together for at least 18 years.
On January 15, having been constantly been denied my client rights by attorney Neville Johnson, and to let this be known in the only way I knew, I went to court and asked that my name be taken off the case and asked that I be removed as a class representative. I told Judge West that I had read the settlement and would never be able to agree to it.
Two weeks ago I received the “Application for Approval of Dismissal of William Richert” and (2) Substitution of Maude Retchin Feil for her deceased mother, Pearl Retchin.
In a macabre revelation, these documents informed me that my co-plaintiff had been dead ten months and nobody told me, or the court, even though her name was on the final settlement awaiting approval and appeared on every other motion as if she were alive.
In effect, there was a corpse in the courtroom.
I also discovered that the newly-substituted class plaintiff, Pearl’s daughter, named in documents only after the settlement was presented to the Judge, had just recently been paid foreign levies even though the intended writer had been dead since 1971 and declared “untraceable” by the WGA. Mr. Retchin made 2 films in 1956 and 1957.
Although the WGA has provided no accounting of foreign levies since 1990, and has not paid out the 20 million its been holding even after the lawsuit was filed, the union managed to find money to pay Maude Feil since her mother died 10 months ago.
Did the WGA suddenly discover and cash checks written in fifty years ago? And how were those finds divided between the unions and the studios.
As their modus operandi for decades, most of Norman’s money was taken by the studios, who claimed they were authors of his work.
WGA doesn’t mention if it was taking money 50 years ago, whose authority they acted under. And if they weren’t collecting foreign levies then, what kind of money did Emma Leheny pay Maude Feil?
In stupefying contrast: since 2005 the Guild has been unable or unwilling to provide me and thousands of other writers any accounting or records of money they have gotten on our behalf, including personal titles of mine like THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK and THE HAPPY HOOKER – totally non WGA -- and A NIGHT IN THE LIFE OF JIMMY REARDON and WINTER KILLS, which are currently selling in Europe and have been for many years.
How can the WGA pay out foreign levies royalties earned 50 years ago when the WGA wasn’t even collecting them, according to them? AND PAY THEM to a disputed class rep and to no one else? Where did they find them? Did they come from the studio coffers? And why would the studios help the unions locate money in this CLASS ACTION lawsuit?
When I finally managed to obtain a copy of the proposed settlement, I read that the entire agreement was based on the WGA’s allegation that nobody else would collect millions in foreign royalties for American writers unless they did because German “patents” prevented this.
No such “patents” or “patent office regulation” actually exists regarding American writers, screenwriters and novelists.
Upon reviewing the documents underlying all the contentions made by the WGA, it was overwhelmingly evident that the WGA and DGA had perjured themselves in saying they were given no choice but to accept this money, these millions, all these years, without accounting for them or paying them to the living writers and others who died never knowing that somewhere, their work had earned royalties, in itself an award for writers.
While the WGA and DGA claim their misdeeds were forced upon them under stiff opposition, The German, French, Lithuanian, Italian, Mexican and other contracts show just the opposite.
William Richert’s new discovery reveals that it was not the “German Patent Office” (imagine reading those complex legers and records) but more simply and truthfully it was the WGA who asked foreign agencies to be the sole collector for American writers, and who asked the collection societies to continue share up to 85 percent with the studios.
The WGA said they had a hard time reading these “foreign language” contracts, even though all but one (and the one from Switzerland I’ve just introduced) are in plain English, as the Exhibits show.
While these contracts were presented to Neville Johnson long ago in discovery, I do not believe they were ever properly introduced in court, where they belong.
Maybe Mr. Johnson, intent on settling, never bothered to read them. That would be the kindest explanation.
The 109th congressional mandate for class actions is as clear as can be: the plaintiffs in a class action must be “similarly situated.”
From her grave, and even with the best previous intentions, Ms. Retchin could not possibly represent her class.
Yet in filing after filing and motion after motion, since the beginning of June 2008, for almost a full year, both sets of lawyers have put her name forth as if Pearl were out buying new writing software.
In a courtroom seeking justice for tens of thousands of writers, it is preposterous to have the voice of a corpse as a stand in.
It was disingenuous and misleading for Mr. Johnson to invite “all of you,” that is: we 3 Plaintiffs, to the Joel Grossman mediation when one plaintiff was 85 and on her deathbed, a second was misrepresented as being a non-union writer, and the third- me - sent outraged notice that Mr. Grossman was a signer of the agreements that set this scandal into motion in 1990 and was unfit to mediate this settlement.
It was mendacious to portray Ann Jamison as a fair class rep for non-union writers when she is not a writer at all, but heir to her father Thames Williamson, not a member of the WGA but of the Screen Writers Guild, working between 1938 and 1957. It is sleight-of-hand to portray Ms. Jamison as class representative for the “similarly situated” when there are thousands far better situated to represent the class, starting with William Richert.
