ALW lawyer warns LuPone of 'false and libelous' statements — Page 5

David10086 said: "And if the interviewer asks her about "SUNSET" she certainly can pass on the question, and reset the interview - focus on the present and the future; the past is the past."

Are you new here? Has Patti LuPone EVER passed on a question in an interview? Plus, she really cannot win; if she passed on the question, she'd probably still be called out on it, but clearly people don't like when she answers questions honestly either.

David10086 said: "I'm not sure she's "rebounded" from the experience, more than two decades later. If she's still dragging ALW through the mud in an interview, she hasn't fully rebounded. If she's focused on "WAR PAINT" as you say 24/7. and her upcoming surgery, etc. then maybe she should focus on that in the interview - and her upcoming role in "COMPANY" next year. And if the interviewer asks her about "SUNSET" she certainly can pass on the question, and reset the interview - focus on the present and the future; the past is the past.

It will be interesting to see if this warning from ALW's lawyer will quiet her down a bit."

Spot on David... A mature person would simply say "it was an ugly, painful period that still infuriates me and I'd rather not talk about the past - but focus on all the great things now -- 25 YEARS LATER"

Soaring29 said: Saying a statement that might be true from one's perspective isn't neccesarily libelous/slanderous.

Unless you have very good proof or its common knowledge, it is definitely slander. What would you say if someone called you a drug addict to the press today?

newintown said: "Telling a woman to "quiet down?" I await responses..."



Here's a couple...

If the lawyer was a female, and I would still ask if her warnings would 'quiet her down', what would your reaction be? Why does the gender of the lawyer have anything to do with this? That should be the least of Lupone's legal concerns if she continues on this way.

But while we're on gender...

If it was a female producer who fired Lupone and replaced her on B'way, would Lupone still be carrying on this way some 23 years later? Would she call the female producer 'mentally unstable' , 'an alcoholic', etc. as she has to ALW all these years? For some reason, I'm betting on "NO".

Soaring29 said: "Guys, stop making everybody feel old- It's been 23 years since the settlement, not 25, which was in May of 1994.

I don't know- Saying a statement that might be true from one's perspective isn't neccesarily libelous/slanderous(since if he sued her, it would be for both). She, or anybody else who is in a similar situation, should not be obligated to say "in my opinion" or "allegedly". None of the statements mentioned in the shared article are enough to be considered libel/slander. When did she ever say he was an alcoholic? Anyone have a link?"

Saying a statement that might be true from one's perspective needs to be said that way: "From my perspective" , "in my opinion", etc. To say it definitively (as she has done) could indeed be considered libelous....and there are plenty of entertainment lawyers (both male and female!!) in New York, London, LA, etc who would be able to take this further.

However, ALW may be very able (in a court of law) to get her to refrain from saying such things, but he probably can't win much in monetary awards. He would have to prove financial damages to his reputation to win monetarily (such as 'because of her statements, no one wants to invest in his productions'; because of her statements 'he lost out on having big name actors in his productions which he suffered financial losses', etc.' So far, in the past 23 years, none of that has happened to him - at least not because of her.

David10086 said: "Soaring29 said: "Guys, stop making everybody feel old- It's been 23 years since the settlement, not 25, which was in May of 1994.

I don't know- Saying a statement that might be true from one's perspective isn't neccesarily libelous/slanderous(since if he sued her, it would be for both). She, or anybody else who is in a similar situation, should not be obligated to say "in my opinion" or "allegedly". None of the statements mentioned in the shared article are enough to be considered libel/slander. When did she ever say he was an alcoholic? Anyone have a link?"

Saying a statement that might be true from one's perspective needs to be said that way: "From my perspective" , "in my opinion", etc. To say it definitively(as she has done) could indeed be considered libelous....and there are plenty of entertainment lawyers (both male and female!!) in New York, London, LA, etc who would be able to take this further.

However, ALW may be very able (in a court of law) to get her to refrain from saying such things, but he probably can't win much in monetary awards. He would have to prove financial damages to his reputation to win monetarily (such as 'because of her statements, no one wants to invest in his productions'; because of her statements 'he lost out on having big name actors in his productions which he suffered financial losses', etc.' So far, in the past 23 years, none of that has happened to him - at least not because of her.

"

There's a part of me that wishes he would sue her and get back what he lost in the Sunset settlement. The way she's conducted herself with regard to this ever since has been equally as unprofessional as what happened with her losing the part in NY.

GavestonPS said: "David, you're right about having to show damages (at least in the U.S.), but I've been told many, many times that adding "in my opinion" or "from my perspective" is superfluous, legally.

