News Analysis India

Tag: trial

  • Did Ed Sheeran copy Marvin Gaye? Trial to begin in New York

    By Associated Press

    NEW YORK: Jury selection and opening statements are set to begin shortly in a trial that mashes up Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” with Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”

    The heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer of the 1973 soul classic, sued Sheeran, alleging the English pop star’s hit 2014 tune has “striking similarities” to “Let’s Get It On” and “overt common elements” that violate their copyright.

    The lawsuit filed in 2017 has finally made it to a trial that is expected to last a week in the Manhattan federal courtroom of 95-year-old Judge Louis L. Stanton.

    Sheeran, 32, is among the witnesses expected to testify.

    “Let’s Get It On” is the quintessential, sexy slow jam that’s been heard in countless films and commercials and garnered hundreds of millions of streams, spins and radio plays over the past 50 years. “Thinking Out Loud,” which won a Grammy for song of the year, is a much more marital take on love and sex.

    While the jury will hear the recordings of both songs, probably many times, their lyrics — and vibes — are legally insignificant. Jurors are supposed to only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of “Let’s Get It On,” as documented on sheet music filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Sheeran’s attorneys have said the songs’ undeniable structural symmetry points only to the foundations of popular music.

    “The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.

    Townsend family attorneys pointed out in the lawsuit that artists including Boyz II Men have performed seamless mashups of the two songs, and that even Sheeran himself has segued into “Let’s Get It On” during live performances of “Thinking Out Loud.”

    They sought to play a potentially damning YouTube video of one such Sheeran performance for the jury at trial. Stanton denied their motion to include it, but said he would reconsider it after he sees other evidence that’s presented.

    Gaye’s estate is not involved in the case, though it will inevitably have echoes of their successful lawsuit against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. over the resemblance of their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” to Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give it Up.”

    A jury awarded Gaye’s heirs $7.4 million at trial — later trimmed by a judge to $5.3 million — making it among the most significant copyright cases in recent decades.

    Sheeran’s label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing are also named as defendants in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit. Generally, plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits cast a wide net in naming defendants, though a judge can eliminate any names deemed inappropriate. In this case, however, Sheeran’s co-writer on the song, Amy Wadge, was never named.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer. He died in 2003. Kathryn Townsend Griffin, his daughter, is the plaintiff leading the lawsuit.

    Already a Motown superstar in the 1960s before his more adult 1970s output made him a generational musical giant, Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents.

    Major artists are often hit with lawsuits alleging song-stealing, but nearly all settle before trial — as Taylor Swift recently did over “Shake it Off,” ending a lawsuit that lasted years longer and came closer to trial than most other cases.

    But Sheeran — whose musical style drawing from classic soul, pop and R&B has made him a target for copyright lawsuits — has shown a willingness to go to trial before. A year ago, he won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You,” then slammed what he described as a “culture” of baseless lawsuits intended to squeeze money out of artists eager to avoid the expense of a trial.

    “I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran said in a video posted on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”

    The “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit also invokes one of the most common tropes in American and British music since the earliest days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and hip-hop: a young white artist seemingly appropriating the work of an older Black artist — accusations that were also levied at Elvis Presley and The Beatles, whose music drew on that of Black forerunners.

    “Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who represents the Townsend family but is not involved in the trial, said at a March 31 news conference.

    NEW YORK: Jury selection and opening statements are set to begin shortly in a trial that mashes up Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” with Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”

    The heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer of the 1973 soul classic, sued Sheeran, alleging the English pop star’s hit 2014 tune has “striking similarities” to “Let’s Get It On” and “overt common elements” that violate their copyright.

    The lawsuit filed in 2017 has finally made it to a trial that is expected to last a week in the Manhattan federal courtroom of 95-year-old Judge Louis L. Stanton.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    Sheeran, 32, is among the witnesses expected to testify.

    “Let’s Get It On” is the quintessential, sexy slow jam that’s been heard in countless films and commercials and garnered hundreds of millions of streams, spins and radio plays over the past 50 years. “Thinking Out Loud,” which won a Grammy for song of the year, is a much more marital take on love and sex.

    While the jury will hear the recordings of both songs, probably many times, their lyrics — and vibes — are legally insignificant. Jurors are supposed to only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of “Let’s Get It On,” as documented on sheet music filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Sheeran’s attorneys have said the songs’ undeniable structural symmetry points only to the foundations of popular music.

    “The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.

    Townsend family attorneys pointed out in the lawsuit that artists including Boyz II Men have performed seamless mashups of the two songs, and that even Sheeran himself has segued into “Let’s Get It On” during live performances of “Thinking Out Loud.”

    They sought to play a potentially damning YouTube video of one such Sheeran performance for the jury at trial. Stanton denied their motion to include it, but said he would reconsider it after he sees other evidence that’s presented.

    Gaye’s estate is not involved in the case, though it will inevitably have echoes of their successful lawsuit against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. over the resemblance of their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” to Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give it Up.”

    A jury awarded Gaye’s heirs $7.4 million at trial — later trimmed by a judge to $5.3 million — making it among the most significant copyright cases in recent decades.

    Sheeran’s label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing are also named as defendants in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit. Generally, plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits cast a wide net in naming defendants, though a judge can eliminate any names deemed inappropriate. In this case, however, Sheeran’s co-writer on the song, Amy Wadge, was never named.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer. He died in 2003. Kathryn Townsend Griffin, his daughter, is the plaintiff leading the lawsuit.

