Johnson and Gang of Four Renege on Lawsuit Withdrawal

Posted on June 15, 2009, 6:31 PM, by Editor, under Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, SAG Politics.

You’ll remember that back a week or so ago, Anne Marie Johnson told an interviewer that once the TV-Theatrical ratification vote was in, she and her Gang of Four/Membership First cohorts, Alan Rosenberg, Kent McCord and Dianne “Sleepy” Ladd would pull their lawsuit against SAG and its majority directors.  Now Jonathan Handel has a post saying not only has the Gang failed to carry through on its promise, the appeals court is letting the Gang’s appeal of the rulings against them move forward, at least for now.

Bottom line: more lawyers bills to be paid for with our dues money.

Comment (RSS)

6 Comments

  1. Dr. Giggles says:
    June 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

    Is this the blind item…or are we do for another WTF!?! about MF?

    –

    Ed. Comment – Nope. This isn’t it…

    Reply to this comment
  2. just a thought says:
    June 15, 2009 at 7:21 PM

    Suicide is painless

    Reply to this comment
  3. marisa redanty says:
    June 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM

    I’m still waiting…and it’s like 11:16pm….i’ll make some coffee…damn you Miss Rose!!

    Marisa

    Reply to this comment
  4. Fred W says:
    June 15, 2009 at 10:02 PM

    It’s a little like waiting for Finke to analyze the contract ratification.

    Reply to this comment
  5. Stuart Creque says:
    June 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM

    just a thought: not if you do it the SAG way.

    Reply to this comment
  6. Stuart Creque says:
    June 15, 2009 at 11:45 PM

    Let’s review:

    Johnson: I think it’s acceptable if it’s on the blog.I thought it was from the AMPTP, that email blast! But that was from my union, accusing me of trying to bring my union down.

    THR: And you don’t think there’s any legitimacy to that claim when you’re suing the guild?

    Johnson: That lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with this ratification.

    THR: Well, it’s not completely tangential.

    Johnson: Our lawsuit purely has to do with California law and how a board votes.

    THR: Right. But that was a means to an end that played specifically into these contract negotiations, so it’s not unrelated.

    Johnson: But it would not have changed the outcome of the vote. It’s how the vote was taken. That’s our challenge. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but it certainly would have legitimized the process.

    THR: If the contract is passed by the membership, will you and Membership First move on to elections, or will you pursue further legal remedies?

    Johnson: No, if the contract is ratified by the membership, the membership has finally spoken and we have to accept that and make sure that the membership is treated with respect and we continue our responsibilities as board members. And Membership First will begin the process of this upcoming election.

    THR: Let’s say that it is passed, do you have any thoughts on mending fences? Do you and your adversaries take a retreat together or go to Disneyland?

    Johnson: No. None whatsoever. We move ahead.

    If you extract the bold text, you get:

    But that was from my union, accusing me of trying to bring my union down.

    THR: And you don’t think there’s any legitimacy to that claim when you’re suing the guild?

    Johnson: Our lawsuit purely has to do with California law and how a board votes. That’s our challenge. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but it certainly would have legitimized the process.

    THR: If the contract is passed by the membership, will you pursue further legal remedies?

    Johnson: No, if the contract is ratified by the membership, the membership has finally spoken and we have to accept that and make sure that the membership is treated with respect and we continue our responsibilities as board members.

    THR: Let’s say that it is passed, do you have any thoughts on mending fences?

    Johnson: No. None whatsoever.

    What this says to me is that AMJ promised no NEW lawsuits against SAG seeking to overturn the contract ratification. She seemed to imply that the EXISTING lawsuit still had some higher purpose to serve in governance of the Guild.

    The real surprise is that the appeals court is letting this thing go on. To what end? What’s the remedy if the plaintiffs succeed?

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply

«
»