Wounded Soldier Sues Michael Moore
As I always say…. if Liberals want to use the court to legislate and destroy the American way, then I see no reason not to turn the tables on them with their own tactics. This story is priceless!! (Hat tip: Stop The ACLU)
GI’s Big Fat Suit Vs. Moore – NY Post
A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America’s invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.
In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.
“They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene,” Damon said yesterday. “They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition.”
Damon seems to “voice complaint about the war effort” in the movie, according to the lawsuit.
But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the “excruciating” pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.
Damon wasn’t expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug.
“I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is,” said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking “Fahrenheit” -”Michael Moore Hates America” and “Fahrenhype 9/11.”
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the bandaged National Guardsman is shown laying on a gurney complaining that he feels like he’s “being crushed in a vise. But they [the drugs] do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it.”
His image appears seconds after Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says, “You know, they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind.”
Damon – the dad of a 8-year-old girl and 4-year-old boy – doesn’t come close to feeling that way.
“He couldn’t have picked the worst guy to say that about,” he told The Post.
“I’m the most fortunate disabled guy. I’ve even had a house built for me [by a nonprofit group, Home for Our Troops].”
Particularly outrageous to Damon is the fact that Moore never interviewed him or asked his permission to use the old clip.
“I was complaining about the pain I would’ve been having [if it weren't for the painkiller],” he said.
NBC is named in the suit – which was filed in Suffolk County, Mass., on Friday – along with Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax Corp., Lions Gate Films and other production companies involved with the picture.
Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, “These men, with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort,” according to the lawsuit.
That part, which wasn’t shown in the Moore movie, is a far more accurate depiction of Damon’s feelings, he said.
The truth means nothing to the Democrats and the Left anymore. They don’t even have it in their vocabulary.
A hearty salute to American Hero — Sgt. Peter Damon of Middleborough, Massachusetts.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Suing the FF (first F is for fat) for lying is like suing the FF for being fat.
Julie the Jarhead
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 1, 2006 @ 9:35 am - June 1, 2006
85 million? did he sue the fatman by the pound? works out to about $28,000 a pound
Comment by nuyorker — June 1, 2006 @ 9:43 am - June 1, 2006
#0 – “The truth means nothing to the Democrats and the Left anymore. They don’t even have it in their vocabulary.”
Well, there are exceptions… but I admit you have to search for them. It’s certainly true of all the most vocal, visible Lefties. It’s a huge part of why I became an Independent (after decades as a Democrat).
Even in this blog’s comments: such basic truth elements as defining terms and substantiating claims are off the radar of the Dem-supporting Bush-haters. Insist on those elements (when they are clearly lacking) and see yourself be dismissed as “employing rhetorical tricks of misdirection”, LOL
Well, I laughed, but really it’s pathetic and sad.
Comment by Calarato — June 1, 2006 @ 9:43 am - June 1, 2006
Like other veterans, Peter Damon deserves and MERITS our gratitude, continued support and he is a Hero –whether or not others think military heroism is a noble honor.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2006 @ 10:00 am - June 1, 2006
#4 – Speaking of people who don’t understand military heroism, and don’t want to… Be ready for more shitstorm over Haditha.
CNN was flogging it madly last night. They ran a banner something like “Marine accounts questioned” – as if it wasn’t the Marines themselves who were exposing Haditha! (giving CNN the info) They ran another banner about Marines under “PRESSURE” – as if our troops haven’t done an incredibly GOOD job all this time… and as if the media’s gleeful, endless repetition of anything bad about the troops isn’t a cause of the pressure!
Comment by Calarato — June 1, 2006 @ 10:21 am - June 1, 2006
85 million? That wouldn’t put a dent in the fat fuck’s weekly donut bill.
