Lawsuit Against a Filmmaker Documentary

[adamr316]

Hey everyone!

I'm a long time DVXUser member and a long time media maker as well. Last year I shot and edited a few short films for a company.

Things were great until the company kept asking for more services. Bear in mind I was already working for under my normal rate. I gave them a few freebies at first but then I finally put my foot down and said I'd need more compensation for anymore extras.

There's a lot more to it then that but they ended up suing me and won! The evidence to counter their story was to me overwhelming but even after an appeals trial I still lost.

So, the company got to keep all the work I did for them and I was out for extra equipment rentals. Crazy huh? So instead of staying quiet about the situation I made a movie! As both a cautionary tale to fellow filmmakers to CYA and to expose the judges as frauds.

The documentary will be released this summer but you can catch a sneak peek now at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkL9K60UqTY .

Let me know what you think! No comments about the audio though because it's not mixed and we're working on music now.

 

[Jewlz the director]

Dammm it was getting interesting and the dang scene ended....lol. i would say so far a good job its very detailed and explanatory,nicely shot.I'm anxious to know the outcome now,nice piece tho man,keep up the good work.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Why did you lose?

 

[Noel Evans]

Dont know what to tell you Adam. Honestly, I would give up that documentary. I think you learnt a hard lesson about working under rates and doing freebies and that the "pot of gold" they promised is never going to come and they never had any intention of delivering it.

Im not sure what the law is in the US, but here in Australia that footage could see you straight back in court without a leg to stand on.

They suck, I agree, but - just in my opinion - I would move on with my life.

 

[Jim_Behl]

Did you have a lawyer?

 

[adamr316]

Thanks guys. The film is about 60% complete already. I just need to record voice over actors reading from the appeals trial transcript. No audio recording was made from the trial, so it's better than nothing.

I'm not worried about going back into court. I've already been through it once and would love to see more of these judges and plaintiffs. The one judge is up for re-election this year so it would only make him look bad. If I am taken to court again I will demand a jury trial.

The local news recently did a story about a judge...why can't I?

Unfortunately I couldn't afford a lawyer. And none would work on contingency because it was small claims.

I'm not sure why I lost the case entirely. The fact that I shot films and rented equipment for the company which they ultimately received was not disputed. The only thing up for dispute was whether I edited films to their satisfaction. They said none of the films were finished, despite the company posting them on their YouTube channel. I had a voicemail that contradicted this statement for one of the films. You'd think that would be enough evidence for the judge, eh?

They also turned in checks that were unrelated to the case to collect more damages. When this was pointed out, it didn't matter to the judge. Sounds insane, huh? How could this happen? That's why I made the documentary, because I will not let the judges get away with this obvious injustice. My goal is to get them impeached and eventually kicked off the bench if enough people come forward with their own cases (if there are any others out there).

There's a lot more to do than that...so I'll just save it all for when the documentary comes out. It's much better explained that way with photos and audio!

 

[adamr316]

Dont know what to tell you Adam. Honestly, I would give up that documentary. I think you learnt a hard lesson about working under rates and doing freebies and that the "pot of gold" they promised is never going to come and they never had any intention of delivering it.

Im not sure what the law is in the US, but here in Australia that footage could see you straight back in court without a leg to stand on.

They suck, I agree, but - just in my opinion - I would move on with my life.

Why do you think I would be back in court? Just curious...

The only way I can move on is by getting my story out there. Again, I could just go away quietly but I don't want to see this happen to anyone else. Either by reminding filmmakers to not trust anyone when dealing with business or by having the judges involved in my case booted from their cushy jobs due to incompetence.

Making this documentary is a much better use of my free time than playing videogames or watching TV!

 

[Jim_Behl]

Be careful. My experience over the years is without a lawyer, you loose. Also, any reputable lawyer will tell you: "Tell me before you do something, not afterward." Also anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. You stated you lost the case for about $5,000.00. You will be on the hook for the $5000.00 so maybe a lawyer might have been a good investment. Find a young lawyer and make an acquaintance with him or her. Develop a relationship over time. Offer to shoot depositions for him or her. That way you will have someone knowledgeable in your quarter. Good luck.

 

[Jim_Behl]

News organizations are protected by the 1st amendment. You might be subject to libel laws. The good thing is usually the other party must show ACTUAL losses caused by your statement.

 

[milksac]

Unfortunately I couldn't afford a lawyer.

In some situations you can't afford not to have a lawyer. I've seen lawsuits go away with a simple letter from an attorney. We'll never know, but it's quite possible that had you hired an attorney early on in the process the other side may have backed down. Paying an attorney $1000 for a consultation, a couple letters and a few phone calls to make it go away would have been a lot cheaper than losing the lawsuit.

