Actor Tom Cruise Sues Male Porn Star

[Guest bluboy]

RE: Filth - by Billy Masters

 

Ok any other conspiracy theorists out there? What if Tom in anticipating a real story to break sends out a fake trial balloon...innocent Kyle Bradford...and Tom's handlers spread absurd rumours which Tom reacts to in excess ($100million law suit) which are soon proven to be untrue as Kyle and the magazine get shown to be liars. When the next and real story breaks, Tom can just say, why do these people keep doing this to me and the new story which by real lands like dead weight on the public ear. Tom's excess is strange and Kyle's lack of knowledge is strange. The real story lies elsewhere. Thoughts? Blu

[MiamiLooker]

Other than saying the divorce request came as a surprise to her, has Nicole made any public statement specifically addressing this issue?

[Guest ButchHarris]

Kyle's Ex-Lover Speaks Out

 

Exclusive on Porn Star Sued by Tom Cruise

Michael Musto, Village Voice

 

For the complete column, go to:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0119/musto.shtml#bonus

 

[ EXCERPT ] As you know, porn actor Kyle Bradford (a/k/a Chad Slater, a/k/a Phil Navarone) is being sued by Tom Cruise for allegedly saying he had an affair with the superstar. Well, Bradford's ex-partner, Randall Kohl [ http://home.earthlink.net/~kohlxxxhunk ], just gave me his take on Kyle/Chad's persona.

 

"I have great feelings for Chad," said Randall, "but I think he's an actor on the stage and doesn't know when to get off. He reminds me of a little kid telling stories to get attention. He'd tell me that Tom gave him a watch and also offered to buy him a car. And on the CD that Chad did [a well-sung ditty called "Standing Here Alone"], it was his singing, but enhanced with computerization—he's the new Milli Vanilli [ http://MilliVanilli.com ].

 

"I was with him almost a year, but I didn't really know him until after about six months. I noticed his lying when he said he was going to appear on [the British music show] Top of the Pops [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp ] and he didn't—he actually went to Europe to wrestle. He said he did a Kentucky Fried Chicken [ http://KFC.com ] commercial that I found out was not true. Also, I introduced him to the director of Days of Our Lives [ http://nbci.com/days ], who put him on. They called him to go on again, but Chad said he's better than that and didn't want to make just $600-700 for a part. Can you believe that?

 

"He wants to be like Tom Cruise. Deep down, Chad thought he was Tom in his mind. He thought he looked a lot like him—he told me he did." Well, they're both short.

 

"Chad's family found out about his life as a result of this lawsuit," added Randall (who markets Frixion lube [ http://FrixionLube.com ], among other things). Meanwhile, Randall says that Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields, told him Kyle/Chad has faxed over a statement stating he'd never met Cruise. He may not have always sung that tune. According to Randall, the porn star gave a quite different interview to the London Daily Mail [ http://anm.co.uk ] (it didn't end up running that paper, which reportedly had doubts), though Kyle recently told me he never spoke to the French magazine that sparked the suit. The porn actor did not return a call for comment.

 

Kyle/Chad has appeared in movies like The Cockpit Club and Porn Star: The Joey Stefano Story. As for his CD, I'm thanked and pictured in it—maybe he likes press people—having met him several times through a friend. He seemed perfectly nice!

 

P.S. A tabloid will soon print an interview with Kyle's ex-wife—yes, he has an ex-wife—giving her take on all the gossip and why they broke up.

 

musto@villagevoice.com

 

For the complete column, go to:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0119/musto.shtml#bonus

 

Also see: http://www.ManNet.com

 

 

 

Butch Harris, Publisher

WEBs and VIDs Online!

Gay Erotica's Best Click! ®

Web: http://www.ManNet.com

[Guest ButchHarris]

Playing Hardball

 

Playing Hardball

For complete article, go to:

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8233,00.html

 

[ EXCERPT ] 5/8/01 -- Meantime, rumors about the reasons for the Kidman-Cruise break-up continue to swirl, heightened by Cruise's libel suit against gay porn wrestler Chad Slater, who was quoted in a French magazine claiming he broke up their marriage. (The porn star, meanwhile, denies ever speaking to the magazine.) According to MSNBC gossip columnist Jeannette Walls, some Hollywood insiders considered Cruise's libel suit a public relations gaffe and claimed that Kidman's failure to issue any comment in support of her children's father was further indication that she intended to play hardball over the divorce settlement.