Comment by Tom — June 1, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - June 1, 2006
As the Republican candidate opposing Jim McDermott in this year’s election, I can say that this matter is just one more example of how extreme and unethical McDermott is. I want to help Sgt. Damon in any way I can. As I said in my May 27 speech to the state GOP convention:
“I support our troops in Iraq. They are today’s ‘band of brothers.’ I support them and I support their mission. Their mission is our mission. But Jim McDermott has called our troops in Iraq ‘a continued irritant.’ Actually it is McDermott who is an irritant to the state of Washington. If ever a congressman should pursue an ‘exit strategy,’ it’s Jim McDermott.”
Steve Beren
http://www.berenforcongress.com
Comment by Steve Beren — June 1, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - June 1, 2006
Dan, first of all I have in no way said that, and secondly, you don’t know any of that. Remember concepts like “America” and “innocent until proven guilty”, Dan? Wait for the trial convictions, or at least the results of investigations.
In case you really aren’t capable of grasping such concepts Dan, here is the dumbed-down version for you: you have basically just shown the world what a complete idiot you are. Good luck.
Comment by Calarato — June 1, 2006 @ 8:34 pm - June 1, 2006
Let’s not forget that president Bush played on the pain and suffering of the victims and families of the 9/11 to get re-elected. He used 9/11 images in his advertising (something he initially promised not to do) as well as held the Republican convention in New York City as close to the 9/11 anniversary date as could legally occur. Let’s not forget also that for all the security these guys loved to say they’re so good at, the convention had protestors who got through security into the convention. Or how about the infamous “mission accomplished” banner thing? The white house lied and then later admitted it created that banner, not the good members of the military on the ship. Let’s not forget one of the biggest – all the lies about WMDs that got is into that war in the first place. Or how about advocating writing discrimination into the constitution while he touts American freedom?
A lying president/administration is bit more important to me than a filmmaker who edits his movie to present his point of view.
Comment by Kevin — June 1, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - June 1, 2006
Because his suit is based on “intentional infliction of emotional distress”… which he will be unable to prove.
Really? Where does it say that?
‘Cause this is what the article says:
Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of “loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation.”
In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the “mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2006 @ 1:04 am - June 2, 2006
The truth means nothing to the Democrats and the Left anymore.
Of course it does as long as it’s the truth they fabricate. If it’s the truth that pisses in their Cheerios, it’s a complete lie.
Examples:
Dan Rather’s Documents
Cindy Sheehan
The Jersey Gals
The whole “Bush lied about WMDs” BS
Their “Mission Accomplished” spin
Their steaming pile of Katrina BS
etc. etc. etc.
All fabricated lies of the libs
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 2, 2006 @ 1:41 am - June 2, 2006
Maybe Moore will have to sell his shares in Halliburton?
Comment by Conservative Guy — June 2, 2006 @ 3:19 am - June 2, 2006
The lawsuit against Moore is completely off-the-wall. If Damon had a case, it would have been solely against NBC (the subsidiary of the US government contractor General Electric) for apparently allowing Moore to use the footage in his mocumentary. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Damon signed off his “any use” rights to the interview, before NBC even aired it–otherwise, it is highly unlikely that NBC would have aired it. If he did, that would have allowed NBC to grant rights to redistribute any portion of the interview to anyone, including Moore, regardless of how it was edited.
BTW, as any 1st year law student knows, when you file suit, you file against anyone against you might have a claim, whether or not it is even reasonably colorable. And that’s what obviously happened here.
Comment by raj — June 2, 2006 @ 6:48 am - June 2, 2006
Actually raj baby, these types of lawsuits proliferate the landscape and are very very effective tools to compel an unwilling party to negoitiate, compromise, cease conduct, pay for damages or otherwise capitulate to your petitions.
Any 1-L could tell you that. I amazed you could not.
Also, any 1-L could also tell you that when an observer uses a phrase like “off-the-wall” –like you did– its evidence of that observer doesn’t have a clue about the American legal system, about using the media to advance your claim, about building a case in the public arena and about countless other aspects to this case you fail to grasp.
But then, any 1-L student would probably best you in a mock trial on any given day, any given subject, without much need for preparation.
