Disabled Iraq Vet Suing Over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

[rsmith6621]

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.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/9302864/detail.html

[billybob537]

1. He should be suing BUSH

For causing this illegal unwinable disaster.

[Xenotime]

10. Agreed. 100%

[global1]

2. This Must Mean That Moore Is Close To Releasing F911 1/2......

which will prove to be more damaging to *Co than F911. So Rove probably decided to find something in F911 that would give him a launching place for a campaign to discredit Moore before the release. Hence - go over F911 with a fine toothcomb. Find a person in the movie that could become a willing accomplice - and go after Moore. This will give the Drudge's, Rush's, Hannity's and all the other * apologists of the world some fodder to work with when F911 1/2 comes out. They'll be able to point to this lawsuit and say that Moore takes things out of context and therefore all of his movie will be discredited.

The best defense is a good offense - and Rove knows this more than anybody. It would be interesting to find out more about this Marine that is suing Moore. Besides being handicapped by the war - I wonder if there is anything in his background that would lend himself to become complicit with *Co on this. Perhaps some incident during his service that he could be blackmailed for by Rove. Perhaps just appealing to his Marine esprit de corps that * is his 'commander and chief'.

Does this sound plausible?

[acmavm]

3. I don't know about the KKKarl thing but I do thing that this guy

is partially motivated by the fact that he just can't admit to himself that he's armless and it's all for nothing.

NO WMDs, no freedom reigning, no democratic government (any yes, a Shi'ite theocracy). If the guy was honest with himself he'd realized he's been HAD BIG-TIME!!

[Blue_Tires]

12. this means they want this case to be in full swing

just in time for the november elections

[Marr]

4. Wish they had a picture of the guy.

I don't remember seeing anyone with those injuries in the movie.

[MikeNearMcChord]

5. Doesn't he have to prove that

Michael Moore had intention to humiliate Sgt Damon, I think he has no case. A shame that he is being used.

[endarkenment]

6. Bogus rightwing pr stunt.

"alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission"

NBC owns the rights to the video clip, not Mr. Damon. Mr. Damon ceded his rights to NBC. If this case has merits, a whole lot of video, voice, and still picture archives are in serious trouble.

[Touchdown]

7. Moore has nothing on his website.

$85 million (his wife wants $10m)? :wtf:
Sounds like he's falling for his lawyer's advice to cash in (where the lawyer will take 60%). It sounds like he's more motivated by greed than any kind of "insult" Moore may have done to him. He also may have been criticized by his friends or got death threats from Freeps for being in Moore's film in the first place. In any event, he signed a release, or Moore wouldn't have put him in the film in the first place. He has no case.

I'm sure Moore still has the entire footage on hard disc. He filmed F9/11 digitally, so there's no cutting room floor.

[endarkenment]

11. There is no footage for Moore to have.

The video is the property of NBC. Moore licensed it from NBC. The idiot is suing the wrong party.

[doc mercer]

8. Kid suing Moore

Most likely MOVE ACROSS AMERICA is behind this "case" ... and what a bunch of CORRUPT folks they are

California Scheming

MAF's roots can be traced back to California's gubernatorial recall, which put movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger into office. In November 2003, one month after the recall election, the Daily News of Los Angeles interviewed Sacramento-based political consultant Sal Russo. He characterized the recall campaign he and other Republican strategists had organized and funded as a near-unstoppable, grassroots tour de force. "We took on the political establishment and won, and they feel empowered," said Russo of the 120,000 recall supporters in his database. "They want to be involved. . . . We'll change the name to something like 'Move America Forward,'" and go national, he predicted.


A week later, the Web site address MoveAmericaForward.com was registered to Russo's right-leaning political consulting/public affairs firm, Russo Marsh & Rogers. The firm had previously registered and designed the Web site DumpBarbaraLee.com, part of a vitriolic campaign against Representative Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against a wide-ranging "war on terror" resolution in the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks. Russo Marsh & Rogers' political work includes consulting for the Recall Gray Davis campaign, media work for businessman Bill Simon's 2002 California gubernatorial run, and directing the election campaigns of such Republican notables as U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Governor George Pataki, then-New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman, and U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch's short-lived presidential run in 2000.
In May 2004, MAF was publicly launched. "There has seldom been a more important time in our nation's history for the people of America to stand up and proclaim our love for this great nation and the ideal of freedom," declared former California state representative, GOP consultant and self-described "taxpayer hero" Howard Kaloogian, who serves as MAF's chair. MAF's main objectives are "rebuffing the constant and escalating attacks on our military and the war against terrorism by the shamelessly biased liberal news media, building public support and resolve for the continuation of our efforts to eradicate terrorist networks . . . demonstrating our support and appreciation for the heroic men and women of our armed forces."
Move America Forward's Sal Russo ran tax shelters and bilked campaign donors out of $200,000. Oh, and then there's the little thing about Russo and Simon being in bed with a major drug trafficker, something they still can't explain:

Simon struggles with an explanation for why he, a former federal prosecutor, did not know that the company president with whom he was going into business, Paul Edward Hindelang, was in fact a convicted major drug trafficker....