 

For complete article, go to:

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8233,00.html

 

 

Butch Harris, Publisher

WEBs and VIDs Online!

Gay Erotica's Best Click! ®

Web: http://www.ManNet.com

[Guest ButchHarris]

Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

Week of May 9 - 15, 2001

Richard Goldstein

Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

Cruise Control

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0119/goldstein.shtml

 

[ EXCERPT ] Tom Cruise sues the way Robert Downey Jr. violates his parole. Downey can't pass up a snort and Cruise can't resist a tort. He's litigated several times to stop rumors that he is impotent, sterile, or (worst of all) gay.

 

Cruise's latest legal brief was filed last week, after a French publication alleged that his estranged wife, Nicole Kidman, had discovered him grappling with a star of gay wrestling films. (Note to sheltered readers: This is a genre in which the loser usually gets a phallic consolation prize.) The porn star insisted he had never given any interviews about Cruise, the magazine apologized, and the plaintiff was left with another round of unwanted publicity about his sexuality. Such are the wages of suing someone who calls you gay.

 

Recall that Oscar Wilde's ordeal began when he sued his lover's father for casting aspersions on his heterosexuality. Denying the obvious is always risky business—though not in the case of Liberace, who went after a gossip columnist for describing him as "fruit-flavored" and "mincing," among other fairly accurate terms. This was 1956, and Liberace was smart enough to file his claim in Britain, where it's much easier to prove defamation. Unlike Wilde, he won, and no one dared to utter the G-word in his presence until an autopsy revealed that he had died of AIDS. Then Liberace met the fate of many famous closet cases, becoming the subject of a TV movie that reveled in his homo ways.

 

Discretion is no help to the dead. Nor is it usually necessary for the living these days. Yet some queer scandals are still, well, scandalous.

 

Eddie Murphy never had a George Michael moment when he was stopped in the company of a trannie prostitute by the police. A dude who gets done is in much less trouble than one who goes down, and the unspoken fantasy was that Michael got caught in a men's room giving head. But even a toilet troller can avoid ruination by a tactful silence, the next best thing to a staunch denial that you're gay. The closet doesn't necessarily demand plausibility. You can be as queeny as Liberace, or claim, as Murphy did, that he wasn't looking for sex but merely being "a good Samaritan" by giving a trannie a lift. No matter how odd the explanation may seem, it will suffice if it keeps the complexities of sexuality from being apparent. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—or so they say.

 

For complete article, go to:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0119/goldstein.shtml

 

Also see: http://www.ManNet.com

 

Butch Harris, Publisher

WEBs and VIDs Online!

Gay Erotica's Best Click! ®

Web: http://www.ManNet.com

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

Well, the motto of the Scientology "Church" of which Cruise is a member is to sue to harass, not to win. In the US, unlike in other countries, the loser does not have to foot the legal costs of the winner, so lawsuits can be used to harass even when they have no legal basis. The idea of suing a porn star for $10 million, or even $100,000, is obviously absurd. Cruise's motivation in filing the suit can only be guessed, but this motivation certainly isn't to recover financial damages. I don't know why the porn star even bothered to respond. I would have defended myself. The suit wasn't even worth hiring a lawyer, unless he has significant assets.

[Guest]

RE: Kyle Bradford Speaks Out On Tom Cruise Controversy

 

>>It won't destroy my career

>>but it is destroying my

>>dear relationship with my family

>>and, as I said, that

>>hurts a lot.

>

>

>I'm just curious......was he worried about

>destroying his "dear relationship" with

>his family when he did

>porno movies? Or was he

>worried when he put up

>a porn website with his

>face all over it? Or,

>was he worried about what

>it might do to his

>dear family when he was

>doing his live webcam feed?

 

I totally agree with you. He couldn't be that close to his family if they didn't know what he did for a living. If they didn't know what he did for a living, either (1) his livlihood was never even discussed, or (2) it was discussed, but he lied about it. Neither implies a "dear relationship" to me. I'm more impressed with Stephan Lacoste's relationship with his family. He's told him, and they're proud of who he is (see the string in the Deli section).

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

> The idea of suing

>a porn star for $10

>million, or even $100,000, is

>obviously absurd. Cruise's motivation

>in filing the suit can

>only be guessed, but this

>motivation certainly isn't to recover

>financial damages. I don't

>know why the porn star

>even bothered to respond.

>I would have defended myself.

> The suit wasn't even

>worth hiring a lawyer, unless

>he has significant assets.

