Jim March makes USA Today


PDA






Atticus
July 22, 2004, 10:51 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-07-21-ambushtv-main_x.htm

Jim March, a lobbyist for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, says he was deceived when he was asked in May to appear on The Debate Show, now known as Crossballs: The Debate Show.

The contract stated that The Debate Show was a "tentative title" and that the show would air on a Viacom channel, without specifying Comedy Central. March was invited on to discuss gun rights. But, he says, the show became "one long, grotesque genitalia joke."

Matt Besser, a Crossballs executive producer who plays a fake expert on each show, posed the argument as an anti-gun advocate that guns are substitutes for a lack of sexual prowess.

" 'When was your first homoerotic experience?' That was question No. 2 or 3," March says.

"I am beyond furious," he says. He maintains that the show wasn't satire but a "personal attack."

March considered walking away during taping, he says, but had been paid $200 and put up in a hotel room and felt he should fulfill his obligation. In the end, he says, "they played me like a fiddle, very professionally."

And March says it was political. He says Besser "got what he figured was a right-winger — although I'm more libertarian than GOP — and thought, 'I'll bushwhack the bejesus out of him.' "

March's lawyer has sent a letter threatening legal action on the basis of fraud if the show airs. Comedy Central says March signed a release, and the channel is "confident it will hold up against his complaints."

David Logan, lawyer and dean of the Roger Williams University Law School in Bristol, R.I., says that if a release or waiver has been signed, it makes it difficult to sue. "It's entertainment, maybe low-brow entertainment. You're setting people up — ha-ha, practical joke. It's not intense cruelty. It doesn't go to the soul of the persona and their identity. It's sophomoric stuff."

If you enjoyed reading about "Jim March makes USA Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Soap
July 22, 2004, 01:35 PM
Good work! Getting national press is a miracle! :cool:

Lagadelphia
July 22, 2004, 02:34 PM
and I came here to post this myself. You guys are too quick :P

Treylis
July 22, 2004, 03:12 PM
Comedy Central says March signed a release, and the channel is "confident it will hold up against his complaints."

I hope not.

bogie
July 22, 2004, 03:57 PM
3 words: Pack the courtroom.

Standing Wolf
July 22, 2004, 04:43 PM
Leftist extremists seem to enjoy making ludicrous fools of themselves in public.

PATH
July 22, 2004, 09:23 PM
Well the national attention is good I hope!

gunsmith
July 22, 2004, 09:56 PM
Those dimwitted anal retentive jerks allways accuse us of being fast on the trigger finger-Yet they do their level best to anger us?

davec
July 22, 2004, 11:56 PM
Comedy Central wins. The bigger the controversy, the more people who will watch.

jims98z28
July 23, 2004, 12:51 AM
They posted it on yahoo news aswell.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040722/en_usatoday/youcantpossiblybeserious

Kaxter
July 23, 2004, 04:20 AM
Made the LA Times too...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/indynews/news/la-hbi-racano24jun24,1,2272213.story?coll=la-tcn-indynews-news

Tharg
July 23, 2004, 05:47 AM
OK -

So jim is furious....

and i'm sure he came across as angry....

times like this you might have to ask yerselves.... surely when the "homoerotic" question came out - how did he react?

Remember if its not funny - its not comedy....

I can't say anything really - hindsight is always 20/20 ... the ali-g show on HBO does this sort of thing a lot... there is no legal standing for Jim.... he signed a release then he signed... one of those - don't put yer sig on it till ya know what yer signing things... and if there is a group of people that knows about contracts... its entertainment people.

People will see it - and you know what? the same people who are against guns will go - LOOK SEE!!!! and the same people that are for guns will be like - WTH! They set him up!

so honestly - the show has lil effect... a lot of the posts i've read on here have more effect... take the person out - have em shoot a gun - talk to em and let em know the facts...

J/Tharg!

btw... my new quote should be - Minorities have been the silent majority for a long time - and won thier rights to be free of the majority. (Rightly SO in THIS country - how they meant it to be!) The question is - do we punish the majority of the law abiding citizens for the minority of law-breaking criminals... (and they ARE a minority) Or do we honor our country's foundations and remember that people in THIS country have RIGHTS - not privledges.. but RIGHTS.

Ransom
July 23, 2004, 08:53 AM
People will see it - and you know what? the same people who are against guns will go - LOOK SEE!!!! and the same people that are for guns will be like - WTH! They set him up!

One quick note, the point of this show is that the actors take such insane ludacris postitions no one would possibly every agree with them and by contrast makes the experts opinion seem even more valid.

But honestly people dont care what the topic is. They tune in to see Matt Besser and Jerry Minor act like goofballs. Its your standard comedian/straightman act. When have you ever given a crap about the straightman that the funny person plays off of?

Jim March
July 23, 2004, 10:28 AM
there is no legal standing for Jim

I'm told otherwise by multiple attorneys.

See also:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1135086#post1135086

Henry Bowman
July 23, 2004, 11:06 AM
The articles are just some defensive spin. I like this quote:Humiliation isn't grounds for damages, he says.
It sure did keep the headlines when a few scumbags were "humiliated" in an Iraqi prison. :rolleyes: Oh yeah. Forgot about the double standard.