For the record - I hate attorneys. Many of them are scum bags. All that said, they are a necessary evil. When you're are faced with a lawsuit you are engaged in a war. You show up to battle with a sharped sword - an attorney. Not having representation is like using a broken twig to defend yourself in battle. You're going to get killed every time.

Regarding your current documentary. You look and sound like a whiny kid that refuses to accept a valuable life lesson. Sure, the system is broken. There's no justice. The judges are corrupt. Blah Blah Blah. Get over it and move on. The sooner you understand that life is unfair the sooner you move on.

I will not let the judges get away with this obvious injustice. My goal is to get them impeached and eventually kicked off the bench if enough people come forward with their own cases (if there are any others out there).

If you listen carefully you can hear John Grisham laughing out loud.

 

[Jim_Behl]

It is called the legal system for a reason. There is a huge difference between justice and the law. The two are NOT the same. That is why you need a lawyer. Seriously though, I think you should give up on this Quixotic quest. It's time to move on. The only way you could make your documentary work is if it were more general in nature, not specific to your particular situation. That would need much more research and a legal staff to back up your assertions; otherwise it is a complete waste of time and effort you could be using to find new clients and $$$$$$$.

 

[Steve House]

Just FYI, he was sued in small claims and in many, if not most, jurisdictions a litigant in a small claims action is not allowed to be represented by an attorney. Hire one to advise you if you want, certainly. But when it comes to appearing in court, you have to present your case yourself.

 

[Jim_Behl]

The Canadian legal system is somewhat different than here in the states. Each state has its own rules. Here in Ohio a lawyer is mandatory in cases above $3000.00. I do not know what the rules are in Maryland. I do know that I personally will not go to court without representation. That was a lesson learned the hard way. I was owed a substantial sum by a client in neighboring state. I filed a complaint in small claims court. I presented my case, contracts, whitnesses and documentation. I noticed the judge NAPPING during the testimony! When the judges opinion arrived he said that he was unable to decide on the merits of the case! It turned out that he was close friends with the defendant's wife! I learned that later. Having a lawyer makes ALL the difference.e Since then I always have used a lawyer and the results have favored me. I know how scary that can be but if you want to be paid when a client goes wonky, use the system properly. Since lawyers run the system and write the rules, you've got to play by their rules.

 

[adamr316]

Be careful. My experience over the years is without a lawyer, you loose. Also, any reputable lawyer will tell you: "Tell me before you do something, not afterward." Also anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. You stated you lost the case for about $5,000.00. You will be on the hook for the $5000.00 so maybe a lawyer might have been a good investment. Find a young lawyer and make an acquaintance with him or her. Develop a relationship over time. Offer to shoot depositions for him or her. That way you will have someone knowledgeable in your quarter. Good luck.

Agreed 100% on developing a relationship with a lawyer, bartering with one. And yes, the one lawyer I spoke with after the first trial said the same thing, "I wish you had called me before the trial." I didn't lose the case for $5,000...that's what they sued me for.

News organizations are protected by the 1st amendment. You might be subject to libel laws. The good thing is usually the other party must show ACTUAL losses caused by your statement.

I'm really not too worried about it. For the most part you have to lie in order for it to be libel. If anything after this documentary is released and if there is enough public outcry I will take the plaintiffs back to court for defamation myself and sue for previous court costs. Their speech may be protected though because it was held in court but this case is not over. If I do sue I will demand a jury trial.

In some situations you can't afford not to have a lawyer. I've seen lawsuits go away with a simple letter from an attorney. We'll never know, but it's quite possible that had you hired an attorney early on in the process the other side may have backed down. Paying an attorney $1000 for a consultation, a couple letters and a few phone calls to make it go away would have been a lot cheaper than losing the lawsuit.

For the record - I hate attorneys. Many of them are scum bags. All that said, they are a necessary evil. When you're are faced with a lawsuit you are engaged in a war. You show up to battle with a sharped sword - an attorney. Not having representation is like using a broken twig to defend yourself in battle. You're going to get killed every time.

Regarding your current documentary. You look and sound like a whiny kid that refuses to accept a valuable life lesson. Sure, the system is broken. There's no justice. The judges are corrupt. Blah Blah Blah. Get over it and move on. The sooner you understand that life is unfair the sooner you move on.

When the money isn't in the bank to hire a lawyer, wtf do you do? If I had hired a lawyer and lost I would be out more money...so I fared well there.

It's absurb that you can have a mountain of evidence to backup your side of the story and lose. YOU SHOULDN'T NEED A LAWYER! If logic/reason, voicemails that contradict statements, datestamped video uploads, etc. which will all be shown in the documentary are presented, you should not lose.

What you call a whiney kid I see as me not taking crap from the system. Whining usually means complaining over something small. Although I'll admit I have a nasally voice, these are no small complaints.

