The latest is that we got a letter from a senior Viacom lawyer basically asking "what show are you talking about?"
I got Peter's opinion today that it won't be a problem posting our reply:
---------------------
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel: (707) 829-9050
Fax: (707) 824-1885
[email protected]
June 18, 2004
Joseph R. Molko, Esq.
Senor Counsel
Business and Legal Affairs
MTV Networks–A VIACOM Company
1515 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
RE: JIM MARCH’S OBJECTIONS
Dear Mr. Molko:
Thank you for your June 10, 2004 letter in which you asked me to supply you with the name of the television show which Jim March, my client, has complained about. As my May 28, 2004 letter to VIACOM’s CEO, Sumner Redstone, stated, Mr. March objects to how VIACOM’s agents committed a fraud against him regarding the true nature and content of the show they taped with him in it. Mr. March himself, and, via me, has now made timely, formal, repeated demands that he be 100% edited out, visually and audibly, from any broadcast or dissemination in any form of the taped show involving him, by anyone for any reason at any time.
Unfortunately, the exact name of the show is one of the matters in dispute. At a minimum, there appears to be compelling grounds that VIACOM’s producers and agents fraudulently misrepresented to Mr. March the name and nature of the show that included his participation, all as part of a deliberate pattern of deception.
Since I already gave you the date of the taping of the show, the location of that taping, and the names of VIACOM’s agents who mislead Mr. March, I am surprise that that information is, per you, inadequate for you “to investigate the issues raised†in my first letter to you. Nevertheless, taking you at face value that you do have a legitimate need for more information to investigate the issues I raised in my first letter to you, I now share with you below additional information, per your request, in the spirit of amicable cooperation.
Facts:
1) At all times, VIACOM’s agents told Mr. March that he was to appear on a television show called “The Debate Showâ€. He was told at various times that this was to air on “MTV†or “The MTV Networkâ€. These representations were made verbally at multiple times by the show’s producers, on “questionnaires†Emailed to Mr. March in MS-Word document format and just before the show on a “release†which he signed. The names of these VIACOM agents are: Erika Euler-Quinn (she sometimes identified herself as “Erika Quinnâ€), someone named “Justin†(her supervisor/boss?) and a “Jeffâ€. The latter two never gave their last names.
2) Mr. March was not given a copy of the “release†at the show; he signed it and gave it back to Erika Quinn in the dressing room. I have been faxed a copy of this alleged “release†by another VIACOM attorney. Mr. March confirms his signature on page two of this release; however, he is unable to confirm the authenticity of page one of the alleged release. Mr. March believes that page one of the release was not the page one that was part of what he reviewed and signed. Reformulated, he believes that after he signed the releases, and after he communicated his objections to the VIACOM agents who misrepresented everything to him, and after he demanded that he be given a copy of the release, that someone working on VIACOM’s behalf switched page one of the release and, after making that switch, has made an inaccurate, false attribution to Mr. March, namely, that page one of this alleged release that was given to me is a copy of the same page one of the same release that Mr. March signed.
That issue aside, assuming for the moment that the release as faxed to me is otherwise authentic [e.g., there has been no switch of page one,] the first page contains information that the show is “tentatively†titled “The Debate Showâ€, and is dated 5/18/04 (the date of my client’s appearance for taping of the show).
Mr. March felt “rushed†when the “release†was in front of him, and every time he glanced down at it Erika Quinn “verbally explained it to him†in a way that is contrary to what is stated on page one. Quinn was present in the room the entire time Mr. March saw the “releaseâ€.
3) Mr. March did reasonable “due diligence†before traveling down to Burbank, California for the taping. Mr. March was a professional computer technician before becoming a lobbyist. Before going to Burbank for the show’s taping, he used “google searches†to confirm that a show called “The Debate Show†existed. He found such evidence on a website called “standingroomonlyâ€. The exact URL (Universal Resource Locator, an “address†on the Internet) was:
http://standingroomonly.tv/debateshow/
This website appeared to Mr. March to be a distribution site for audience tickets for various authentic television shows, most of which are well known. See also:
http://www.standingroomonly.tv
The part of this website devoted to “The Debate Show†referred to the program by that name, along with the text “On MTVâ€. This led Mr. March to assume authenticity for this show’s name and network, and the title of the show involving the taping of him would, indeed, be “The Debate Show.†The very name, “The Debate Show,†strongly implies a serious, calm, focused, rational debate of a rather high level cerebral content. That title and the implication of that title appealed to Mr. March as a lobbyist. That title, and those implications, motivated Mr. March to agree to participate in such a show of that nature. But the show he participated in was the opposite as to tone, nature, and content.