    Already a Motown superstar in the 1960s before his more adult 1970s output made him a generational musical giant, Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents.

    Major artists are often hit with lawsuits alleging song-stealing, but nearly all settle before trial — as Taylor Swift recently did over “Shake it Off,” ending a lawsuit that lasted years longer and came closer to trial than most other cases.

    But Sheeran — whose musical style drawing from classic soul, pop and R&B has made him a target for copyright lawsuits — has shown a willingness to go to trial before. A year ago, he won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You,” then slammed what he described as a “culture” of baseless lawsuits intended to squeeze money out of artists eager to avoid the expense of a trial.

    “I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran said in a video posted on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”

    The “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit also invokes one of the most common tropes in American and British music since the earliest days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and hip-hop: a young white artist seemingly appropriating the work of an older Black artist — accusations that were also levied at Elvis Presley and The Beatles, whose music drew on that of Black forerunners.

    “Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who represents the Townsend family but is not involved in the trial, said at a March 31 news conference.

  • Gwyneth Paltrow’s trial over Utah ski collision begins

    By Associated Press

    PARK CITY, Utah: Gwyneth Paltrow’s lawyer called the story of a retired optometrist who is suing her over a 2016 ski collision “utter B.S.” on Tuesday during the trial’s opening day in Utah.

    Terry Sanderson claims that the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer was cruising down the slopes so recklessly that they violently collided, leaving him on the ground as she and her entourage continued their descent down Deer Valley Resort, a skiers-only mountain known for its groomed runs, après-ski champagne yurts and posh clientele.

    “Gwyneth Paltrow skied out of control,” Sanderson’s attorneys claim in the lawsuit, “knocking him down hard, knocking him out, and causing a brain injury, four broken ribs and other serious injuries. Paltrow got up, turned and skied away, leaving Sanderson stunned, lying in the snow, seriously injured.”

    In a case that has lasted years, Sanderson is suing Paltrow for $300,000 — claiming that the accident in Park City was a result of negligence, and left him with physical injuries and emotional distress.

    Sanderson and Paltrow both appeared on Tuesday at the Park City courthouse to begin the trial, which is slated to last longer than a week. A somber-looking Paltrow, wearing a beige knit sweater, tweed harem pants and aviator-style reading glasses, shielded her face from reporters and photographers with a blue “GP”-initialed notebook when she entered and exited the courtroom.

    Park City is a resort town in the Rocky Mountains that hosts the Sundance Film Festival, which draws a throng of celebrities each year.

    On ski slopes, Utah law gives the skier who is downhill the right of way, so a central question in the case is who was farther down the beginner’s run when the collision transpired. Both Paltrow and Sanderson claim in court filings that they were farther downhill when the other rammed into them, causing their skis to intertwine and the two to tumble.

    “All skiers know that when they’re skiing down the mountain, it’s their responsibility to yield the right of way to skiers below them,” Sanderson’s attorney, Lawrence Buhler, told jurors, who — unlike those selected for most trials — walked into the courtroom smiling, likely because of their proximity to a major celebrity.

    In opening arguments, both sides presented their clients as conservative skiers who were stunned when a skier above them crashed into them. Both characterized the other’s version of events as implausible.

    Buhler described Paltrow as wealthy, while highlighting Sanderson’s military service and how he sought medical care at the V.A. hospital after the collision.

    “She hires multiple ski instructors for her children, which allows them to skip the lines. Private instructors cost thousands of dollars per day,” he said.

    Paltrow’s attorneys told jurors Tuesday that Sanderson was the one who crashed into her — a collision in which she sustained what they called a “full body blow.” Attorney Steve Owens noted that members of Paltrow’s group checked on Sanderson, who assured them he was fine — an interaction Sanderson doesn’t deny but said in court filings that he can’t remember.

    While showing images on a projector of Paltrow on a chairlift with her son, Paltrow’s attorney cautioned jurors not to let sympathy for Sanderson’s medical ailments skew their judgements. He questioned the 76-year-old’s credibility, noting his age and documented, pre-collision brain injuries. He said that the Utah man had confirmed he was fine after the crash. Owens also said that Sanderson posted a “very happy, smiling picture” of himself online, being tobogganed down post-crash.

    “His memories of the case get better over the years. That’s all I’m gonna say. That’s not how memory works,” Owens said.

    After his initial lawsuit seeking $3.1 million was dropped, Sanderson amended the complaint and he is now seeking $300,000. Paltrow — the Oscar-winning actor known for her roles in “Shakespeare in Love” and Marvel’s “Iron Man” movies — filed a counterclaim, seeking attorney fees and $1 in damages.

    Paltrow has alleged that Sanderson was actually the culprit in the collision, is overstating his injuries, and is trying to exploit her celebrity and wealth. In addition to her acting career, she is also the founder and CEO of high-end wellness company goop.

    “He demanded Ms. Paltrow pay him millions. If she did not pay, she would face negative publicity resulting from his allegations,” her attorneys wrote in a 2019 court filing.

    PARK CITY, Utah: Gwyneth Paltrow’s lawyer called the story of a retired optometrist who is suing her over a 2016 ski collision “utter B.S.” on Tuesday during the trial’s opening day in Utah.