 

You're assuming that the porn actor is the only defendant named in the suit. I think that is extremely unlikely.

 

In addition, like most people you're probably unaware that a judgment in a lawsuit can have a very long "life." A defendant against whom a large judgment is entered may have few assets at the time it is entered. If so, the plaintiff can sometimes hold on to the judgment and enforce it when the situation changes.

[+ deej]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

This whole thing just gets more and more bizarre.

 

First, Actustar (who has since printed a retraction) says they didn't run an "interview" -- they merely reported on internet rumors. It _IS TRUE_ that the rumor was all over the internet!

 

This must be why Bradford was sued and not the magazine.

 

It's interesting now to see all the people coming forward to doubt Kyle's veracity. Michael Musto and Billy Masters have both all but called him a blatant liar, casting doubt even on his retractions.

 

Billy has even posted quotes from KB's e-mails on his message board.

 

Still, I think this story has just about had its 15 minutes in the limelight. Cruise sued, Bradford recanted, and that's enough to appease homophobic movie-goers. Every year or so, somebody will mention "that pornstar who outed Tom Cruise" on message boards around the internet, much like we still hear occasionally about Baressi & Travolta, but that's about it.

[Guest Midight Cowboy]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>Still, I think this story has

>just about had its 15

>minutes in the limelight.

 

Tom Cruise's problem is the inevitable periodic replay of variations on this "15 minutes'" subject, the rumours about his sex life. The last time it popped up, Cruise & Kidman responded with a $100 million lawsuit, which resulted in the paper printing a retraction and an apology. I doubt even Cruise thinks that throwing another $100 million lawsuit at it will choke off the rumours for good, but what are his options? They didn't fade away when he ignored them for several years. And now he's got a divorce settlement and custody rights to resolve - lousy timing for this story to be in circulation, if things get ugly. I don't see his reaction as excessive, given his present circumstances and the persistance of these "items". Whether or not his Scientology affiliation had anything to do with it, my impression is that he's reluctant to discuss his religious beliefs publically, and I've never heard about him being a spokesman for the church. (And he was smart enough to stay clear of "Battlefield Earth"!)

 

So as much as I like Bluboy's imaginative conspiracy theory, I don't buy it. I first heard this story about a year ago, from an acquaintance who's a friend of Kyle Bradford (and of Michael Musto). He didn't tell me the name of the actor, but it wasn't hard to guess. Michael Musto knows that Bradford is not as perplexed as he claims about the origins of the story. But only a few people know if the story is true, at least in part.

 

I enjoyed Richard Goldstein's piece in the Voice (thanks for that post, Butch), but I wish it addressed what I find the most perplexing thing about all this: Why do we care? By "we" I mean, specifically, gay men. Does the possibility that Tom Cruise fools around with men make us feel better about ourselves? More glamorous, perhaps? Does it simply make having sex with him theoretically possible? (An escort here, with the right connections, might have reason to hold out hope, but most of us stand a much better chance of being struck by lightening.) The mainstream tabloid press picks up on it every so often, but it's our community's rumour mills that keep it alive, while similar rumours about numerous other celebrities have ceased being repeated, even if true. Is it just because he's popular, or hot (though not everyone agrees on that), or is there something about TC's action-movie-hero/scrappy-kid-makes-good personae that strike a chord with us, collectively if not individually? What is Tom Cruise if not "The Best Little Boy in the World"?

 

Michael

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>You're assuming that the porn actor

>is the only defendant named

>in the suit. I

>think that is extremely unlikely.

 

He was the only person named in the copy of the first page of the legal document I saw filed in the Superior Court.

 

>In addition, like most people you're

>probably unaware that a judgment

>in a lawsuit can have

>a very long "life."

>A defendant against whom a

>large judgment is entered may

>have few assets at the

>time it is entered.

>If so, the plaintiff can

>sometimes hold on to the

>judgment and enforce it when

>the situation changes.

 

So you really think his goal is to collect money? I think his goal was more along the lines of extortion, destroying the escort's reputation and livlihood (he's had to take his picture and contact info off of his website), and embarrassing him in front of his loved ones. I wish the escort would file a countersuit for the damage to his reputation. At least that would make Cruise spend money on a fancy lawyer. This whole episode makes a mockery of our judicial system (which is quite enough of a joke, anyways).