As for getting over it...easy for you to say you weren't made a slave by a couple judges. I will be "over this" once this video is out and the judges are shown for whom they truly are. Maryland is a court of public record so let there be light shined on the cockroaches! Even if nothing happens I will be happy that every time these judges names are looked up on Google they have this video going against them.

I am not going to sit back and let this injustice happen to me. This video will be a valuable life lesson for these judges. I'm well aware that life is unfair...but not fighting back against unfairness will allow it to continue. Just look at big historical figures such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc. They all fought against injustice when I'm sure people were like, "Dude! That's just the way things are, get over it." While I'm not saying I am anywhere near the levels of fighting injustice as those men, this is a small example of fighting back and not letting it continue. In my case, judicial accountability.

If a group of people beat you up and took your money, would you just say, "Oh well, life's unfair!" No! You'd do everything in your power to make them pay. If you do just sit back and let it happen, you are a weak man. I feel robbed, so I'm making them pay. It's one thing to not have a case but it's another to have all kinds of evidence that points out the plaintiffs' lies, back up your own story and lose.

It is called the legal system for a reason. There is a huge difference between justice and the law. The two are NOT the same. That is why you need a lawyer. Seriously though, I think you should give up on this Quixotic quest. It's time to move on. The only way you could make your documentary work is if it were more general in nature, not specific to your particular situation. That would need much more research and a legal staff to back up your assertions; otherwise it is a complete waste of time and effort you could be using to find new clients and $$$$$$$.

I appreciate your posts Jim. My documentary is more like a Dateline or 60 Minutes show. Although it's about my case, this can happen to anyone. So yes, the message probably is "Get a lawyer, even if you have a mountain of evidence." The five minute preview didn't even lay out ANY evidence yet so for anyone to conclude anything yet reeks. Once the evidence is presented in this documentary against the plaintiffs story then you'll see why I made this film.

Again, I have voicemails, plaintiffs' testimony that the judge somehow missed/ignored (luckily the court records audio), screengrabs from the plaintiffs' website, emails, checks that indicate they were for something else, etc.

Just FYI, he was sued in small claims and in many, if not most, jurisdictions a litigant in a small claims action is not allowed to be represented by an attorney. Hire one to advise you if you want, certainly. But when it comes to appearing in court, you have to present your case yourself.

Yep, it was small claims. Neither side had an attorney. In Maryland you can be represented by an attorney in small claims.

That was a lesson learned the hard way. I was owed a substantial sum by a client in neighboring state. I filed a complaint in small claims court. I presented my case, contracts, whitnesses and documentation. I noticed the judge NAPPING during the testimony! When the judges opinion arrived he said that he was unable to decide on the merits of the case! It turned out that he was close friends with the defendant's wife! I learned that later. Having a lawyer makes ALL the difference.e Since then I always have used a lawyer and the results have favored me. I know how scary that can be but if you want to be paid when a client goes wonky, use the system properly. Since lawyers run the system and write the rules, you've got to play by their rules.

I won't disagree with you that hiring a lawyer makes all the difference in this twisted little monopolostic game. The napping judge in your case should be booted off the bench. These glorified lawyers need to be held accountable for their actions, just like anyone else would.

And that's the root of the problem there...there is no other justice system out there. If the government's court system had competition in the "justice business" this wouldn't be a problem. I just heard another story from someone I know where one of the judges just decided a case on a whim. So these guys are doing this left and right...why? They have no consequences for their actions. Just like if you don't discipline a child they will continue acting the same way. So my hope is upon the release of this documentary is for others like myself to come foward and we will build a case for impeachment and ultimate removal from office against these crooks.

Again, I'd rather "waste my time" doing this then waste my time playing videogames/watching CSI and American Idol.

 

[milksac]

If the government's court system had competition in the "justice business" this wouldn't be a problem.

So you think a privatized justice system would be more equitable? I'll be the first to admit that our justice system is far from perfect. While it's not perfect it works most of the time. A privatized system by it's very nature would be unjust. Justice is not blind when shareholders have a stake in the game.

Regarding your on going inflated drama, know when to cut your losses.

 

[MPB]

I'm really not too worried about it. For the most part you have to lie in order for it to be libel. If anything after this documentary is released and if there is enough public outcry I will take the plaintiffs back to court for defamation myself and sue for previous court costs.

i can appreciate having to learn a lesson the hard way, but twice?

you're not paying attention. that's why you lost.

 

[Steve House]

...
I'm really not too worried about it. For the most part you have to lie in order for it to be libel. If anything after this documentary is released and if there is enough public outcry I will take the plaintiffs back to court for defamation myself and sue for previous court costs. Their speech may be protected though because it was held in court but this case is not over. If I do sue I will demand a jury trial...
...

