Category: Harvey Weinstein

Categories
Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein’s New York conviction was overturned by the court of appeals

harvey-weinstein’s-new-york-conviction-was-overturned-by-the-court-of-appeals

Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges has been overturned. Weinstein was prosecuted by the state of New York and found guilty of two sexual assault/rape charges in February 2020. He’s been in custody of the state ever since. He was in Rikers for a while, then he was moved to a prison in Rome, New York. In the years since his conviction, the state of California prosecuted him for assaulting and raping women there as well, and California would be happy to take custody of Weinstein and house him at one of their most decrepit prisons. Which might actually happen, because of this overturned verdict:

New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges, a stunning reversal in the foundational case of the #MeToo era.

In a 4-3 decision, the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him.

Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein, who as a movie producer had been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had not received a fair trial. The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior.

Now it will be up to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg — already in the midst of a trial against former President Donald J. Trump — to decide whether to seek a retrial of Mr. Weinstein.

“It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote on behalf of the majority.

When reached by phone, Arthur Aidala, Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer, said, “This is not just a victory for Mr. Weinstein but for every criminal defendant in the state of New York, and we compliment the Court of Appeals for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial.”

[From The NY Times]

Basically, the appeals court says that the prosecution could not introduce evidence that Weinstein was a serial predator who abused, assaulted and raped over 100 women over the course of decades. I hope Alvin Bragg retries the case, honestly. Charge Weinstein with everything, bring in every single one of his victims and just redo the whole thing with even more charges. Or whatever – send him to California.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Categories
Harvey Weinstein Julia Ormond

Julia Ormond sues Harvey Weinstein for sexual battery & CAA for not protecting her

julia-ormond-sues-harvey-weinstein-for-sexual-battery-&-caa-for-not-protecting-her

One of the most horrifying things about the #MeToo movement’s rise and the outing of Harvey Weinstein as a serial rapist and predator was the dawning realization of just how many women saw their careers destroyed after they were assaulted, raped or harassed by Weinstein. He was a one-man wrecking ball to so many talented women. Even now, years later, we’re still hearing about actresses who had their careers derailed by Weinstein after falling victim to his predations. Well, here’s another name to add to the most depressing list you’ve ever seen: Julia Ormond. In the 1990s, Julia Ormond was everywhere, she was the next big thing, she was the go-to romantic heroine. In the span of about two years, she starred in Legends of the Fall, the Sabrina remake, and First Knight. But something happened after that and her career was never really the same. Sure, she popped up in interesting projects here and there (a brilliant recurring character on Mad Men, a guest-starring role in Nurse Jackie) but after all of that attention and focus, what happened? Harvey Weinstein. And CAA.

Julia Ormond, the English actress best known for her roles in ’90s films such as “Legends of the Fall,” “First Knight” and “Smilla’s Sense of Snow,” is suing Harvey Weinstein for sexual battery. Ormond is additionally suing CAA, The Walt Disney Company and Miramax.

While Weinstein has been named as the defendant in numerous sexual assault lawsuits since exposes published in 2017 in The New York Times and New Yorker uncovered his alleged patterns of misconduct toward dozens of women in the entertainment industry, it is rare for business partners that profited from Weinstein’s work to be named as defendants for supposedly enabling his behavior.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday morning in New York Supreme Court, obtained by Variety, Ormond claims that Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 1995 after a business dinner when he lured her into giving him a massage, climbed on top of her, masturbated and forced her to give him oral sex.

After the alleged assault, Ormond informed her agents Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane what had happened with Weinstein, according to the lawsuit, which states that the CAA agents cautioned her from speaking out and did not protect her. (Lourd and Huvane, who today are co-chairmen of CAA, are not named as defendants, but are frequently mentioned throughout Ormond’s suit as her representatives at the time.) Ormond is suing CAA for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Miramax, the company that Weinstein co-founded with his brother Bob, and The Walt Disney Company, which owned Miramax in the 90s, are being sued for negligent supervision and retention. (Numerous former Miramax and Disney executives are cited in the lawsuit, including Michael Eisner, who was Disney’s CEO, at the time, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who was chairman of Disney, though they are not defendants. The Disney execs mentioned in the lawsuit are no longer working at the company.)

“The men at CAA who represented Ormond knew about Weinstein. So too did Weinstein’s employers at Miramax and Disney,” the lawsuit states. “Brazenly, none of these prominent companies warned Ormond that Weinstein had a history of assaulting women because he was too important, too powerful, and made them too much money.”