[Guest LG320126]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

So you really think his goal is to collect money? I think his goal was more along the lines of extortion, destroying the escort's reputation and livlihood (he's had to take his picture and contact info off of his website), and embarrassing him in front of his loved ones. I wish the escort would file a countersuit for the damage to his reputation. At least that would make Cruise spend money on a fancy lawyer. This whole episode makes a mockery of our judicial system (which is quite enough of a joke, anyways).

 

 

 

 

I hope you're not being serious here.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

Umm, don't you think that it was a fancy, and expensive, lawyer who filed the suit for Mr. Tom in the first place?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>He was the only person named

>in the copy of the

>first page of the legal

>document I saw filed in

>the Superior Court.

>

 

No, that's not correct. The first page of the complaint names Bradford as well as additional defendants referred to as "Does 1 through 10." See paragraph 3 on the second page of the complaint for details. To make a long story short, the inclusion of additional defendants identified only as "Does" is appropriate when the plaintiff believes that others are involved in the tortious acts that were committed but does not yet know their names. When that information is obtained, the complaint can be amended to include it.

 

>So you really think his goal

>is to collect money?

>I think his goal was

>more along the lines of

>extortion, destroying the escort's reputation

>and livlihood (he's had to

>take his picture and contact

>info off of his website),

>and embarrassing him in front

>of his loved ones.

>I wish the escort would

>file a countersuit for the

>damage to his reputation.

>At least that would make

>Cruise spend money on a

>fancy lawyer. This whole

>episode makes a mockery of

>our judicial system (which is

>quite enough of a joke,

>anyways).

 

 

I didn't mean to suggest that Cruise thinks this character will have $100 million at some point in the future, merely that someone who has few assets at the moment can't afford to ignore a lawsuit on the assumption that his current financial situation makes him judgment-proof forever. It doesn't. If Bradford ever hopes to have any sort of significant net worth at any point in his life, he'd better try to avoid having a large judgment entered against him.

 

I suspect the motive for this and other suits Cruise has filed is a simple one. Magazines and other media organizations are usually more reluctant to publish potentially defamatory material if it relates to someone who has a history of suing. Cruise wants to be regarded as someone with such a history.

 

I can't imagine how Bradford could benefit by filing a countersuit. To someone like Cruise, who has an annual income in the eight figures, the expense involved in defending such a suit would be negligible. And what court is going to take seriously a suit for damage to the "reputation" of a porn actor?

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>I can't imagine how Bradford could

>benefit by filing a countersuit.

> To someone like Cruise,

>who has an annual income

>in the eight figures, the

>expense involved in defending such

>a suit would be negligible.

> And what court is

>going to take seriously a

>suit for damage to the

>"reputation" of a porn actor?

>

 

I guess you're right about that one, in that it would be hard to get a jury to sympathize with the escort (I didn't know he was also a porn actor). Ideally, he could get punitive damages for malice and abuse of process, but I agree that an escort is unlikely to get sympathy--even though Cruise's $100 million demand, in my view, was made only to intimidate and harass, not to obtain compensation, which is what the courts are supposed to be for. But since when were US courts about honesty and integrity?

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>I didn't mean to suggest that

>Cruise thinks this character will

>have $100 million at some

>point in the future, merely

>that someone who has few

>assets at the moment can't

>afford to ignore a lawsuit

>on the assumption that his

>current financial situation makes him

>judgment-proof forever. It doesn't.

> If Bradford ever hopes

>to have any sort of

>significant net worth at any

>point in his life, he'd

>better try to avoid having

>a large judgment entered against

>him.

 

What if someone can't afford a lawyer in a civil suit? Would Bradford be able to re-open the case at some later time on the grounds that he didn't have the means to defend himself at the time of trial? This seems particularly unfair in civil cases, where the burden of proof is merely "preponderance of evidence." It doesn't take a good lawyer that much work to convince juries of that standard, it would seem.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>I guess you're right about that

>one, in that it would

>be hard to get a

>jury to sympathize with the

>escort (I didn't know he

>was also a porn actor).

 

If I'm not mistaken one or more of the earlier posts states that Bradford has appeared in some porn films. If so, there's not much chance that any jury would award him anything for "damage to his reputation."

 

 

> Ideally, he could get

>punitive damages for malice and

>abuse of process, but I

>agree that an escort is

>unlikely to get sympathy--even though

>Cruise's $100 million demand, in

>my view, was made only

>to intimidate and harass, not

>to obtain compensation, which is

>what the courts are supposed

>to be for. But

>since when were US courts

>about honesty and integrity?

