Rust and Related Lawsuits

[sugar magnolia]

We talk about dogs and recipes, too also. We don't just do polly ticks.

Damn. How did I miss the recipe for frying bigger fish?

[Foggy]

We talk about lots of stuff, whatever interests us. That's OK today.

We have a whole Sportsball forum, but you have to join a usergroup to see it.

[RTH10260]

We talk about dogs and recipes, too also. We don't just do polly ticks.

Damn. How did I miss the recipe for frying bigger fish?

BUT... But... but... who bakes the chips

[pipistrelle]

We talk about dogs and recipes, too also. We don't just do polly ticks.

Damn. How did I miss the recipe for frying bigger fish?

BUT... But... but... who bakes the chips

British or American?

[realist]

For fuck's sake. Why are you all still carrying on with this gossip? This is TMZ nonsense. Who gives a flying fuck?

You might might wanna start frying some bigger fish. Like #47 and shit. Enjoy your sports. Some of us have real lives to live.

So then why are you in this thread wasting your precious time?

[bob]

For fuck's sake. Why are you all still carrying on with this gossip? This is TMZ nonsense. Who gives a flying fuck?

Don't visit the Rittenhouse thread.

[RVInit]

For fuck's sake. Why are you all still carrying on with this gossip? This is TMZ nonsense. Who gives a flying fuck?

Don't visit the Rittenhouse thread.

[keith]

We talk about lots of stuff, whatever interests us. That's OK today.

We have a whole Sportsball forum, but you have to join a usergroup to see it.

And ennyway, I thought this was a forum for IAAL's to wax more or less noledge-able about lawfare and courtly gossip.

[Sam the Centipede]

And ennyway, I thought this was a forum for IAAL's to wax more or less noledge-able about lawfare and courtly gossip.

Awww! I thought it was a forum for us to tease lawyers!

And occasionally southern ladies. But the Fogbelles are apparently aestivating, their crinolines in storage until the autumnal masquerades and balls.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Our crinolines are definitely in storage during the summer heat!

[andersweinstein]

If interested: NYT got interviews from two Baldwin jurors, who expressed skepticism about his guilt based on what they heard so far.

Before the Alec Baldwin Trial’s End, 2 Jurors Had Doubts About His Guilt [Gift Link]

[neonzx]

This case is dead and buried with prejudice, right?

[Foggy]

Yeah.

[RVInit]

The case is dead and buried with prejudice and there are rumblings that Baldwin is considering suing.

I'm wondering if there will be any consequences for Morrissey stemming from this case. I knew I didn't like her personality at all when I saw her at work in the Hannah Guitierrez trial. But yeesh, she is majorly ethically challenged, IMO. The number of times the judge had to just bend over backwards and look the other way in spite of prosecutorial misconduct was just mind boggling. The last one I think it was the Perry Mason moment. Whenever the judge began asking questions I thought to myself she is going to stop the nonsense this time. And she did.

Overall I think the judge was very good, I fully understand her position that a grand jury indicted Baldwin and that a jury should hear this case, so she really set a high bar for the prosecutorial shenanigans, but I understand why it's important to bring a case to a jury. She made some good calls right before the trial, preventing the prosecutor from doing things like trying to insinuate that Baldwin was responsible for everything, including dirty toilets, because he was a "producer". She read directly from his contract to set the record straight that in fact his contract specified he had no hiring, firing, budget, or supervisory authority, and basically only had two benefits as a producer - a screen credit as producer and he also had input authority for any changes to dialogue for his character. Aside from those two benefits the contract was clear that he had no other authority. Several other of Baldwin's motions were decided in his favor on the day before the jury was seated, and for similar reasons. I was super impressed with how well the judge armed herself with facts and with who does what on a movie set. She even told the prosecutor that some of his behavior on the set did not in fact demonstrate that he had supervisory authority over other people, that it seemed to be more of his personality coming out. Just because someone yells at a coworker does not make that person the other's supervisor.

[chancery]

She made some good calls right before the trial, preventing the prosecutor from doing things like trying to insinuate that Baldwin was responsible for everything, including dirty toilets, because he was a "producer". She read directly from his contract to set the record straight that in fact his contract specified he had no hiring, firing, budget, or supervisory authority, and basically only had two benefits as a producer - a screen credit as producer and he also had input authority for any changes to dialogue for his character. Aside from those two benefits the contract was clear that he had no other authority.

Thanks, that's interesting.

I don't know much about the business of filmmaking, although I am vaguely aware that a "producer" credit can reflect a wide range of roles, frequently including pure figurehead. Nonetheless I assumed that Baldwin's producer credit meant had some kind of managerial responsibility, even if vague and indirect. And from what you say, that was incorrect.

[RVInit]

She made some good calls right before the trial, preventing the prosecutor from doing things like trying to insinuate that Baldwin was responsible for everything, including dirty toilets, because he was a "producer". She read directly from his contract to set the record straight that in fact his contract specified he had no hiring, firing, budget, or supervisory authority, and basically only had two benefits as a producer - a screen credit as producer and he also had input authority for any changes to dialogue for his character. Aside from those two benefits the contract was clear that he had no other authority.

Thanks, that's interesting.