[From Variety]

While CAA hushed up what they could in real time as the stories were breaking in 2017, so many survivors had very similar stories, that after Weinstein raped them or assaulted them or harassed them or chased them around a hotel room, they called their CAA agent and told that person what Weinstein had done to them. And for years, CAA just… continued to send all of these actresses into hotel rooms with Harvey Weinstein, like CAA was procuring victims for Weinstein. Think about Ormond’s story in chronological context: this was around the same time Weinstein attacked Gwyneth Paltrow (a CAA client) in a hotel room, it was around the same time Weinstein assaulted Rose McGowan (and she was one of the few to speak out at the same time), and it was after Weinstein brutally raped Annabella Sciorra in her home. Oh, Ashley Judd – a CAA client – was also harassed by Weinstein around this same time. Ormond also spoke directly to Variety:

In a phone interview, Ormond tells Variety that she is speaking out because she wants to be part of the change that can make Hollywood and other workplaces safer from sexual predators.

“I am coming forward with my story now publicly because I feel as if we still need systemic change, and I feel that we need accountability from enablers, in order to get there,” Ormond tells Variety. “I feel that this is what happened with me.”

Ormond is filing her suit under the Adult Survivors Act, which creates a look-back window outside the statute of limitations. The Adult Survivors Act was passed after the #MeToo movement, and Ormond says she’s able to share her story because of the courage of other women and survivors. Ormond hopes that by sharing her story, she can make an impact in corporate transparency regarding reporting structures in the workplace and the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims.

“Obviously, Harvey Weinstein is in jail and is going to be in jail for a very long time. I personally don’t believe that Harvey could have done this without enablers. And for me, that is the layer that you have to get down to, in terms of the root cause,” Ormond says. “If you think about it. If there had been best practices and Harvey Weinstein had been called out at the start after his first sexual harassment or his first sexual assault, he could have learned different behaviors, and potentially all of the people that followed wouldn’t have been harmed. But he wasn’t. And there’s a reason for that.”

[From Variety]

Yep. She’s absolutely right, and she’s incredibly brave to not only come forward with her story about Weinstein, but to actually sue his Hollywood enablers. She also told Variety that after she told Huvane and Lourd (and they failed to protect her) she really never spoke about it again until Me Too started. That’s when she told her family and began studying her options for how to get justice and accountability.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Categories
Harvey Weinstein Samantha Morton

Samantha Morton: Weinstein tried to ruin my career after I called his movie misogynistic

samantha-morton:-weinstein-tried-to-ruin-my-career-after-i-called-his-movie-misogynistic




Harvey Weinstein is spending the rest of his life in jail, where he belongs, for decades of sexual crimes against women. Appearing on The Louis Theroux Podcast this week, British actress Samantha Morton revealed that Weinstein tried to ruin her career when she was in her early twenties, simply because she declined a role he offered her. She thought the movie was misogynistic, and when she gave this feedback, along with her pass, Weinstein and his casting directors flatly told her she would never work again:

Samantha Morton, the Oscar-nominee best known for her roles in “Synechdoche, New York” and “Minority Report,” revealed on this week’s episode of “The Louis Theroux Podcast” that disgraced studio head Harvey Weinstein tried to ruin her career for turning down a role.

Morton had already received critical acclaim for her role in “Under the Skin” (1997) opposite actor Stuart Townsend, when Weinstein, who ran Miramax Films with an iron fist at the time, urged her to star opposite Townsend a second time in “About Adam” (2000).

“I said, ‘I don’t like it. I think the film is really misogynistic, and I don’t want to be part of it,’” Morton told Theroux about declining the part. “The casting director came back with, ‘You don’t say no to Harvey.’ Well it’s not up to him. I just don’t want to do this film.”

Morton added she was even “uber polite” and clarified the film was “just not interesting” to her, only for the casting director involved to warn: “You don’t say no to Harvey.” Morton recalled reiterating she wasn’t saying no to Weinstein, but rather to the project.

“I had a phone call saying, ‘You can’t say no,’” said Morton. “The ‘no’ wasn’t being listened to. So they kept coming back with this role, and I was told unequivocally, ‘You’re not going to work again unless you do this role. I’m going to make your life hell.’”

“You will not work again,” the casting director told Morton.

While the film was made without Morton, she was seemingly blackballed from Miramax films to come. Morton told Theroux that Weinstein refused to cast her in “The Brothers Grimm” (2005) opposite Matt Damon and Heath Ledger, and said she was “unf—able.”