 

The standard that must be met to maintain an action for abuse of process -- there is no cause of action for "malice" -- is so tough that such actions almost never go anywhere. Suffice it to say that if one of the publications mentioned in the earlier posts actually stated that Bradford gave an interview about Cruise, then whether he really gave the interview or not Cruise can't be sued for abuse of process.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>What if someone can't afford a

>lawyer in a civil suit?

> Would Bradford be able

>to re-open the case at

>some later time on the

>grounds that he didn't have

>the means to defend himself

>at the time of trial?

 

No, he wouldn't. If Bradford or his attorney fails to file an answer to the complaint by the deadline then Cruise can ask the court to enter a default judgment against him. If the court agrees, then a judgment will be entered stating that the allegations in the complaint are to be regarded as true and the issue of Bradford's liability will be settled once and for all. In order to get any money, Cruise will still have to present evidence to the court on the issue of damages, and the court will decide what the dollar amount of damages will be. But Bradford will no longer have the ability to argue that he did not commit defamation.

[Guest ButchHarris]

Measuring Tab for a Suit

 

For complete column, go to:

http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-05-13/News_and_Views/Daily_Dish/a-110932.asp

 

[ EXCERPT ] -- May 13, 2001 -- Tom Cruise may be launching another legal missile — this time against The National Enquirer [ http://NationalEnquirer.com ]. The actor recently filed a $100 million libel suit against porn star Chad Slater, charging that Slater had claimed he and Cruise had been lovers. Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields, said the suit wasn't meant to collect money from Slater so much as to warn the media away from the tale.

 

The tactic doesn't seem to have worked. The new issue of The Enquirer features a two-page spread in which Slater's wife, Kristina, lavishly describes what Slater allegedly claimed he and Cruise did together.

 

The tab points out that Slater "never provided one shred of evidence to support his claims." All the same, Fields tells us: "I will recommend to my client that he sue The Enquirer. The Enquirer was told Slater denies the story, and they printed it anyway."

 

Meanwhile, L.A.-based Bold magazine [ http://BOLDmag.com ] is offering $500,000 to anyone who can produce a photo or videotape proving Cruise had any gay affair. Bold publisher Michael Davis says the offer is meant to "help" Cruise debunk the rumors.

 

Says Fields sarcastically: "Oh yeah, that's a big help."

 

For complete column, go to:

http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-05-13/News_and_Views/Daily_Dish/a-110932.asp

 

Butch Harris, Publisher

WEBs and VIDs Online!

Gay Erotica's Best Click! ®

Web: http://www.ManNet.com

[Guest]

RE: Measuring Tab for a Suit

 

>The actor recently filed a

>$100 million libel suit against

>porn star Chad Slater, charging

>that Slater had claimed he

>and Cruise had been lovers.

>Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields, said

>the suit wasn't meant to

>collect money from Slater so

>much as to warn the

>media away from the tale.

>

>

>The tactic doesn't seem to have

>worked. The new issue of

>The Enquirer features a two-page

>spread in which Slater's wife,

>Kristina, lavishly describes what Slater

>allegedly claimed he and Cruise

>did together.

>

>The tab points out that Slater

>"never provided one shred of

>evidence to support his claims."

>All the same, Fields tells

>us: "I will recommend to

>my client that he sue

>The Enquirer. The Enquirer was

>told Slater denies the story,

>and they printed it anyway."

>

>

>Meanwhile, L.A.-based Bold magazine [ http://BOLDmag.com

>] is offering $500,000 to

>anyone who can produce a

>photo or videotape proving Cruise

>had any gay affair

 

Ha ha. I hope Cruise get his just deserts.

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>>What if someone can't afford a

>>lawyer in a civil suit?

>> Would Bradford be able

>>to re-open the case at

>>some later time on the

>>grounds that he didn't have

>>the means to defend himself

>>at the time of trial?

>

>No, he wouldn't. If Bradford

>or his attorney fails to

>file an answer to the

>complaint by the deadline then

>Cruise can ask the court

>to enter a default judgment

>against him

 

How about if he just defends himself poorly because he can't afford an attorney. Can the case be revisited later if he comes into money. It seems like you're asking an unarmed man to fight against someone with a gun and armor, with no chance for a rematch. A bit of a joke, isn't it?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>>>What if someone can't afford a

>>>lawyer in a civil suit?

>>> Would Bradford be able

>>>to re-open the case at

>>>some later time on the

>>>grounds that he didn't have

>>>the means to defend himself

>>>at the time of trial?