Once the original court has issued a ruling, that's it. You don't get a second chance to retry the same facts. They sued you and won. You don't get the chance to turn around after the fact and sue them back on the same matter.

 

[Chris Adler]

Dude, I'd think about making the documentary a little more... um... less boring maybe? It was one of the most sterile presentations I've ever heard. Hopefully the full documentary is more engaging than the trailer makes it appear?

 

[JonathanLB]

This kind of thing sucks hardcore, but the other guys are right that it's best to move on rather than lose more time.

I'll give you an example on a far smaller scale, but I promise you there is no justice in PLENTY of these small cases, but I'd say most of the cases involving you versus the government, which was my case.

I got pulled over for no apparent reason just two blocks from where I live. Busy L.A. intersection actually 20 feet from the Staples Center. Anyway, I'm wondering huh what did I do? Didn't run a red. Didn't speed, I was going pretty darn slow, haha. The LAPD guy tells me that my tags are expired. OH, ugg, then I think huh that's right I'm not sure if I ever remember getting new tags this year (this was last year). He tells me my registration is expired and I said oh dang, seriously? I didn't know that... Anyway, I get a ticket, and I call the DMV about it and they tell me that, no, that's not true, my registration is NOT expired. But my tags were never sent. I asked what do you mean? The lady says, "I'm not sure, I'm sorry about this, it appears we did receive payment from you back in January, but you were never sent your tags." "Umm... why not? I just got pulled over and issued a $272 ticket because you didn't send me the freakin' tags I paid for!" "I'm sorry sir I can't really tell you why, they were supposed to be sent, it must have been some sort of processing error." I know better than to argue with these people, it's not her fault, so I said, "Alright well... ok, so do I just come in? I really need some sort of proof of registration here so I can show the court that this was a bogus ticket and it was just a misunderstanding." She tells me that they can't even issue something like that, "But the LAPD and the court system both have full access to DMV records, they can tell you were registered properly no problem, they can pull it up in a few seconds." "Oh... ok... well, thanks." So I go get my new tags, and I appeal my ticket by written declaration citing a specific section of the California Vehicle Code stating *specifically* what I was cited for, they wrote down the number, and having looked it up myself (I majored in philosophy and that means we took a number of classes that pre-law majors do as well) I analyzed the language and found that it says nothing about displaying proper tags.

In point of fact, there is NO SUCH LAW stating you must display proper tags, and the officer never said so or wrote that either, it said "Unregistered vehicle CVC 6.74" or whatever the heck the number was on that code. So I quoted the law, I wrote that I was not in violation of said law, and that furthermore the officers should have used their computers to verify my registration before pulling me over or at least after pulling me over. Long story short, those tags are only there to avoid a situation like this -- to tell the officers you are registered, so you don't get pulled over like I did. But they're not there for legal reasons. The only legal requirement is that your vehicle is registered, not that you prove it is registered by putting a sticker on your car. It's not like insurance, where now you actually do have to provide valid proof of insurance when asked for it by an officer of the peace (that wasn't the case before either, though -- you simply had to have insurance, not be able to prove it when pulled over, but they changed that).

Anyway, I am a professional writer, and I do have a lot of experience in law related issues, and I decided to do a trial by written declaration, included all of the relevant facts and laws, and explained the situation. About 8 months later, no joke, I get a simple form saying that my request was denied.

I'm angry about it, sure, I know that I'm right beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'm frustrated our system of justice doesn't work better because it's unacceptable in my mind to fine people without reason or to pull them over without justification when this technology is all readily available to them. They were junior officers, stuck on traffic duty, without knowledge of the law. It's unacceptable for police officers not to know the law -- that's their JOB. It'd be like as a director if I didn't know any union rules. That would make me an amateur. Yet at the same time, I am not going to screw with that $272 I lost because the fact is, I can't do much about it. It's not worth my time to contest it further or to put up a big stink about it. If I had $100 million I would hire an attorney or have my own on staff and I'd sue them for harassment and basically put up a huge stink about it, through the lawyer not myself, so that I wasted the government's time, called attention to the issue in public, and generally made them sorry for trying to extract that money. They'd end up paying it back or wasting enough time it was lost money on their end. And if I spent $25,000 for that $272 I wouldn't care because I'd have enough money I could afford to spend that on my principles alone. But the fact is most of us don't have that much money or that much time to dick around with these fools.

So sometimes, all you can do is be angry about it for a bit and let it pass, because it's probably not going to accomplish much to dwell on it.

 

[gco]

Just FYI, he was sued in small claims and in many, if not most, jurisdictions a litigant in a small claims action is not allowed to be represented by an attorney. Hire one to advise you if you want, certainly. But when it comes to appearing in court, you have to present your case yourself.

Don't know about Canada but not true here. I have been to small claims court, with a hired attorney. It worked out well for me and not so much for the other guy.