Morton started questioning why Weinstein “was anti-me,” only for continuous rejections from his studio—as well as the Weinstein Company, which he founded with his brother Bob in 2005—to remind her of turning down “About Adam.”

“I forgot about it because it was years earlier,” Morton said. “And then all these years later, I realized that [when] I get an offer, get a letter from a director, if Miramax or then the Weinstein Company had anything to do with it, it was just awful for me.”

Morton added that Weinstein had “a deep-seated reason” to “try and destroy” her career, but she was insulated by “independent cinema all over the world” and managed to forge ahead in smaller films—as well as Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report” with Tom Cruise.

[From HuffPost]

The arc of this story is an all-too-rare triumphant one: to go from being told “you’ll never work again,” to having a rich career in independent cinema, then to being in a film about the downfall of the man who threatened you (she had a pivotal role in She Said last year). And all while he watches from prison. Bravo Samantha. If you read up on her, though, you’ll find that she had to navigate a very tough upbringing, which in a way made her just the kind of scrappy, punky type to talk bluntly to Weinstein, consequences be damned. I don’t know about you, but I needed this story after the pro-predator news out of London and Venice this week. Nevertheless, we persist.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Getty and Avalon.red

Categories
Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt Harvey Weinstein

Brad Pitt’s rep tried to shut down stories about Pitt’s work with Harvey Weinstein

brad-pitt’s-rep-tried-to-shut-down-stories-about-pitt’s-work-with-harvey-weinstein

Embed from Getty Images

Over the weekend, the Guardian published their lengthy interview with Angelina Jolie, which she did to promote the book she co-wrote, Know Your Rights. In the interview, Angelina spoke at length quite emotionally about how difficult the past five years have been, and how much it hurt her when Brad Pitt chose to work with Harvey Weinstein on Inglorious Basterds and Killing Them Softly. Pitt chose the association with Weinstein knowing what Weinstein did to not only Angelina, but Gwyneth Paltrow too. “Sources close to Brad” told TMZ that Pitt never “teamed up” with Weinstein for Basterds, that Brad was just an actor for hire and he wanted to work with Quentin Tarantino.

Well, a lot of us called bullsh-t. And for good reason – Pitt has been actively trying to get people to forget about his Weinstein associations for years. The Daily Beast’s Marlow Stern tweeted out a link to his old 2017 story about the Pitt-Weinstein association and Stern noted: “I wrote about this right after the Weinstein allegations broke. Pitt’s rep tried to talk me out of writing it but admitted there was no excuse for his actions.” From the 2017 Daily Beast piece:

But Brad Pitt knew. By his own admission, Paltrow informed him that Weinstein had sexually harassed her all the way back in 1996. While Paltrow explained to the Times how she felt she had to “suppress the experience” of being attacked by Weinstein, and, after being threatened by the exec, went on to act in several other Weinstein-shepherded films (including an Oscar-winning turn in 1998’s Shakespeare in Love), by the late-Aughts Pitt had the power to affect change. He was, as Clooney told Esquire, “the biggest movie star in the world… he’s bigger than me, bigger than DiCaprio.” He ran a successful production company in Plan B Entertainment, responsible for hits like The Departed. And yet, he opted to star in Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which was distributed by The Weinstein Company.

A source close to Pitt confirms to The Daily Beast that Pitt knew of the Paltrow incident with Weinstein but that “Quentin went to him directly to bring him into the project, and Brad did it because of the relationship and the contact. Interaction with Harvey was very limited.” The source, however, went on to explain that since every Tarantino project has been distributed by Weinstein, Pitt understood that Inglourious would be as well. They could not confirm whether Pitt knew at the time of his then-girlfriend Jolie’s alleged incident with Weinstein, and representatives for Jolie and Pitt would not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.

And, while Pitt’s interactions with Weinstein may have been limited, the exec’s involvement in the project was anything but. Weinstein, who’s earned the nickname “Harvey Scissorhands” for his tendency to demand film edits, usually shies away from meddling with Tarantino movies but was rumored to have demanded that its initial three-hour running time be cut down by at least a half-hour (its final running time: 153 minutes). Weinstein also launched aggressive Oscar campaigns for the film and Pitt, fresh off a Best Actor nod the previous year for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, doing interview after interview touting their credentials and flooding Academy voters with cheap, non-watermarked DVD screeners.