Raj baby, the point of many lawsuits is not to take it to trial… the point is to pressure your opponent in some demonstrable fashion. In this case, making the case that MikeyMoore is an arrogant, deceitful film-maker.
But then, any 1-L student would tell you “We already knew that”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 9:10 am - June 2, 2006
Doesn’t change the fact that Raj is right.
Comment by Britton — June 2, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - June 2, 2006
Britton, LOL. Any 1-L student could have told us THAT already.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - June 2, 2006
Kevin, “… A lying president/administration is more important to me….”
And that’s probably why you supported liars and perjurers like Clinton, Gore, Kerry and probably HClinton if given the chance. It’s why you like the French. It’s why you defend Saddam. It’s why the PLO look like angels of salvation to you.
Let’s see… Clinton: impeached for lying. Gore: had to return campaign funds for lying and quit lying about using federal govt resources to raise said funds. Kerry: lied about his “war” record and STILL hasn’t released them ’cause he knows the truth will end his career. HClinton: “Where’d I put the files? Kill Vince Foster now; he knows too much. I didn’t fire the Travel Office… they fired themselves.” Ha!
Distrutstful, lying, intellectually dishonest, and deceit ridden govts reinforce your self-educated view of govt. Toss in a conspiracy, some racism, a touch of old colonialism and a smack of anti-militarism and heck you’re set for life. It’s all about being a victim for you –govt has victimized you and your scorn equals that of an ex-lover… and is just about as reliable.
The only one who might have lied about WMDs is SlickWilly and the Aspirin Factory run or his boy, George Tenet. Even the GayLeft can’t deny history forever. You’ll try; but it will always out-run you.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - June 2, 2006
YOU CONSERVATIVES MAKE ME PROUD OF MY CONSERVATISM.
This is like a therapy session for me, you see I don’t get out much so I felt like the only person in the world.
Thank you all so very much! Bruce, thanks for the excellent work on your site.
Comment by Democrat & Conservative — June 2, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - June 2, 2006
raj at #15 writes “The lawsuit against Moore is completely off-the-wall.” Then later offers he suspects Damon signed off his rights to NBC and NBC, in turn, allowed anyone to use it, edit it, etc.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong, raj baby.
Turns out that NBC’s own spolesperson offers that Moore should have contacted Damon directly to use the material. You should have known better before spouting off ’cause that’s a July 15 2004 piece. Oh wait, you did do due dilligence ’cause you checked Wiki cites. Forgot, sorry.
Please see:
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt
Seems like that “off-the-wall lawsuit” isn’t that at all –the only off-the-wall thing here is your legal observations. Again.
Sit down, counselor.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - June 2, 2006
“A lying president/administration is bit more important to me than a filmmaker who edits his movie to present his point of view.”
Damn, and Michigan-Matt already beat me to the punch! This one statement could have fueled an entire column!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 2, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - June 2, 2006
#13
Reinemachefrau baby! You don’t give up, do you?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 3, 2006 @ 9:19 am - June 3, 2006
# 14 Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 9:10 am – June 2, 2006
Actually raj baby, these types of lawsuits proliferate the landscape and are very very effective tools to compel an unwilling party to negoitiate, compromise, cease conduct, pay for damages or otherwise capitulate to your petitions.
Actually, Matt, I know that full well. It strikes me as a bit dumb to suggest that a lawsuit against MM at this point in time would compel him to cease conduct, given the probable fact that the movie’s distribution–and, hence, revenues–are probably long on the down side. I suppose that they may sell a few more DVDs, but probably not many. So what “conduct” is supposed to be “ceased”?
Negotiate? Compromise? For what?
Pay for damages? Also, for what?
And your comment “otherwise capitulate to your petitions” makes no sense whatsoever, so I’ll ignore it.
# 19 Michigan-Matt — June 2, 2006 @ 2:29 pm – June 2, 2006
Bzzzzzt. Wrong, raj baby.
Turns out that NBC’s own spolesperson offers that Moore should have contacted Damon directly to use the material. You should have known better before spouting off ’cause that’s a July 15 2004 piece. Oh wait, you did do due dilligence ’cause you checked Wiki cites. Forgot, sorry.