    Terry Sanderson claims that the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer was cruising down the slopes so recklessly that they violently collided, leaving him on the ground as she and her entourage continued their descent down Deer Valley Resort, a skiers-only mountain known for its groomed runs, après-ski champagne yurts and posh clientele.

    “Gwyneth Paltrow skied out of control,” Sanderson’s attorneys claim in the lawsuit, “knocking him down hard, knocking him out, and causing a brain injury, four broken ribs and other serious injuries. Paltrow got up, turned and skied away, leaving Sanderson stunned, lying in the snow, seriously injured.”googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    In a case that has lasted years, Sanderson is suing Paltrow for $300,000 — claiming that the accident in Park City was a result of negligence, and left him with physical injuries and emotional distress.

    Sanderson and Paltrow both appeared on Tuesday at the Park City courthouse to begin the trial, which is slated to last longer than a week. A somber-looking Paltrow, wearing a beige knit sweater, tweed harem pants and aviator-style reading glasses, shielded her face from reporters and photographers with a blue “GP”-initialed notebook when she entered and exited the courtroom.

    Park City is a resort town in the Rocky Mountains that hosts the Sundance Film Festival, which draws a throng of celebrities each year.

    On ski slopes, Utah law gives the skier who is downhill the right of way, so a central question in the case is who was farther down the beginner’s run when the collision transpired. Both Paltrow and Sanderson claim in court filings that they were farther downhill when the other rammed into them, causing their skis to intertwine and the two to tumble.

    “All skiers know that when they’re skiing down the mountain, it’s their responsibility to yield the right of way to skiers below them,” Sanderson’s attorney, Lawrence Buhler, told jurors, who — unlike those selected for most trials — walked into the courtroom smiling, likely because of their proximity to a major celebrity.

    In opening arguments, both sides presented their clients as conservative skiers who were stunned when a skier above them crashed into them. Both characterized the other’s version of events as implausible.

    Buhler described Paltrow as wealthy, while highlighting Sanderson’s military service and how he sought medical care at the V.A. hospital after the collision.

    “She hires multiple ski instructors for her children, which allows them to skip the lines. Private instructors cost thousands of dollars per day,” he said.

    Paltrow’s attorneys told jurors Tuesday that Sanderson was the one who crashed into her — a collision in which she sustained what they called a “full body blow.” Attorney Steve Owens noted that members of Paltrow’s group checked on Sanderson, who assured them he was fine — an interaction Sanderson doesn’t deny but said in court filings that he can’t remember.

    While showing images on a projector of Paltrow on a chairlift with her son, Paltrow’s attorney cautioned jurors not to let sympathy for Sanderson’s medical ailments skew their judgements. He questioned the 76-year-old’s credibility, noting his age and documented, pre-collision brain injuries. He said that the Utah man had confirmed he was fine after the crash. Owens also said that Sanderson posted a “very happy, smiling picture” of himself online, being tobogganed down post-crash.

    “His memories of the case get better over the years. That’s all I’m gonna say. That’s not how memory works,” Owens said.

    After his initial lawsuit seeking $3.1 million was dropped, Sanderson amended the complaint and he is now seeking $300,000. Paltrow — the Oscar-winning actor known for her roles in “Shakespeare in Love” and Marvel’s “Iron Man” movies — filed a counterclaim, seeking attorney fees and $1 in damages.

    Paltrow has alleged that Sanderson was actually the culprit in the collision, is overstating his injuries, and is trying to exploit her celebrity and wealth. In addition to her acting career, she is also the founder and CEO of high-end wellness company goop.

    “He demanded Ms. Paltrow pay him millions. If she did not pay, she would face negative publicity resulting from his allegations,” her attorneys wrote in a 2019 court filing.

  • In a #MeToo moment, Hollywood figures face season of trials

    By Associated Press

    NEW YORK: The #MeToo movement is having another moment in the spotlight as high-profile sexual assault trials play out in courtrooms from coast to coast.

    Five years after allegations against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein triggered a wave of sexual misconduct claims in Hollywood and beyond, he and “That ’70s Show” actor Danny Masterson are fighting criminal rape charges at trials down the hall from each other in Los Angeles.

    In New York, trials are underway in sexual assault lawsuits against actor Kevin Spacey and screenwriter-director Paul Haggis, both Oscar winners. Spacey’s defence rested Wednesday while lawyers for Haggis and his accuser gave opening statements in an adjacent courthouse. All of the men deny the allegations.

    A forcible touching case against another Academy Award winner, actor Cuba Gooding Jr., wrapped up in New York last week with a guilty plea to a non-criminal harassment violation and no jail time, to the dismay of at least some of his accusers.

    The confluence is a coincidence, but a striking one, amid a cultural movement that has demanded visibility and accountability.

    “We’re still very early on in this time of reckoning,” said Debra Katz, a Washington-based lawyer who has represented many sexual assault accusers. She isn’t involved in the Haggis, Masterson, Spacey or Weinstein trials.

    Besides their #MeToo reverberations, both Haggis’ case and Masterson’s have become forums for scrutinizing the Church of Scientology, though from different perspectives.

    In the case against Haggis, publicist Haleigh Breest claims that the “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” screenwriter forced her to perform oral sex and raped her after she reluctantly agreed to a drink in his Manhattan apartment after a 2013 movie premiere. She’s seeking unspecified damages.

