In attempts to turn his 6,000 acre New Mexico ranch into a bed and breakfast, Actor Val Kilmer is running into problems as his neighbors adamantly protest against his permit request. During his public hearing to apply for the permit, his fellow Santa Fe area residents appeared and demanded an apology for Kilmer’s rude remarks in past magazine interviews. These comments appeared in a 2003 interview with Rolling Stone and pertained particularly to the county locals as he called his neighborhood “the homicide capital of the Southwest” and that “80 percent of the people in my county are drunk.”

Outraged with his comments, Kilmer’s neighbors refuse to grant him the privilege of changing his residential ranch to be used commercially. A sticky situation like this should be handled through a proper law firm familiar with real estate litigation and commercial contracting. Aside from talking about the locals, Kilmer also made a harsh comment about understanding how to play a role of a Vietnam veteran better than an actual veteran that fought in the war. Two years ago, Esquire quoted Kilmer calling soldiers “borderline criminals or poor … wretched kids” who only served in the military because they “got beat up by their dads” or “couldn’t finagle a scholarship.”

Kilmer later said he was misquoted both times. However in response to Kilmer denying his derogatory remarks about Veitnam vets, Esquire Editor-in-Chief, David Granger, confirms that the quotes are indeed accurate. “The interview was recorded and every quote used in the story was checked by our research department to insure that it was printed precisely as spoken,” says the Editor.

Interesting enough,  New Mexico ACLU offered to represent Val Kilmer despite his rowdy neighbors. The ACLU argued that whether or not he had actually insulted his county and its residents, he had every right to do so without fear that his permits would be held hostage. For more assistance concerning his permits, Val Kilmer should consult with experienced real estate lawyers.

Commissioners reviewing the permit requests, including Chairman David Salazar, invited Kilmer to appear Wednesday and explain the comments published years ago in Rolling Stone and Esquire magazines. Salazar told the Wall Street Journal that according to law, Kilmer’s application will be reviewed aside from the controversy. In today’s ongoing hearing in San Miguel County, N.M., The Associated Press says that Kilmer still hopes for good to come out of the meeting despite his disparaging comments.

Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry have recently split, and the topic of custody for their daughter, Nahla, is becoming a heated issue. Since the split, Halle has kept Aubry to limited visits with his daughter, which has pushed him to recently begin exploring his legal options in the Los Angeles area.

This summer, Halle begins filming a movie in Africa which will keep her there permanently for three months, and she wants to take Nahla with her. This would mean Aubry being unable to see his young daughter for an extended period of time, which he refuses to let happen. Things got very heated, but no progress was made for either party as they hit a tumultuous stalemate, during which both began to contemplate a legal battle.

Gabriel Aubry was looking into his options of obtaining full custody of Nahla, a move which Halle recently countered by offering a kind of solution. Halle offered Aubry to stay in her rental home with her and Nahla for their three months in Africa as Nahla’s primary nanny. Halle will even pay Aubry as though he were a hired caregiver. If the two cannot get along for the sake of their daughter, then Halle also agreed to rent Aubry a house nearby, so that he can stay in the area to remain Nahla’s nanny.

This is a very unusual solution, but one that is certainly in the best interest of their daughter. If things do not workout well for the ex-couple in Africa, they might soon be seeking the aid of divorce lawyers. For more information concerning separations and divorce proceedings, refer to experienced Newport Beach divorce lawyers. Hopefully, Halle and Aubry’s solution will work, and the two will not be reaching out for legal aid any time soon.

Talented professional basketball star, Allen Iverson, is in legal trouble again because of an overly aggressive security guard. Ohio resident, Guy Walker, claims to have suffered “severe pain, emotional distress, and mental anguish” from injuries caused by Antwuan Clisey, one of Iverson’s security guards. He says that in April he was the victim of an unprovoked attack at the South Beach Pizza Bar in Detroit. The altercation cleared the bar, including Iverson, who was escorted out by his remaining guards. Walker claims that Mr. Iverson did nothing to stop the initial attack, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Since the incident last year, Walker has filed an eight page complaint with the district court in Detroit, MI, seeking $2.5 million plus damages. He says he suffered “an orbital blowout fracture of the eye” among other injuries.

This case, to be handled by a Michigan law firm, much like a Kalamazoo accident law firm, is similar to another suite Iverson faced in 2005.  Marlin Godfrey sued Iverson after he was beat up by one of his body guards at a nightclub.  He was then awarded $260,000.  I am curious to see if Iverson will be able to “buy” himself out of this one.

Allen Iverson was a member of the Detroit Pistons, but recently was reacquired by the Philadelphia 76ers.  Various lawyers and attorneys are now questioning how the case might affect his game, a good question for Kalamazoo personal injury attorneys in Michigan. Walker would want to know for what price the athlete would be willing to settle the case if it might hurt his focus in the games. As a pivotal figure in the NBA, could the stress of an exhausting trial jeopardize his value as a player?

Author John Grisham remains an Innocent Man -  Oklahoma Insurance Lawyer, Jody Nathan

The 10th Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against John Grisham and others for the book, The Innocent Man. The book details the wrongful conviction of Williamson and Fritz for the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter. Both men were later exonerated after spending over a decade in jail.

(OK, “this isn’t an insurance case, but I found it interesting”)

The plaintiffs were Oklahoma District Attorney William Peterson; former Shawnee police officer Gary Rogers; and former Oklahoma state criminologist Melvin Hett each of whom played a role in the investigation or prosecution and conviction of Williamson and Fritz. The book did not portray these folks in a positive light, so they sued Grisham and others, claiming defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that since the plaintiffs were public officials, any statements critical of them were privileged, so long as there was no accusation of criminal activity.

Because no special damages were claimed, the plaintiffs had to allege libel per se; but 12 OS § 1443.1 applied because the plaintiffs were public officers and states that “[a]ny and all criticisms upon the official acts of any and all public officers” are privileged and cannot be considered libelous, unless a defendant makes a false allegation that the official engaged in criminal behavior. To fall into this category, “the words alleged to have been spoken of the plaintiff, when taken in their plainest and most natural sense, and as they would be ordinarily understood, [must] obviously import the commission of crime punishable by indictment.”

The court states:

Plaintiffs point to no statement in which defendants directly accuse any plaintiff of a crime.

Plaintiffs expect us to scale a mountain of inferences in order to reach the conclusion that defendants’ statements impute criminal acts to plaintiffs and render the statutory privilege of § 1443.1 inapplicable. We decline to engage in such inferential analysis, or to take a myriad of other analytical leaps plaintiffs ask us to make. Any connection between defendants’ statements and an accusation of criminal activity is far too tenuous for us to declare them as unprivileged for purposes of § 1443.1.

Since the statements were privileged for defamation purposes, the court found them privileged for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and for false light invasion of privacy.

See, Peterson v. Grisham

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Tulsa insurance lawyer, Jody R. Nathan received a Juris Doctor degree with honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, where she was also a member of the Oklahoma Law Review. During law school, she clerked for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.   Jody has extensive experience in both federal and state appeals, has an active motion practice and is AV rated. Attorney Nathan is admitted to practice in all federal and state courts in Oklahoma, as well as the Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. She has served as a judge on the Oklahoma Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.