Please see:
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt
Oh, that’s nice, you actually did a google search to find an article on the issue. It’s interesting that you didn’t post the link in your original comment. Are you starting to do google searches now?
The article is moderately interesting, primarily in regards the sloppy practices that television news operations engage in regarding interviews. (I’d have a comment on that but it would extend this comment too much.) But that is hardly determinative. If someone gives an interview to a TV news network, apparently (according to the TV news network), the network can edit the interview however it sees fit, and broadcast it however it sees fit, regardless of whether the interviewee approves of what is broadcast. So, it strikes me that, if the network subsequently licenses a 3d party, in this case MM, to make use of even some portion of what was originally broadcast, that 3d party would have the same rights that the network would have had. The network could have edited the interview as it saw fit. And the 3d party (MM) could have edited the interview as it saw fit.
Unless the network’s license to the 3d party was in some way limited, the 3d party could have done what it wanted to in regards the interview. Hence, no case.
I suppose that one would have to be a 3L to understand that. Try again.
Just to let you know, your obvious attempts at baiting me with “raj baby” are rather juvenile and, in any case, they fall on deaf ears.
Comment by raj — June 4, 2006 @ 3:26 am - June 4, 2006
#21 ThatGayConservative — June 3, 2006 @ 9:19 am – June 3, 2006
Reinemachefrau…
Still unable to do German, I see. It’s “Reinmachefrau.”
Comment by raj — June 4, 2006 @ 3:33 am - June 4, 2006
raj baby, simple concept: shooting off your mouth with more off the cuff “legal” observations prove one thing –and one thing only– your seemingly “informed opinions” are nothing more thanwishful thinking… any 1-L could have told you that, baby.
But it’s ok… like with other observations that have been waaaay off the mark for you, I have no doubt you won’t just keep going on and on, posting silly observations that are easily disproven… like I wrote earlier –almost any 1-L student could clean your clock in a mock trial anyday, any subject, with little or no preparation.
And they wouldn’t even need to be Wolverines to do it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 5, 2006 @ 9:52 am - June 5, 2006
#24 by Michigan-Matt — June 5, 2006 @ 9:52 am – June 5, 2006
Yawn. After you’ve had your course in licensing law (I guess it must be in 3L) you might have learned that a licensee has the rights that a licensor has, unless the licensor has otherwise begrenzt (i.e. “limited,” but I’m sure that you knew that) the license. So, if NBC had the right to edit the interview as it wanted to (and I’m sure that it did), and if MM edited the interview differently (as he may or may not have), then, unless the interviewee limited NBC’s rights in any way (which, apparently, he did not), and unless NBC limited the license to MM (which apparently it did not) MM had the right to edit the interview as he saw fit. Case closed.
Let’s read between the lines of Damon’s case. Damon’s objection is obviously to the venue: the fact that MM used at least portions of his interview in MM’s 9/11 mockumentary. Those portions were licenced to MM by NBC. NBC could have (and maybe they did) edit those portions of the interview for broadcast in the same way that MM did for his mockumentary. NBC had a concluding idiotorial comment by Brian Williams, which MM apparently did not include. So? Should MM have been required to include NBC’s concluding idiotorial comment by Brian Williams in his mockumentary? I don’t see any reason why he should have. Do you?
If Mr. Damon had wanted to limit the scope of the appearance and licensing rights of NBC, he could have done so very easily. He could have negotiated the terms on which the interview would be conducted and the subsequent licensing of the tapes from the interview. (That is often the case with celebrities, by the way.) He didn’t. Hence, he has no case against MM. He might have a case against NBC, but I doubt it.
As far as I can tell, this “case” is nothing more than grandstanding. It will be interesting to see what the Republican-dreaded “activist judiciary” does with the case. Of course, to Republicans, “activist judiciary” merely means “I don’t like their decisions.”
Comment by raj — June 6, 2006 @ 1:49 am - June 6, 2006