    She didn’t go public until after the allegations against Weinstein burst into view in 2017 and Haggis condemned him.

    “The hypocrisy of it made her blood boil,” lawyer Zoe Salzman said in her opening statement.

    Jurors will also hear from four other women who told Breest’s lawyers that Haggis sexually assaulted them, or attempted to do so, in separate encounters. One of them testified Wednesday, via videotaped questioning, that Haggis raped her during an after-hours meeting in her office in 1996 when both worked on a Canadian TV show.

    The jury won’t hear, however, that Italian authorities this summer investigated a sexual assault allegation against Haggis, which he denied.

    Haggis maintains that his encounter with Breest was consensual, and defence attorney Priya Chaudhry noted that the other women who are set to testify never took legal action of their own against him.

    “Paul Haggis is relieved that he finally gets his day in court,” Chaudhry told jurors.

    Both sides pointed to what Breest texted to a friend the day after the alleged attack.

    Her lawyer emphasized that Breest wrote that “he was so rough and aggressive. Never, ever again … And I kept saying no.” Haggis’ attorney, meanwhile, said Breest added “lol” — common texting shorthand for laughter — when she mentioned performing oral sex, and that she told the friend she wanted to be alone with Haggis again to “see what happens.”

    Chaudhry argued that Breest falsely claimed rape to angle for a payout. But the attorney also suggested another explanation for the allegations.

    Promising “circumstantial evidence,” she suggested that Scientologists ginned up Breest’s lawsuit to discredit him after he became a prominent detractor.

    The church denies any involvement, and Breest’s lawyers have called the notion a baseless conspiracy theory.

    “Scientology has nothing to do with this case” or with any of Haggis’ accusers, she told jurors. The church has said the same.

    Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals focused on spiritual betterment. Science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” is a foundational text.

    The religion has gained a following among such celebrities as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley. But some high-profile members have broken with it, including Haggis, singer Lisa Marie Presley and actor Leah Remini.

    In a memoir and documentary series, Remini said the church uses manipulative and abusive tactics to indoctrinate followers into putting its goals above all else, and she maintained that it worked to discredit critics who spoke out.

    The church has vociferously disputed the claims.

    Haggis says he was a Scientologist for three decades before leaving the church in 2009. He slammed it as “a cult” in a 2011 New Yorker article that later informed a book and an HBO documentary, and he foreshadowed that retribution would come in the form of “a scandal that looks like it has nothing to do with the church.”

    The church, which didn’t respond to a request for comment this week, has repeatedly said Haggis lied about its practices to get attention for himself and his career.

    Masterson’s lawyer, meanwhile, is asking jurors to disregard the actor’s affiliation with Scientology, though prosecutors say the church discouraged two of his three accusers from going to authorities. All three are former members.

    Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday in a $40 million lawsuit brought by actor Anthony Rapp who says Spacey made a sexual pass at him in 1986 when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26. Spacey denies the encounter ever happened.

    Weinstein is facing his second criminal trial, this time set in L.A. and involving five women and multiple rapes and sexual assault charges. He is already serving a 23-year prison sentence on a rape and sexual assault conviction involving two women in New York.

    The Associated Press does not usually name people alleging sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Breest and Rapp have done.

    NEW YORK: The #MeToo movement is having another moment in the spotlight as high-profile sexual assault trials play out in courtrooms from coast to coast.

    Five years after allegations against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein triggered a wave of sexual misconduct claims in Hollywood and beyond, he and “That ’70s Show” actor Danny Masterson are fighting criminal rape charges at trials down the hall from each other in Los Angeles.

    In New York, trials are underway in sexual assault lawsuits against actor Kevin Spacey and screenwriter-director Paul Haggis, both Oscar winners. Spacey’s defence rested Wednesday while lawyers for Haggis and his accuser gave opening statements in an adjacent courthouse. All of the men deny the allegations.

    A forcible touching case against another Academy Award winner, actor Cuba Gooding Jr., wrapped up in New York last week with a guilty plea to a non-criminal harassment violation and no jail time, to the dismay of at least some of his accusers.

    The confluence is a coincidence, but a striking one, amid a cultural movement that has demanded visibility and accountability.

    “We’re still very early on in this time of reckoning,” said Debra Katz, a Washington-based lawyer who has represented many sexual assault accusers. She isn’t involved in the Haggis, Masterson, Spacey or Weinstein trials.

    Besides their #MeToo reverberations, both Haggis’ case and Masterson’s have become forums for scrutinizing the Church of Scientology, though from different perspectives.

    In the case against Haggis, publicist Haleigh Breest claims that the “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” screenwriter forced her to perform oral sex and raped her after she reluctantly agreed to a drink in his Manhattan apartment after a 2013 movie premiere. She’s seeking unspecified damages.

    She didn’t go public until after the allegations against Weinstein burst into view in 2017 and Haggis condemned him.

    “The hypocrisy of it made her blood boil,” lawyer Zoe Salzman said in her opening statement.

    Jurors will also hear from four other women who told Breest’s lawyers that Haggis sexually assaulted them, or attempted to do so, in separate encounters. One of them testified Wednesday, via videotaped questioning, that Haggis raped her during an after-hours meeting in her office in 1996 when both worked on a Canadian TV show.

    The jury won’t hear, however, that Italian authorities this summer investigated a sexual assault allegation against Haggis, which he denied.