You see, there was a lot riding on Inglourious Basterds. The Weinstein Company was in dire financial straits, having recently hired a high-powered financial advisory firm to restructure after incurring heavy debt. The film’s ultimate success, earning eight Academy Award nominations and grossing over $321 million worldwide, helped keep the company afloat.

Following the release of Inglourious, Pitt agreed to star in and produce an adaptation of the book Cogan’s Trade, directed by Andrew Dominik and developed by Plan B. After a heated bidding war, the distribution rights to the film were sold to The Weinstein Company, who promised a $20 million ad spend. The film, ultimately titled Killing Them Softly, was released in 2012 by Pitt and Weinstein, earning a meager $15 million stateside.

Our source in Pitt’s camp said that they were “unable to provide any context” about exactly why Pitt chose to collaborate with Weinstein again on the crime drama (and in a much more involved capacity) despite his ex-fiancée telling him that she’d been accosted by the exec, and that he’d allegedly—perhaps unbeknownst to Pitt, perhaps not—attacked his then-partner Jolie.

[From The Daily Beast]

So, again, Angelina Jolie now says that Brad knew what Weinstein did to her, that she had always warned people away from Weinstein, that she told Pitt and her first husband Jonny Lee Miller. And Brad still worked with Weinstein, sat back and let Weinstein throw money at his IB Oscar campaign, and then worked with Weinstein again on Killing Them Softly. And instead of correcting the record in 2017, when the Weinstein stories were coming out and Brad was being hailed as heroic, Angelina didn’t chime in. God, I’m so f–king mad.

Two more connections – Brad’s Plan B is producing She Said, based on Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey’s NYT expose. And Pitt has worked with PR guru Matthew Hiltzik for years now – Hiltzik was Weinstein’s long-time media fixer.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Categories
Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein & ‘sources close to Brad Pitt’ dispute Angelina Jolie

harvey-weinstein-&-‘sources-close-to-brad-pitt’-dispute-angelina-jolie

Embed from Getty Images

In Angelina Jolie’s Guardian Weekend interview, she spoke in greater depth than she ever has before about Harvey Weinstein. Jolie was one of the first big-name celebrities to speak out about Weinstein – both Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow spoke to the NY Times in the fall of 2017, confirming that Weinstein has sexually harassed them and attempted to assault them. Jolie worked with Weinstein-as-producer once, when she was 21, on Playing By Heart. She said, “It was beyond a pass, it was something I had to escape. I stayed away and warned people about him. I remember telling Jonny, my first husband, who was great about it, to spread the word to other guys – don’t let girls go alone with him.” She also said she was asked to do The Aviator but she turned it down because Weinstein was involved, and “It was hard for me when Brad” worked with Weinstein on Inglorious Basterds and Killing Them Softly.

Well, TMZ covered the quotes in their exploitative, accusatory way, and wouldn’t you know, both Brad Pitt and Harvey Weinstein decided to provide denials to TMZ:

6:10 PM PT — Weinstein, through his assistant, tells TMZ … “It’s very clear to me that this is for more sales on Angie’s BOOK. THERE WAS NEVER an assault, and NEVER an attempt to assault.” HW adds, “It is brazenly untrue and clickbait publicity. You’re Angelina Jolie, every male and female in the world, I’m sure, shows interest in you. Is the whole world assaulting you?”

3:12 PM PT — Sources close to Brad tell TMZ … he never “teamed up” with Weinstein for “Inglourious Basterds” — he was simply part of a movie that Tarantino directed, which happened to get distributed by TWC.

[From TMZ]

First, let’s talk about Brad – notice “sources close to Brad” don’t mention that he apparently sought out Weinstein as a producer on Killing Them Softly, which Jolie specifically referenced in her interview. And no, Brad doesn’t get to shrug off the Weinstein connection to Tarantino. Even Tarantino had to eat that – Weinstein was hands-on with Tarantino and QT’s films for 25 years. Weinstein shaped QT’s career and Weinstein was a huge part in all of the promotion and awards-campaigning for Tarantino’s films. Brad made a choice to not care about the association, even though both Jolie and Paltrow had told him what Weinstein did to them.

