[MaynardMeek]

DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press

BOSTON - A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.

[Mulletsoldier]

I would never play down the tragedy or hardship of being injured in war, however this seems a little odd to me. I highly doubt that the embarrassment and loss of reputation suffered by this individual amounts to $75 million.

[yeahright]

Hmmmmmmm, well Newsmax doesn't give many facts (nothing new there) but from what is here, this lawsuit is likely to fail. The stated claims ("loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation.") aren't really legal claims at all.

The closest torts that I could see arising from this fact pattern are "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and maybe some extreme stretch of defamation under a "false light" theory. These are high burdens to prove. Even if everything is exactly as the plaintiff claims, I don't think he has a claim.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/harassment.html

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/defamation.html

[MaynardMeek]

no this guy will not get much of anything at all, unless his lawyers can show intent of slander.. which this could be.. i am trying to load the actual full clip of the movie and of the interview.. there is a drastic difference after mr. moore's editing lol


but actually this wasn't a news max story.. they have it, but its an AP story

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

no this guy will not get much of anything at all, unless his lawyers can show intent of slander.. which this could be.. i am trying to load the actual full clip of the movie and of the interview.. there is a drastic difference after mr. moore's editing lol

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Michael Moore is Satan. Even if he were the most evil being in the universe, this lawsuit is still a really bad idea.

First, it doesn't appear to have legal merit so it's going to fail in the courts. Second, this is just going to put more money in MM's pocket as it regenrates interest in a movie that is years old now. If the right-wing media starts pumping the story of this lawsuit, it's just going to cause people to talk about the movie, rent the movie, buy the movie, etc. This lawsuit is actually a gift to Michael Moore.

[MaynardMeek]

satan could NEVER be that fat... its too hot in hell.

but no, this will never ben on regular left media.. because it shows that mike may have sorta not used the whole truth...

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

satan could NEVER be that fat... its too hot in hell.

but no, this will never ben on regular left media.. because it shows that mike may have sorta not used the whole truth...

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[MaynardMeek]

err? i dont understand your post

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

err? i dont understand your post

I tried to give you karma points but I got that error message (the system only lets you give out so many points every 24 hours).

BTW, I own Farenheit 9/11 on DVD. I'll have to pull it out and look for that scene.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by yeahright

Hmmmmmmm, well Newsmax doesn't give many facts (nothing new there) but from what is here, this lawsuit is likely to fail. The stated claims ("loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation.") aren't really legal claims at all.

The closest torts that I could see arising from this fact pattern are "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and maybe some extreme stretch of defamation under a "false light" theory. These are high burdens to prove. Even if everything is exactly as the plaintiff claims, I don't think he has a claim.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/harassment.html

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/defamation.html

Those links really aren't helpful.

Also, consider possible claims for invasion of privacy, misappropriation of image or likeness, etc, plus punitive damages.

I am an attorney in NY, not MA, so I am not intimately familiar with MA law, but articles like this generally do not include accurate or relavant details about every cause of action in a lawsuit. Hopefully, The Smoking Gun will have the pleadings on their website sometime soon.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

Those links really aren't helpful.

Also, consider possible claims for invasion of privacy, misappropriation of image or likeness, etc, plus punitive damages.

I am an attorney in NY, not MA, so I am not intimately familiar with MA law, but articles like this generally do not include accurate or relavant details about every cause of action in a lawsuit. Hopefully, The Smoking Gun will have the pleadings on their website sometime soon.

I gave those links as a starting point for any layperson interested in viewing how those torts are handled in MA.

There's no invasion of privacy because the guy gave an interview without apparently setting any preconditions. Any expectation of privacy one has goes away when one consents to be interviewed on camera. There's no misappropriation of image or likeness because the interview was presented in more or less the context it was given (it wasn't converted for an unrelated commercial purpose like selling a softdrink). As to punitive damages, you have to have an underlying cause of action.

No, unless MM cut up the interview to make this guy say black was white, AND he wasn't within his artistic license to do so, I can't see a cause of action here.

It will be interesting to see what was actually filed.

[MaynardMeek]

thats pretty much what he has to go on.. he did make his words "talk" about something else.. a totally different topic than what MM was talking about. If you played the real interview comments in where MM put the edit ones.. you would think someone screwed up some sort of story board topic order...

And the other thing is MM had to remove F-911 as being a doccumentary.. so doing so one has to then get permission from the network, person etc to use their image etc. He did not.

I say.. because i am the best judge America has... this guy will get 20 mil.. long law suit... but MM will settle out

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by yeahright

There's no invasion of privacy because the guy gave an interview without apparently setting any preconditions.

You may or may not be right. I would like to see the release he signed at the time.

There's no misappropriation of image or likeness because the interview was presented in more or less the context it was given (it wasn't converted for an unrelated commercial purpose like selling a softdrink).

I would argue that the context has changed, especially if the material was portrayed and cut in such a way as to misrepresent what he actually had said at the time. Not to mention that it was converted to an unrelated commercial purpose - it was an interview with a news crew, converted to use in a for-profit motion picture.

As to punitive damages, you have to have an underlying cause of action.

I know, but I am not sure that he does not.

You might or might not be right. But at this time, I don't feel that we know enough to say fore sure one way or the other. That was the point I was making.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

You might or might not be right. But at this time, I don't feel that we know enough to say fore sure one way or the other. That was the point I was making.

Yep, but Micahel Moore has this style that he's carried through all his movies (except Canadian Bacon) and his TV shows. He's never lost a suit yet so barring some convincing evidence (hell, I'd take a convincing theory of the case), I'm assuming this would have settled out if there was more here than there appears.

[jrkarp]

He's also an egomaniac who bristles at criticism, so maybe he's protecting his ego by not settling. I would love to see his ass get nailed, and maybe he will someday, but it probably will not be this case.

In any case, I really harbor nothing but hatred and disdain for the man.

[MaynardMeek]

please do not talk about asses or any other aspects of the nude body whence the topic hold mike moore within it

EDIT: more so.. if you use a verb after ass.. IE ass gets nailed.. i really .. just... you get my point ok.

[jrkarp]

Lol