    Haggis maintains that his encounter with Breest was consensual, and defence attorney Priya Chaudhry noted that the other women who are set to testify never took legal action of their own against him.

    “Paul Haggis is relieved that he finally gets his day in court,” Chaudhry told jurors.

    Both sides pointed to what Breest texted to a friend the day after the alleged attack.

    Her lawyer emphasized that Breest wrote that “he was so rough and aggressive. Never, ever again … And I kept saying no.” Haggis’ attorney, meanwhile, said Breest added “lol” — common texting shorthand for laughter — when she mentioned performing oral sex, and that she told the friend she wanted to be alone with Haggis again to “see what happens.”

    Chaudhry argued that Breest falsely claimed rape to angle for a payout. But the attorney also suggested another explanation for the allegations.

    Promising “circumstantial evidence,” she suggested that Scientologists ginned up Breest’s lawsuit to discredit him after he became a prominent detractor.

    The church denies any involvement, and Breest’s lawyers have called the notion a baseless conspiracy theory.

    “Scientology has nothing to do with this case” or with any of Haggis’ accusers, she told jurors. The church has said the same.

    Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals focused on spiritual betterment. Science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” is a foundational text.

    The religion has gained a following among such celebrities as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley. But some high-profile members have broken with it, including Haggis, singer Lisa Marie Presley and actor Leah Remini.

    In a memoir and documentary series, Remini said the church uses manipulative and abusive tactics to indoctrinate followers into putting its goals above all else, and she maintained that it worked to discredit critics who spoke out.

    The church has vociferously disputed the claims.

    Haggis says he was a Scientologist for three decades before leaving the church in 2009. He slammed it as “a cult” in a 2011 New Yorker article that later informed a book and an HBO documentary, and he foreshadowed that retribution would come in the form of “a scandal that looks like it has nothing to do with the church.”

    The church, which didn’t respond to a request for comment this week, has repeatedly said Haggis lied about its practices to get attention for himself and his career.

    Masterson’s lawyer, meanwhile, is asking jurors to disregard the actor’s affiliation with Scientology, though prosecutors say the church discouraged two of his three accusers from going to authorities. All three are former members.

    Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday in a $40 million lawsuit brought by actor Anthony Rapp who says Spacey made a sexual pass at him in 1986 when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26. Spacey denies the encounter ever happened.

    Weinstein is facing his second criminal trial, this time set in L.A. and involving five women and multiple rapes and sexual assault charges. He is already serving a 23-year prison sentence on a rape and sexual assault conviction involving two women in New York.

    The Associated Press does not usually name people alleging sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Breest and Rapp have done.

  • Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial movie to air on streaming platform

    By IANS

    LOS ANGELES: The controversial defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is the subject of a new movie, ‘Hot Take: The Depp/Heard Trial’, set to debut exclusively on the free Tubi streaming service.

    The film stars Mark Hapka (Parallels’, ‘Days of Our Lives’) as Depp and Megan Davis (‘Alone in the Dark’) as Heard. It is set to premiere on Friday, September 30, on Fox’s Tubi.

    According to a report by Variety, Melissa Marty will join Hapka and Davis as Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez and Mary Carrig will portray Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft.

    ‘Hot Take’ follows the tumultuous relationship — in and out of court — of Depp and Heard, dramatizing the two-month defamation trial that concluded on June 1, with the jury finding that Heard had defamed Depp by alluding to domestic violence allegations against him in a December 2018 op-ed piece.

    The jury also held Depp liable for a defamatory statement made about Heard by his lawyer

    ‘Hot Take’ comes from Fox Entertainment’s MarVista Entertainment. The film is written by Guy Nicolucci and directed by Sara Lohman.

    The movie was fast-tracked into production by Tubi and MarVista “to capture a timely take on a story that became part of the cultural zeitgeist, painting a unique picture of what millions watched play out in the headlines over the summer,” Adam Lewinson, Tubia’s chief content officer, said in a statement.

    ‘Hot Take: The Depp/Heard Trial’ is one of many timely, culturally relevant original movies to come from our expanding partnership and slate of movies being produced in collaboration with Tubi,” said Hannah Pillemer, EVP creative of affairs for MarVista.

    “Connecting viewers to stories with this kind of social currency and topicality make watching them a must for any fan of pop culture or celebrity drama.”

    The film is executive produced by Brittany Clemons, Angie Day, Marianne C. Wunch, Hannah Pillemer and Fernando Szew. Autumn Federici and Kristifor Cvijetic serve as producers under their Ninth House banner.

    LOS ANGELES: The controversial defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is the subject of a new movie, ‘Hot Take: The Depp/Heard Trial’, set to debut exclusively on the free Tubi streaming service.

    The film stars Mark Hapka (Parallels’, ‘Days of Our Lives’) as Depp and Megan Davis (‘Alone in the Dark’) as Heard. It is set to premiere on Friday, September 30, on Fox’s Tubi.

    According to a report by Variety, Melissa Marty will join Hapka and Davis as Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez and Mary Carrig will portray Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft.

    ‘Hot Take’ follows the tumultuous relationship — in and out of court — of Depp and Heard, dramatizing the two-month defamation trial that concluded on June 1, with the jury finding that Heard had defamed Depp by alluding to domestic violence allegations against him in a December 2018 op-ed piece.