As for Weinstein… what a disgusting piece of sh-t. He’s basically saying that all he did was make a pass at Jolie. I believe HER. If she says she had to “escape” and that it was an attempted assault, then that’s what happened. Plus, that was his M.O. Luring women into enclosed spaces (offices or hotel rooms), locking them in and trying to rape them.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Categories
Adrien Brody Georgina Chapman Harvey Weinstein

Georgina Chapman finalized her divorce, got full custody, two homes & a lot more

georgina-chapman-finalized-her-divorce,-got-full-custody,-two-homes-&-a-lot-more

Cannes Film Festival 2021 -

Harvey Weinstein is currently serving a 23-year sentence for rape in the state of New York. The state of New York is going to extradite him to California at some point so he can stand trial for eleven counts of sexual assault. My point? He’s a 69 year old man in poor health and he’s going to die in prison. That won’t change the pain and trauma he caused so many women, but it is something. While he sat there in prison, his lawyers had to work out his divorce from Georgina Chapman. I’m sure there are legal reasons (like Harvey’s victims suing his estate) why there was apparently some kind of fight about money and property, but Georgina walked away with some big assets and full custody of their children.

Georgina Chapman has officially finalized her divorce from Harvey Weinstein, The Post has learned. The couple’s contested divorce in Manhattan Supreme Court was finalized this week and online court records show the case is now listed as “disposed” after a final, sealed motion was filed Monday, according to records and sources.

Weinstein, 69, and Chapman, 45, share two children — India, 10, and Dashiell, 8 — and married in 2007 after meeting each other at a party. The former pair reached a divorce settlement in January 2018 that required the fallen Hollywood titan to pay his ex between $15 million to $20 million and give up custody of his kids, a source previously confirmed. The ex’s prenuptial agreement stated Weinstein must pay Chapman $300,000 in spousal support for each year of marriage and after a decade, the figure jumps to $400,000. The settlement came just as the couple was reaching their ten-year anniversary.

Chapman also secured a slice of the marital assets, like their $15 million West Village townhouse and $12 million Hamptons beach house, and other payments, sources previously said.

[From Page Six]

I wonder if Chapman had not filed for divorce, all of those assets would have been hers as his wife anyway? Like, unless he explicitly kept her out of all of their finances during their marriage, she would have already “owned” that real estate and all of investments, etc. But, again, she would see all of their fortune looted by all of Weinstein’s crushing legal fees and such. Chapman really got out while the getting was good. She walked away with a sizable settlement, her business (Marchesa) free and clear, two pieces of prime real estate and full custody of their children, all while her ex rots in prison.

Georgina joined her boyfriend Adrien Brody in Cannes this week. Considering Cannes was one of Weinstein’s favorite hunting grounds, there’s an ick factor to these photos.

CELEBRITES : 74 eme Festival de Cannes - Red Carpet du film The

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Categories
20/20 Ad Babies Baby Bill Clinton Birth campaign celebrities Celebrity Court donald trump gues guess H&M Harvey Weinstein image Money OWN Photographer photos politics rap red Sad size tall thin Twitter Win

Chelsea Clinton did a royal-esque photo op with her parents & baby Aidan

FFN_COHEN_CLINTON_BABY_06202016_52099080

Here are some photos of Chelsea Clinton leaving a New York hospital following the birth of her second child, baby boy Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky. Chelsea gave birth on Saturday, and I guess she stayed at the hospital two nights and left the hospital on Monday. Chelsea, her husband Marc and her parents, Bill and Hillary Clinton, all left together. I guess Marc’s parents don’t get to be included in the photo-op! As many have already noted, there’s sort of a royal flavor to this photo-op, like Chelsea is pulling a Duchess Kate. In Chelsea’s defense, I think it’s more like the photographers were already waiting for her to leave the hospital and she just made the most of it, probably with Hillary’s help. It’s a nice photo-op, is what I’m saying.

Incidentally, people are loving Chelsea’s baby-name choices because they make her seem like a die-hard Sex and the City fan. Charlotte was one of the main characters and Aidan was Carrie’s fiancé. If Chelsea has another baby, the name will probably be Sam! Because you can’t name a baby “Mr. Big.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s stay in New York has been incredibly productive, and by that I mean she raised a ton of money last night at a star-studded fundraiser thrown by Harvey Weinstein. Hillary is raising money hand over fist, and she currently has more than $42 million in her campaign war chest, and that’s just for her campaign. If you include her superpac, she has more than $100 million on-hand. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is the human embodiment of a sad clown noise. He keeps lending his campaign money, his campaign leadership is in shambles, and he only had $1.3 million on hand at the end of May. Which has led to #TrumpSoPoor trending on Twitter. It’s glorious.

FFN_CHP_CLINTON_BABY_1_06202016_52098686

FFN_CHP_CLINTON_BABY_1_06202016_52098689