>>

>>No, he wouldn't. If Bradford

>>or his attorney fails to

>>file an answer to the

>>complaint by the deadline then

>>Cruise can ask the court

>>to enter a default judgment

>>against him

>

>How about if he just defends

>himself poorly because he can't

>afford an attorney. Can

>the case be revisited later

>if he comes into money.

> It seems like you're

>asking an unarmed man to

>fight against someone with a

>gun and armor, with no

>chance for a rematch.

>A bit of a joke,

>isn't it?

 

 

No, the case can't be "revisited," and no it isn't a joke. In a civil suit the plaintiff has the burden of proof. If he presents evidence sufficient to meet the burden (which is up to the court to determine), then the system is perfectly justified in saying to the defendant, "It looks like you did something that we've all agreed people shouldn't do. What do you have to say for yourself?" If the defendant can't disprove the allegations, he loses.

 

If there's no evidence that Bradford made defamatory statements about Cruise, he has nothing to worry about. If there is such evidence, then I guess he shouldn't have said those things.

[Guest ButchHarris]

Tom Cruise fights back

 

For the complete column, go to:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/zwecker/zp14.html

 

Tom Cruise fights back

May 14, 2001

BY BILL ZWECKER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

 

[ EXCERPT ] Looks like Tom Cruise will be cruising toward filing yet another libel lawsuit. The superstar's lawyer Bert Fields is now admitting the real reason the actor sued porn star Chad Slater for $100 million was to send a message to other media. "Obviously, we know Mr. Slater doesn't have those kind of assets," Fields said. The whole point was to scare off the big, internationally read tabloids and other mainstream publications from running Slater's tale that he had had a gay affair with Cruise.

 

Well, it didn't work. The National Equirer's new edition--which began hitting newsstands this past weekend--includes a steamy story with Slater's wife, Kristina, graphically describing what Slater claims he and Cruise did together.

 

(After Cruise sued him, Slater recanted his allegations and the French magazine that originally published his story publicly apologized to Cruise.)

 

Fields is outraged that the Enquirer went ahead and published "a story it clearly knew was false." The supermarket tab even states in the story that Chad Slater "never provided one shred of evidence to support his claims."

 

* In a related matter, the Los Angeles-based magazine Bold is offering $500,000 to anyone who can provide photographic proof of Cruise having a homosexual relationship with anyone. Bold's publisher says it's intention is to help Cruise debunk the rumors--leading attorney Fields to sarcastically tell the New York Daily News, "Oh yeah, that's a big help."

 

For the complete column, go to:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/zwecker/zp14.html

 

Butch Harris, Publisher

WEBs and VIDs Online!

Gay Erotica's Best Click! ®

Web: http://www.ManNet.com

[Guest regulation]

RE: Measuring Tab for a Suit

 

>>The actor recently filed a

>>$100 million libel suit against

>>porn star Chad Slater, charging

>>that Slater had claimed he

>>and Cruise had been lovers.

>>Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields, said

>>the suit wasn't meant to

>>collect money from Slater so

>>much as to warn the

>>media away from the tale.

>>

>>

 

Isn't that exactly what I said above?

 

>Ha ha. I hope Cruise

>get his just deserts.

 

And what are his "deserts"? If someone publishes lies about his sexual behavior, doesn't he have the right to ask for the protection of the courts like every other citizen?

[Guest]

RE: Why Is It Libelous to Call an Action Actor Gay?

 

>>How about if he just defends

>>himself poorly because he can't

>>afford an attorney. Can

>>the case be revisited later

>>if he comes into money.

>> It seems like you're

>>asking an unarmed man to

>>fight against someone with a

>>gun and armor, with no

>>chance for a rematch.

>>A bit of a joke,

>>isn't it?

>

>

>No, the case can't be "revisited,"

>and no it isn't a

>joke. In a civil

>suit the plaintiff has the

>burden of proof. If

>he presents evidence sufficient to

>meet the burden (which is

>up to the court to

>determine), then the system is

>perfectly justified in saying to

>the defendant, "It looks like

>you did something that we've

>all agreed people shouldn't do.

> What do you have

>to say for yourself?"

>If the defendant can't disprove

>the allegations, he loses.

 

I guess my problem with that is that, in California at least, the burden of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of evidence," or a 51/49 odds, in layman's terms. It takes resources to "disprove an allegation." I personally think it's absurd to tell someone with no resources he has to fend for himself, but that if he later gets money, he won't be able to present his case. That may be the way it is, but it's totally ridiculous.