    The jury also held Depp liable for a defamatory statement made about Heard by his lawyer

    ‘Hot Take’ comes from Fox Entertainment’s MarVista Entertainment. The film is written by Guy Nicolucci and directed by Sara Lohman.

    The movie was fast-tracked into production by Tubi and MarVista “to capture a timely take on a story that became part of the cultural zeitgeist, painting a unique picture of what millions watched play out in the headlines over the summer,” Adam Lewinson, Tubia’s chief content officer, said in a statement.

    ‘Hot Take: The Depp/Heard Trial’ is one of many timely, culturally relevant original movies to come from our expanding partnership and slate of movies being produced in collaboration with Tubi,” said Hannah Pillemer, EVP creative of affairs for MarVista.

    “Connecting viewers to stories with this kind of social currency and topicality make watching them a must for any fan of pop culture or celebrity drama.”

    The film is executive produced by Brittany Clemons, Angie Day, Marianne C. Wunch, Hannah Pillemer and Fernando Szew. Autumn Federici and Kristifor Cvijetic serve as producers under their Ninth House banner.

  • Reality TV’s Josh Duggar gets 12 years in child porn case

    By Associated Press

    FAYETTEVILLE: Former reality TV star Josh Duggar was sentenced Wednesday to about 12 1/2 years in prison after he was convicted of receiving child pornography.

    Duggar was also convicted of possessing child pornography in December, but US District Judge Timothy Brooks dismissed that conviction after ruling that, under federal law, it was an included offense in the receiving child pornography count.

    Prosecutors had asked US District Judge Timothy Brooks to give the maximum term of 20 years to Duggar, whose large family was the focus of TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting.” They argued in a pre-sentencing court filing that Duggar has a “deep-seated, pervasive and violent sexual interest in children.”

    The judge sentenced Duggar to 12 years and seven months in prison, one day after denying a defense motion to overturn the guilty verdict on grounds of insufficient evidence or to order a new trial.

    US Attorney David Clay Fowlkes said he was pleased with the sentence. “While this is not the sentence we asked for, this is a lengthy sentence,” Fowlkes said outside the courthouse.

    Duggar, whose lawyers sought a five-year sentence, maintains his innocence. Defense attorney Justin Gelfand said he is grateful Brooks declined to impose the full 20-year sentence requested by prosecutors. “We’ll immediately file the notice of appeal within the next 14 days,” Gelfand said.

    Duggar was arrested in April 2021 after a Little Rock police detective found child porn files were being shared by a computer traced to Duggar. Investigators testified that images depicting the sexual abuse of children, including toddlers, were downloaded in 2019 onto a computer at a car dealership Duggar owned.

    TLC canceled “19 Kids and Counting” in 2015 following allegations that Duggar had molested four of his sisters and a babysitter years earlier. Authorities began investigating the abuse in 2006 after receiving a tip from a family friend but concluded that the statute of limitations on any possible charges had expired.

    Duggar’s parents said he had confessed to the fondling and apologized. After the allegations resurfaced in 2015, Duggar apologized publicly for unspecified behavior and resigned as a lobbyist for the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group.

    Months later, he publicly apologized for cheating on his wife and for pornography addiction, for which he then sought treatment. In seeking a 20-year sentence, prosecutors cited the graphic images — and the ages of the children involved — as well as court testimony about the alleged abuse of Duggar’s sisters.

    Duggar’s past behavior “provides an alarming window into the extent of his sexual interest in children that the Court should consider at sentencing,” federal prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum.

    “This past conduct, when viewed alongside the conduct for which he has been convicted, makes clear that Duggar has a deep-seated, pervasive, and violent sexual interest in children, and a willingness to act on that interest,” the court filing said.

    Prosecutors also noted that Duggar’s computer had been partitioned to evade accountability software that had been installed to report to his wife activity such as porn searches, according to experts.

    “There is simply no indication that Duggar will ever take the steps necessary to change this pattern of behavior and address his predilection for minor females,” prosecutors wrote.

    “Duggar accepts that he is before this Court for sentencing and that this Court must impose a penalty,” his attorneys wrote. “That is justice. But Duggar also appeals to this Court’s discretion to temper that justice with mercy.”