4) On returning home from the taping of the show to which Mr. March strenuously objects, Mr. March did further research and found references to a show entitled “Crossballsâ€, in development and scheduled to be aired on Comedy Central. According to various TV-industry news sources, this show was planned as a “spoof†of the typical talk-show format. Further support for this was a press release posted to the Comedy Central website, dated February 18th 2004, repeating the show name of “Crossballs†and that it was planned as a comedy/parody.
5) Sometime after 5/21/04 [which is when Mr. March documented what had happened to him,] the portion of the “standingroomonly†website devoted to “The Debate Show†was taken down. Mr. March, however, had already made extensive “electronic snapshots†of this site. He can reconstruct its visual appearance at any time. The fact that this sub-page on “The Debate Show†was removed from the Standingroomonly site after Mr. March objected to the fraud committed against him raises further suspicions. The removal of this sub-page with its arguably lie to the public is consistent with a belated cover up attempt.
Based on the above, I assume that the real name of the show as reported to VIACOM and/or Comedy Central or other managers for your client is “Crossballsâ€, and that that name, with its unique content and tone, was always the true format for the taping of Mr. March’s participation and that VIACOM’s agents who dealt with Mr. March knew this at all times and failed to make this full disclosure to Mr. March.
Mr. March’s position is simple: The “release†he signed was designed as part of a larger fraud designed to dupe Mr. March and to prevent him from timely knowing that he was to appear on a parody/spoof that he never would have been involved in if VIACOM’s agents had made a full disclosure to him. As part of this deception, the “release†(if I’m seeing an authentic copy, which I cannot conclusively concede) appears to have used a fraudulent show name. To exacerbate matters, this release is worded in such a way to state that VIACOM went out of its way to get Mr. March to sign an agreement wherein Mr. March agreed that VIACOM may deceive him to his severe prejudice, to get him to participate in a taped show contrary to what was represented to him originally and right up to the taping itself. If VIACOM’s agents had functioned ethically and fairly with Mr. March, namely, if they had made a full and complete disclosure to him about the true name and nature of the taped show involving him, VIACOM would not have any need for a “release†that states, essentially, VIACOM may make material, disingenuous misrepresentations and outright lies to you and may also withhold material information from you, to deceive you, and, even though we functioned fraudulently, there is not a damn thing you [Jim March] can do about it simply because you [Jim March] signed this type of a release.
If VIACOM’s agents had not engaged in a pattern of material misrepresentation against Mr. March, VIACOM would have no need for the type of release that one of its attorneys faxed to me, representing same as a copy of the one Mr. March allegedly read, signed, and approved.
Bottom line: Mr. March’s position is this: 1) The release faxed to me and represented to be the one Mr. March signed is not the one he read and approved, as to page one; 2) Mr. March is a victim of VIACOM’s agents’ pattern of fraud and deception, to his severe prejudice; 3) This release is legally worthless–the fraudulent inducement vitiates the legal validity of the release. In that sense, the release is built on a foundation of quicksand, namely, VIACOM’s agents’ fraud; 4) In this sense, the release is contrary to public policy and unenforceable; and 5) The release is itself a material exhibit in the evidence of fraud committed against Mr. March.
I urge you to compare the press release on the show’s name of 2/18/04 with the “release’s†apparent rendition of the show’s name on 5/18/04.
Mr. March reiterates that your client does not have a valid release, nor does your have his permission to use his likeness, video image, audio track or similar in any way, shape or form at any time.
Please conduct a prompt, thorough investigation.
Please communicate timely the result of that investigation.
With kindest regards, and with appreciation for your anticipated professionalism, integrity, and prompt cost-time effective resolution of this dispute to Mr. March’s satisfaction, I remain,
Sincerely,
Peter J. Mancus
cc: Jim March