It is typically misleading that Ms. Jamison is included in the proposed settlement agreement as if she her father’s role was active and contemporaneous instead of occurring back 1938, before the WGA existed.
The settlement is evidence that Mr. Johnson, against the lawful fiduciary interests of his clients, willfully accepted all of the WGA’s false claims as legitimate, in spite of the evidence to the contrary in signed union/studio contracts and in opposition to our original complaint for fraud and conversion and other things.
Emma Leheny and Tony Segall cannot be said to represent the true interests of their WGA writer clients because they’ve allowed whistle blowers to be paid nearly one million dollars to conceal evidence, and because they have hidden contracts that show union members have denied their rightful share of more than a billion dollars over the past quarter century, with the WGA, DGA and SAG labor unions; approval and connivance.
The DGA recently settled, promising to tell all their members and non-members the details. But there is little more than a single page describing the settlement; actually, only the title page. The rest of the settlement is missing.
Like the WGA, the DGA spreads the following falsehood on its website, where the true and accurate settlement can nowhere be found:
“The Guilds and the Companies also agreed, based upon a condition initially imposed by the German patent office, that the Guilds would distribute levies collected for all U.S. directors and writers regardless of whether they were Guild members and regardless of whether the film or television program was covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Following the resolution of the dispute between the Guilds and the Companies, the Guilds entered into comparable agreements with representatives of independent producers and distributors. The portion of the combined author's share the DGA has obtained has steadily and significantly increased over time from 15% to 50%
No “German Patent Office” regulation has ever been shown to exist. The entire statement is bogus and, in effect, perpetuates an ongoing fraud and 50 year license to steal.
There are a lot more writers in the US than directors, who have no direct issue with copyright. In almost all cases a director can said to be “hired” in recognition of his achievement. But writers are “inspired” and belong to the category of creators, not workers.
If enacted this settlement will deprive American writers of just copyright enforcement and royalty payment in perpetuity, and put into law the studio’s claim they own the copyright of writers, ignoring the Berne Convention of 1989 which changed the old rules.
In the language of the system: Who’s gonna sue Fox or Universal over subverting the Berne Convention? Berne who?
This settlement will give the WGA and DGA and sister unions of the AFL-CIO something they couldn’t achieve in the 2008 strike that cost Los Angeles 2.9 billion dollars, threw thousands out of work and created the “havoc” that destroyed lives: namely, a legal mandate to collect funds for thousands of non-union writers and tens of thousands of ”new media” internet writers, who will thereafter be “known” to the activist unions, and be forced to share royalties with them.
As I understand it, a fraud is committed when a dead person’s name is used to apply for credit.
What kind of crime is committed when lawyers representing two groups of leading American writers use a dead widows name to push through a mendacious settlement involving an entire class of human beings?
Neville Johnson, Nicholas Kurtz, Emma Leheny, Tony Segall all swore together in the August, 2006 Amended Complaint that the case was not “complex” and that “there is nothing unusual in this case.” Perhaps not, to Madoff, Enron and AIG.
Vast sums of money are not the real treasure here.
For our society and culture, the real treasure is the freedom to write. No “PENCILS DOWN” as the WGA cries, for all humanity.
Proper union representation is a civil right.
Writing is not a union or labor activity, subject to regulation.
Writing is a human activity, and belongs to everyone. Copyright is a human right.
While not rating very high perhaps in the hierarchy of today’s tragedies occurring both in the US and around the world, the events taking place in this Los Angeles Superior Court regarding copyright ownership can dictate freedom for American writers for years to come. At least the Indians got paid fifteen bucks for Manhattan. These particular unions want our future and for us to pay them to take it. When it appeared that Mr. Johnson would find a way remove me from this case no matter what I did, since preventing a settlement makes me a bad class rep, apparently, while publicly withdrawing can be a legitimate protest, in January I appeared before the Honorable Judge West, and asked, basically “please take this cup from me.”
Now it appears I may have to drink the whole damn thing.
But there will be lots left to drink for other writers in the spigot in the barrel in the stream from the rain along the rivers and the oceans into the vast expanse above our heads, where the thoughts and dreams of writers roam.
I can only have written the foregoing because I believe in the fairness of our judge, and the depth of his concern and the care he took to listen to me in his courtroom. I could not say these things otherwise.
And so, For the reasons stated above, and considering the Exhibits Attached in Evidence, I hope and pray that the Honorable Judge Carl J. West will deny Neville Johnson his request to dismiss William Richert from this case, and will allow him as Class Champion to continue his work unhindered until justice prevails, or writing ceases, whichever happens first.
Sincerely,
William Richert
American author, screenwriter, actor, director
Lead Plaintiff in pro per
RICHERT V. WGAW INC. et. al.
EXHIBITS ENTERED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION:
posted by William Richert | 4:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home