The Weekly engaged in an amusing e-mail exchange with Russo, who finally refused to answer when asked why Simon was not suing Deloitte for failing to red-flag Hindelang's criminal past in its report.

(Deloitte is Simon's accounting firm, by the way). So why is a guy who bilked donors, did business with drug traffickers and was successfully sued by his former clients coordinating a demagogic campaign accusing the UN of corruption? Could it be, um, money? Nah.

As for Kaloogian, his motives are pretty simple. Bashing the UN, Michael Moore and immigrants -- the Racist Right's favorite punching bags -- is the only way a nebishy former one-term backbencher in the state assembly who can't get elected to dogcatcher (Kaloogian was smashed in the 2004 GOP senatorial primary) can keep himself in the limelight.




Baghdad, Turkey
Baghdad photo scandal

Wikipedia

March 28, 2006

On March 28th 2006, Howard Kaloogian's campaign website contained a photograph which he claims to have recently taken in downtown Baghdad. It was accompanied by the description:
"We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism."


Upon further analysis by members of a discussion forum on Democratic Underground, it was found that this photo was actually a fake photo of Baghdad, because it was most likely taken in Istanbul, Turkey.


Many inconsistencies, including the following, were found:

*
* Many signs are written in Turkish, but none in Arabic
* Women are seen wearing revealing (western) clothes
* Taxi cabs are similar to those seen in Istanbul
* Uniquely Turkish traffic signs are present
* Signs of businesses based solely in Turkey are present








See also:

Fake photo of Baghdad used to bolster GOP's claims?

by anthonyLA, Daily Kos Howard Kaloogian (R) has posted a photograph on his campaign website which he claims to have recently taken in downtown Baghdad, to show how "calm" and "stable" the city was during his visit. Check out the photo under the fold. I am no photographic expert, but to me, this does not appear to be a photo of Baghdad (or even Iraq) at all.
Here's why I think this photo was not taken in Iraq:
1) The signs are all in Roman script. (the signs that read edo, 2.Noter, etc.) Where's the arabic?
2) The couple holding hands in the front, right side of the picture. First, the fact that they are walking down the street holding hands makes me think this is not from Baghdad. Second, look at the woman's top (shirt). It has spaghetti strap sleeves (shoulders exposed) and is awfully tight for Iraq.
Am I crazy, or is this not of Baghdad at all?


Check out the photo on Kaloogian's site here:
http://www.kaloogianforcongress.com/...
This is extremely important because Kaloogian is claiming that Iraq is much more calm and stable than most Americans believe. His direct quote: "We took this photo of dowtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism."

[Ian David]

9. See prior thread: Freakers just love frivolous lawsuits

Freakers just love frivolous lawsuits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1321006



8. So, private citizens and 59 companies chip-in to buy this guy a home...

and the ungrateful idiot has the gall to turn around and tell us that the government is treating him and his vets just fine, after it took private citizens like us to put a roof over his head?

I feel bad for the guy, and I wish him a speedy recovery. I hope he manages to put food on his family. We owe him a great debt for his service.

But you know what?

This administration-- the one that put him in harm's way-- has left him homeless and injured-- and he stands there defending the rat bastards that did this to him?

After paying $8 Trillion, I don't think we should have needed 59 companies working together to take care of this man. I think, if our huge national debt should do anything, it should take proper care of our sick and injured vets.

We owe them that much.

But, to paraphrase what they told The Dixie Chicks, Peter Damon should shut-up and... and... what can he do now that our government has left him homeless and injured anyway? I mean, aside from suing Michael Moore?

14. Yeah, damn Michael Moore for showing the world how Bush fucked me over...

Let's take it out on Michael Moore!

On the other hand...

Maybe Michael Moore asked the guy to sue him so he could get more publicity for his upcoming film, Fahrenheit 9-11 1/2?

Maybe the marine is in cahoots with Michael Moore? Some people think so.

I mean, you can't buy that sort of publicity, right?

Or maybe you can?

Imagine if Michael Moore is actually paying the guy's legal fees through a third-party... and they have a secret deal to split anything the guy "wins" in court as part of the fee agreement?

Or maybe Moore's producer has gone behind Mr. Moore's back to do this? Maybe Mike doesn't know that Disney or Lionsgate or whoever has paid this marine to sue them so they could get the publicity of the trial?

Of course, it's highly hypothetical and extremely unlikely.

[dpbrown]

13. If you support Bush, your reputation isn't worth $85M

Eighty-five cents, maybe.

[rsmith6621]

14. kick