  • Amber Heard fires PR team over ‘bad headlines’, days before trial

    LOS ANGELES: Actress Amber Heard fired her PR team and switched to a new firm after she reportedly became frustrated following a week of ‘bad headlines’ during the defamation trial brought by her ex-husband and actor Johnny Depp, a new report claimed.According to dailymail.co.uk, Heard was being represented by Precision Strategies, which she suddenly ditched in favour of LA-based consulting firm Shane Communications. She made the move in apparent hopes that she might receive more favourable coverage this week – during which time she is expected to take to the stand and testify.”She doesn’t like bad headlines,” an unnamed source told the New York Post, which first reported the news, reports dailymail.co.uk. Another source told the newspaper that Heard, 36, is “frustrated with her story not being told effectively.”The A-list trial in Virginia, which started on April 11 and is set to last another three weeks, has so far seen Depp, 58, claim he was the victim of domestic abuse during his four days of testimony – with his bodyguard on Thursday even describing in detail the wounds on the actor’s face allegedly sustained during a confrontation with Heard.The actor is suing Heard for $50 million, claiming she defamed him and ruined his career after a 2018 Washington Post article in which she described herself as a ‘public figure representing domestic abuse’, without naming her ex-husband.Heard is counter-suing for $100 million, and after three weeks of sitting silently in the courtroom during Depp’s testimony, she is preparing to start her fightback, possibly as soon as Wednesday. The PR firm switch came following several days of court testimony from Depp witnesses that saw the social-media mob suddenly turn against Heard.Heard’s credibility as a philanthropist also took a battering when it was claimed she had not donated her $3.5 million divorce settlement to charity, something she had promised publicly to do. She had apparently donated only $1.3 million and much of that appeared to have come from her former boyfriend, billionaire Elon Musk.According to Terence Dougherty, the chief operating officer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the recipient of Amber’s ‘largesse’ of $500,000, it came from a Vanguard fund connected to Musk.Her contributions dried up by 2019, and Dougherty told the court the ACLU ‘learned that she was having financial difficulties’. Heard’s lawyer is arguing Depp abused her both physically and sexually and she hopes to make her point once she takes the stand early this week. Shane Communications is led by its CEO David Shane, who has briefed against Depp in the past.In 2017, the firm highlighted accusations made by Depp’s former business managers, The Management Group, alleging that the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star needed to hire a shrink for his ‘compulsive spending’ habit of spending $2 million per month.Depp then launched a $25 million lawsuit last month against his business managers, The Mandel Company, claiming ‘gross mismanagement’ of his affairs. One crisis communications expert told the Post that they believed the new PR company would have its work cut out in order to change the narrative.”It’s crazy to change teams in the middle of a trial like this because you don’t like the headlines,” said Lis Smith, a senior communications director for Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign.”After years of narrative building, you can’t change the public’s opinion in the three weeks when someone is suing you in a case.” Heard never wanted cameras to be allowed in the courtroom at all, but Depp’s team pushed for it, and won. Depp has even accused his ex of defecating on their bed in an act of aggression.Testimony so far has also included photos of severed fingers, pictures of feces, videos of explosive arguments and temper tantrums, and even a discussion about the Hollywood star’s penis. Depp denies the allegations of abuse noting how he brought the lawsuit in order to clear his name.Lawyers for Heard say such denials are not credible because the actor was too drunk and high to remember what occurred. The trial in the Fairfax County Courthouse runs Monday to Thursday from 10 am to 5 pm, and is set to conclude on May 19.

  • Johnny Depp on stand: Ex-wife Heard’s allegations ‘heinous’

    By Associated Press

    FAIRFAX:  Actor Johnny Depp told jurors Tuesday that he felt compelled to sue his ex-wife Amber Heard for libel out of an obsession for the truth after she accused him of domestic violence.

    “My goal is the truth because it killed me that all these people I had met over the years … that these people would think that I was a fraud,” he said.

    Depp flatly denied ever hitting Heard, calling the physical and sexual assault allegations against him disturbing, heinous and “not based in any species of truth.” “Nothing of the kind ever happened,” Depp said in court.

    Alluding to the fall his career has taken since Heard levied abuse allegations against him, the former “Pirates of the Caribbean” star said, “it’s been six years of trying times. It’s very strange when one day you’re Cinderella, so to speak, and then in 0.6 seconds you’re Quasimodo.”

    For the first hour-plus of testimony Tuesday, Depp gave long, stream-of-consciousness answers to questions about his childhood and his early movie career, speaking in his signature deep baritone. After one long answer, he admitted: “I forgot what the original question was.”

    Indeed, he acknowledged his meandering style, particularly as it relates to his writing style. He mentioned his long friendship and collaborations with the late gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, and said he sought to emulate a style that often incorporated brash language and embellishing thoughts.

    He said that led him at times to write text messages that he now finds embarrassing, and he apologized to the jury for the vulgar language he used in text messages introduced as evidence to describe Heard.

    “In the heat of the moment, in the heat of the pain I was feeling, I went to dark places,” he said. But he said he’d been waiting for six years to tell his side of the story after Heard filed for divorce against him in 2016 and sought a restraining order against him.

    ALSO READ: Amber Heard to go on social media hiatus ahead of defamation lawsuit filed by Johnny Depp

    The trial began more than a week ago, but, prior to Tuesday, jurors had only seen the Hollywood star sitting silently with his team of lawyers as each side has tried to embarrass the other in a trial that Heard’s lawyers accurately predicted would turn into a mudslinging soap opera.

    After denying Heard’s abuse allegations, Depp spoke at length about a childhood in which physical abuse from his mother was “constant.” When he became a father, Depp said, he made sure his children didn’t experience that kind of upbringing.

    Depp will continue his testimony Wednesday. In Tuesday’s session, he testified primarily about the early years of his relationship with Heard, saying she seemed “too good to be true” at first.

    “She was attentive,” Depp said of the woman he married in 2015. “She was loving. She was smart. She was kind. She was funny. She was understanding … We had many things in common, certain blues music … literature.”

    He said there were little things, though, that gave him indications of a rocky relationship ahead. She became upset, he said, when he broke an established routine in which she took off his boots for him when he came home. And he said she was angry when he wouldn’t go to bed when she was ready.

    “I didn’t understand why, as a 50-some-year-old man, I couldn’t go to sleep when I wanted to,” he said.