I don't know much about the business of filmmaking, although I am vaguely aware that a "producer" credit can reflect a wide range of roles, frequently including pure figurehead. Nonetheless I assumed that Baldwin's producer credit meant had some kind of managerial responsibility, even if vague and indirect. And from what you say, that was incorrect.

I learned some interesting things about the film industry from the Hannah Guitierrez trial. Several producers testified, and yes, they had widely varied responsibilities. Some of them only raised money and had no other responsibility whatsoever. Baldwin was required to raise quite a bit of the money, which surprised me. I learned about how hiring is generally done and also how the budget is developed. In essence for the budget it's the Director and script supervisor that pore over the script figuring out every cast and crew member that will be needed, adding in all the meals and snacks that are required to be supplied for each cast/crew, insurance, all kinds of incidentals, any CGI (not needed in Westerns) etc, etc. Once the amount of money that would be required to fulfill the Director's vision they start raising the money. If the script is going to result in a relatively small amount of money that needs to be raised they also try to get an actor ahead of time to agree to work for a very small portion of their normal salary. As far as hiring, the Director chooses the department heads and the dept heads choose their crew. They turn the names over to the line producer who does all the background checks and reference checks. As long as the requested crew members pass those checks and the Director signs off (probably doesn't even look at the names, to be honest) that's pretty much it. They are hired if they pass the background and reference check. The line producer is a specialized producer job, they are essentially the HR department for the movie. They have to have experience with how to deal with OSHA, collecting and remitting various taxes, workman's compensation as well as all the different union contracts and such.

I bet from now on any Director is going to pay lots more attention to the armorer position.

[p0rtia]

Good stuff, RV.

[RVInit]

I hesitated to post this video because it is just full of misinformation about the suppressed ammunition evidence that resulted in the judge in Baldwin's case dismissing the case with prejudice. The comments the judge made and the questions she asked made it very clear that she fully understood the significance of that ammunition, what it could have meant for the defense, how they could have used it in their case.

I can only surmise that the lawyer in the video below either wasn't following the case closely or prosecutor Morrissey succeeded in getting him to believe her twisted version of that evidence, which anyone listening to actual testimony should have been able to see she was doing the old smoke and mirrors trick.

He talks about Baldwin's lawyers informing the sheriff department and prosecution to preserve emails, text messages and other evidence, I guess because they are considering suing.

If you decide to listen to the video, just disregard every single thing he says about the ammunition evidence because it's just complete nonsense.

► Show Spoiler

[bob]

any CGI (not needed in Westerns)

I wonder if all this will motivate the industry to view this differently (even if it makes Westerns more expensive).

[RVInit]

any CGI (not needed in Westerns)

I wonder if all this will motivate the industry to view this differently (even if it makes Westerns more expensive).

Yeah, for the shooting scenes they may be rethinking this.

[keith]

Star Trek is a 'western' and the firefights are all CGI. No problem.

[Ben-Prime]

Star Trek is a 'western' and the firefights are all CGI. No problem.

Firefly was even more explicitly so.

[RVInit]

Apparently some jurors have been speaking out. The trial only lasted a couple of days, but it did seem to me the defense was kicking the prosecution's ass. And the jurors seemed to see it that way as well.

Morrissey was constantly putting down the defense lawyers as being "fancy lawyers from New York that don't know anything about New Mexico law". Well, they tore new openings in every single prosecution witness.

[andersweinstein]

With full acknowledgement that there are more important things happening in the world, there have been some filings someone following the Rust cases might be interested in:

1. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer's written order granting dismissal of the Baldwin case.

2. State's Response to Gutierrez May 27 motion for release
(This is the pre-Baldwin-trial motion based on suppression of firearm expert's second report showing toolmarks)

3. State's response to Gutierrez post-Baldwin expedited motion for new trial

Also NM Court of Appeals, where appeal has been filed, granted Gutierrez motion to allow trial court to rule on the motion for new trial.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/ ... 5bfd7.html

[andersweinstein]

If you thought the Rust dismissal might have humbled Morrissey into dropping her snarky tone, guess again. Couple of excerpts from the response to the May 27 motion for release:

Ultimately, she loaded a live round into Alec Baldwin’s real prop gun, and he proceeded to break virtually every rule related to safe gun-handling by actors on movie sets, resulting in the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins.
...
It is important to note that Ms. Gutierrez hired her own “expert,” Frank Koucky – the nice man who pointed a gun at the bench during his testimony in Ms. Gutierrez’s trial.
...
Ms. Gutierrez was only present in New Mexico for less than four weeks and there is evidence that she committed three felony offenses during that time.

Of course that last one is relevant to a request for release. The three felonies are the involuntary manslaughter, the pending charge for carrying a gun into a bar where firearms prohibited (HG allegedly took a photo of it in the bathroom), and cocaine possession. Also points out longtime drug abuse and the jailhouse phone calls indicating violation of bond conditions on alcohol and plans to circumvent firearm possession ban.

The response to motion for new trial reveals that Judge Sommer had informed counsel off the record at lunchtime that she intended to dismiss the case (Some lawtubers had been speculating about this). Morrissey continues to defend herself, insisting that she testified truthfully in the evidentiary hearing. Continues to maintain in her brief, written before Judge's written order, that the case was improperly dismissed and that the judge misunderstood the significance of the evidence.