Andrew Rothman
July 23, 2004, 11:58 AM
there is no legal standing for Jim.... he signed a release then he signed... one of those - don't put yer sig on it till ya know what yer signing things... and if there is a group of people that knows about contracts... its entertainment people.

Tharg,

You apparently haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

If you sign a contract under false pretenses -- say, a substantial misrepresentation of facts -- then the contract is not binding.

Say I hire you to be a guard at my factory. We even sign an employment contract.

Then I tell you that your job duties consist mostly of cleaning toilets. Hey, it's your fault, you signed the contract!

Nope.

That's basically Jim's circumstance. And I hope his lawyer wipes the floor with them.

Jim March
July 23, 2004, 11:59 AM
I just got off the phone with Ann Oldenburg, the USA today reporter who wrote the story.

According to her, law school professor David Logan did NOT see the actual release, and did not get reports of what it was like during the signing (deliberate distraction) and didn't know that we weren't given copies.

All of which are highly relevent, according to the case law I'm seeing.

Tharg
July 23, 2004, 04:08 PM
Sorry Jim,

If thats the case... i'll be honest... not like I'm a lawyer or anything - just it sure SEEMS like when people sign stuff... they are saying they agree w/ what is written in the legaly and not forced to sign documents. And the purpose of people getting you to sign those documents is to CTA (cover THIER a**) if for some reason you don't like something.

Matt,
As above - i'm not a lawyer...(so if that means i don't know what i'm talking about - then ok) but the whole point of a contract is to state that you agree w/ what is written on it. How many holes lawyers can punch in another lawyers written document i couldn't possibly know. The document is the only written record of the transaction - I don't know how much "he said/she said" is admitable in court - or how it would be proven one way or the other.

*I* haven't seen the contract... so i can't even begin honestly base a opinion on if he signed something and then was presented w/ something else. (and prolly wouldn't truely understand the lawyer-ese if i DID see it) Just working on the presumption that if thier stock in trade is to "lure" experts in to humiliate them or be funny - then i'd think they'd know how to CYA in the contract.

All that being said - Jim - if yer offended, and it seems you are - i hope the case works out and you win :)

J/Tharg!

Jim March
July 23, 2004, 04:25 PM
The release is available at:

http://www.equalccw.com/debateshowrelease.pdf

Two huge problems in the release itself (on top of the distraction games played):

1) Here, on 5/18/04, they're saying that the show is "tentatively" called "The Debate Show". As far back as 2/18/04, Comedy Central was doing press releases on "Crossballs". So the listed show name is a fraud.

2) There's also a bizarre "you agree we can defraud you" clause that attempts to negate the verbal and written promises already made. The existence of such a weird thing proves that there was an intent to decieve right off the bat.

Dbl0Kevin
July 23, 2004, 04:31 PM
Jim,

Since the name of the show is now "Crossballs: The Debate Show" couldn't they sorta say that see the name of the show is the debate show......we just threw in the Crossballs part later?

I still think the whole situation is messed up, but like Tharg said if they knew this was their objective wouldn't they CYA pretty good on the release?

Jim March
July 23, 2004, 04:40 PM
They were calling it plain ol' "Crossballs" in official press releases going back to 2/18/04. Adding "The Debate Show" was later. In the opening credits on the video monitors while I was on stage, the word "Crossballs" flashed (briefly, and ALONE).

Second, this is NOT a normal type of show; only Ali G has done anything similar and even then not nearly as nasty as this got. So despite whatever they came up with, this is "new legal territory".

Third, remember that they did the same gags (including the same lies and the same distractions) to a LOT of people, not just me. Normally, proving deliberate distraction during a contract signing would be difficult. Not this time! Chris Simcox in partular was like talking to a mirror, they played us the SAME way in a huge number of details.

Tharg
July 23, 2004, 06:43 PM
Sheesh - read nearly all 13 pages of that other thread.... all i can say is sorry i spouted some crud.....

Only knew about what this thread said...

And like i said - i'm not a lawyer... but then thats how they get most of us simple smucks like *me* - we think "we signed it... oh well"... and apparently there is a WHOLE lot more to it.

I hate lawyers...

rofl.

Take care Jim and much luck/skill to ya! Don't worry - i'll keep reading... <hehe>

J/Tharg!

George Hill
July 23, 2004, 07:13 PM
"It's not intense cruelty. It doesn't go to the soul of the persona and their identity. It's sophomoric stuff."

So was the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
:rolleyes:

Tharg
July 25, 2004, 04:49 AM
No - prisoner abuse in iraq or guantanemo or wherever ... was ... the lowest common denominator.

I hold my US military to higher standards than anything i've ever seen/read about "other" militaries.

I understand righteous anger.... i don't understand makeing YOURSELF (aka the people that did those things or ordered them or whatever) as bad as the enemy could get.

a war is chess - chess w/ deadly consequences... it doesn't mean you have to get barbaric with defenseless prisoners... that only leads to doom for your psychie and for towards the detriment of the whole. =(

J/Tharg!

EDIT - did a search on my tivo... so far haven't seen any gun issues for programs scheduled....

If you enjoyed reading about "Jim March makes USA Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!