A statement of opinion--"Patti LuPone's voice is unpleasant to hear"--is legally distinguishable from a statement of fact--"ALW is an alcoholic". How you or I label our remarks isn't going to matter to a judge or jury. Such triers of fact will make up their own minds. Think about it this way: if I were directing her and told the TIMES--"In my opinion, Miss LuPone misses too muchrehearsal"--the effect on her career would be the same whether I put in the opinion disclaimer or not. So why should that afford me legal protection?She either misses or she doesn't. "Too much" is apt to be defined by comparison to other actresses. (Note: all statements in quotation marks in this paragraph are semantic examples only and do not reflect truth or opinion.)"



By saying "In my opinion, he's an alcoholic" or "It is my understanding / belief / opinion he is mentally unstable " is quite different from stating it as absolute fact. When you state it's an opinion, belief, feeling, understanding, etc. you are covering yourself (legally) with the fact that you're admitting you don't know for sure and your statement can certainly be challenged, as it's alleged (def: to assert without proof). SO there's no basis for a lawsuit, as you are not saying it's an undisputable fact about someone else and damaging their reputation; you're simply stating an opinion which some can dispute.



This is why so many talk show hosts today will bring up something controversial, and always clarify with "Allegedly..." Again, they are admitting up front they do not know it as a fact, or they are not sure if it's true....they are just repeating what has been said. Whoopi Goldberg on "The View" will always start off a topic this way if there is no proof/confirmation by ABC to back it up. Otherwise, she and the network are opening themselves up to lawsuits by politicians and celebrities.

Thank you, Soaring29, for the additional info. IT IS MY OPINION--not really, but if I remember correctly, the burden of proof of slander/libel is reversed in the UK. There, the defendant has to prove the truth of her statement; i.e., PL would have to prove ALW was a crazy alcoholic in 1994. (I think there's a link to exactly what she said many pages back. It was basically just that.)

But PL's actual lawsuit was for breach of contract, it seems, and I don't know what the requirements are in either country. But in the U.K., the loser of a lawsuit automatically pays legal costs for both sides. Here, that only happens if the judge rules the lawsuit was particularly egregious and unnecessary. So, in general, there is far less litigation in the U.K.

David, "allegedly" is very different from "in my opinion", but it isn't a magic phrase either. When a journalist says something has been alleged (whether in a court document or a statement by someone else) she is saying that what follows is something somebody else claims to be true, it is not true of her own knowledge and belief. This is why Goldberg uses it: she's reporting what somebody else reported, not what she herself knows.

Kathy Griffin uses it in practically every sentence, but it's schtick to her: Griffin knows her work is protected in most instances as satire, which the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled is protected by our First Amendment. (Donald Trump learned this the hard way when he sued Bill Mahr for saying Trump was the spawn of an orangutan. The court ruled Mahr's remark was biologically impossible and therefore obviously satire. Trump lost.)

The only place I know of where a claim of "opinion" makes a legal difference is in establishing "ownership" (my word) of the potentially libelous remark. The news feed I get on my phone from Microsoft/NBC says before each editorial that "the following content is the opinion of the writer and not that of Microsoft" et al. That is an attempt to shift the blame to the writer.

So saying your post here is your "opinion" may protect BWW.com, but it won't keep you from being sued if somebody actually thinks your post is important enough to fight. Usually, a request to remove it is enough, since the medium on which the statement sits doesn't want to spend time and money proving it is your opinion, not theirs.

GavestonPS said: "chernjam said: "
There's a part of me that wishes he would sue her and get back what he lost in the Sunset settlement. The way she's conducted herself with regard to this ever since has been equally as unprofessional as what happened with her losing the part in NY."

Equally? As unprofessional as a breach of contract that cost her millions of dollars and untold millions more in other jobs the exposure might have brought her? His tort cost her work; hers (if you could prove she committed libel or slander)cost him nothing.

I don't know you so I'm not going to accuse you of anything based on one, short post, but I can understand how statements such as yours led others to raised the subject of misogyny.

"

Originally I was going to make a joke along the lines "now watch me be accused of misogyny." This has nothing to do with Patti being a woman. It has to do with the fact that in interviews, in her autobiography, she has continued to bash ALW and make wild accusations like him being unstable or an alcoholic for now decades . As an ALW fan, I was upset when all of this went down the way it did back in 1994. It was hard for me to believe as a mere theatre observer that Glenn Close would open in LA but not broadway - and after following the World Premiere and LA opening that seemed less likely. Patti did deserve better than to find out from her agent reading a Liz Smith column in the newspaper.

But her non-stop verbal accusations (not to mention denigrating all of ALW works - including Evita which arguably made her a bonafide, international star) is what I found equally unprofessional. Has she collected her settlement and even chosen to say how hurt, how angry, how slighted she felt in interviews, I wouldn't have minded. But her calling him a drunk and mentally unstable? Way too far. And I would have said the exact same thing if this story was about Michael Crawford instead of Patti LuPone.

Patti Lupone has the right to hate ALW forever and to bitch about him forever.

But after 25 years whether that reflects more on her or ALW is another matter ...