    Depp, 58, said he was cognizant of the age difference between him and Heard, 35. “I acknowledge the fact I was the old, craggy fogey and she was this beautiful, creature,” he said. But Depp said that within a year and a half, it was as if Heard had become another person.

    Actress Amber Heard in the courtroom during a hearing at the Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax. (Photo | AP)

    So far, Depp’s friends, family, and employees have testified that Heard was the aggressor in the relationship, physically attacking him on multiple occasions. Heard’s former personal assistant testified that Heard spit in the face in a fit of rage.

    Heard’s lawyers have said Depp physically and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, often in situations where he drank so much he later blacked out. Depp said Heard’s allegations of his substance abuse have been “grossly embellished” and that there have been no moments where he’s been out of control.

    “I’m not some maniac who needs to be high or loaded all the time,” Depp said, though he admitted to doing “a line or two” of cocaine with Heard’s sister, Whitney.

    The actor said he was addicted to pain medication, which stemmed from an injury on the set of the fourth “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie. He also said he took his mother’s “nerve pills” when he was a kid. But Depp said he detoxed from the pain medication and has experienced long periods of sobriety over the years.

    “The characterization of my ‘substance abuse’ that’s been delivered by Ms. Heard is grossly embellished,” Depp said. “And I’m sorry to say, but a lot of it is just plainly false. I think that it was an easy target for her to hit.”

    The lawsuit itself is supposed to be over whether Heard libeled Depp when she wrote a 2018 op-ed piece in The Washington Post about domestic violence. In the article, Heard referred to herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”

    She never mentioned Depp by name, but Depp and his lawyers said it was a clear reference to accusations Heard made in 2016 when the couple divorced and she sought a restraining order against him.

    Heard’s lawyers, who have filed their own countersuit against Depp, said nothing in the article libels him. They say the abuse allegations are true, and that the damage to Depp’s reputation — which he says got him booted from the lucrative “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie franchise — came from his own bad behavior.

  • Ed Sheeran awaits verdict over copyright court battle

    By Associated Press

    An 11-day trial over the copyright of Ed Sheeran’s hit song “Shape of You” concluded in London on Tuesday, with the judge saying he would take some time to consider his ruling.

    The British pop star and his co-writers, Snow Patrol’s John McDaid and producer Steven McCutcheon, denies accusations that the 2017 song copies part of a 2015 song called “Oh Why” by Sami Chokri, who performs under the name Sami Switch.

    Lawyer Andrew Sutcliffe, representing the “Oh Why” co-writers, argued there was an “indisputable similarity between the works” and suggested the chances of two songs that “correlate” appearing within months of each other was “minutely small.”

    The lawyer claimed that Sheeran had “Oh Why” “consciously or unconsciously in his head” when “Shape of You” was written in 2016. He also alleged that Sheeran, who attended the hearing throughout, was dishonest and evasive in giving evidence to the trial.

    Sheeran and his co-writers say they have disclosed material to the trial and do not remember hearing “Oh Why” before the court case.

    Justice Antony Zacaroli said Tuesday he would deliver his judgment “as soon as I can.” “Shape of You” was the biggest selling song in the U.K. in 2017.

  • Covaxin trial may begin for children soon, expert panel recommends

    Coronavirus epidemic continues in India. Talking about the last 24 hours, there have been 3,29,942 new cases of corona in the country on Tuesday, while 3,876 people have lost their lives due to corona in one day. Meanwhile, India may soon get a good news in the war against Corona. Actually, an expert panel of Covaxin Bharat Biotech of Bharat Biotech has recommended the approval of second and third stage trials for ages 2 to 18 years. According to the official sources, this trial will be done at AIIMS in Delhi and Patna and several other places including the Meditrina Medical Science Institute in Nagpur.

    On Tuesday, the Subject Expert Committee (SEC) of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) discussed the application of Hyderabad-based Bharat Biotech. The committee has recommended to approve Phase II and Phase III clinical trials on 2 to 18 years of age of Covaxine.
    The committee recommended the clinical trial on the condition that along with the submission of the second stage safety data, the DSMB recommendation would have to be presented to the CDSCO before the Phase Three trial.

  • The government has never spoken about vaccination for the whole country: Health Secretary Rajesh Bhushan

    Cases of corona infection are increasing in the country and everyone is waiting for its effective vaccine to come. People are thinking that once the vaccine arrives, they will escape from the corona due to this, but it is completely wrong to think so. It is not necessary that you get it after the vaccine.

    Darussal, Health Ministry says that the government has never said that vaccines will be applied to people from all over the country. On the question of time taken for vaccination of Corona vaccine, Secretary Rajesh Bhushan said, “I want to make one thing clear that The government has never spoken of vaccinating the entire country. “

    He said “It is important that we discuss scientific issues that are based on factual information.” Director of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) K Balaram Bhargava said that the government’s objective is to break the transmission of the corona.

    He said, “Vaccination will depend on the effect of the vaccine and we aim to break the transmission of corona infection. If we are successful in applying the vaccine to some people and can break the transmission, then we do not have to apply the vaccine to the entire population of the country.” Will fall. “The government dismissed the possibility of the vaccine deadline being affected by the alleged side effect on a Tamil Nadu man who took part in the Oxford vaccine trial.

    Health Secretary Rajesh Bhushan said that the deadline would not be affected. Volunteers who enter clinical trials already sign a consent form. In this, the volunteer is told that there may be some side effects in the trial.