Customize

Tom Cruise Questioned For Hours In Wiretapping Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Tom and Katie' started by Anonymous, Dec 20, 2012.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Tom Cruise was questioned for several hours this week in connection to a wiretapping lawsuit, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.
    Cruise is accused of conspiring with his lawyer and a now-imprisoned private investigator to unlawfully record telephone conversations.
    The action star faced three hours of questioning on Tuesday at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in New York, Radar has learned exclusively.

    Cruise is being sued for $5 million by magazine editor Michael Davis Sapir who claims the actor and his lawyer Bert Fields had private investigator Anthony Pellicano tap his phone.
    Pellicano was accused by federal authorities of wiretapping numerous people and is currently in federal prison after convictions on several charges.

    The Sapir lawsuit was filed in 2009 but on Tuesday Cruise finally had to answer questions in person, and was deposed by Sapir’s side.

    “It was all very secretive,” a source told Radar. “This battle has been ongoing and getting to the point where Cruise had to sit for a deposition obviously took a long time.

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/12/tom-cruise-questioned-wiretap-lawsuit

    The lawsuit has its roots in a different legal action from more than a decade ago.

    Cruise sued Sapir in 2001 after Sapir scandalously offered a $500,000 reward for video evidence that Cruise is gay. He later claimed he received an email with a video. The suit was settled and Sapir admitted that there was no tape showing Cruise in gay activity.
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    It would be a Beautiful Day if tom-cuise got nailed for a wiretap conspiracy even if only on a civil level:)
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. muldrake Member

    I have always been outraged that while Pellicano went down alone (and he did deserve to go down for his crimes), the scumbag lawyers like Bert Fields and celebrities like Tom Cruise, who hired this guy to commit crimes for them, got a free pass.

    Too bad the plaintiff is such a turd himself.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    The stink rose to unprecedented levels in 2012.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. another123 Member

    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. RightOn Member

    nice!

    NOW STOPPING PLAYING AROUND AND GET BACK TO WORK! WOOPAH!
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. DeathHamster Member

    Is his deposition sealed, or will the tabloids be buying copies to look for juice?
  8. RightOn Member

    is there a need to see a bunch of dox filled with "I've said it before and I will say it again, I had no part of it" ? lol!
    That should suffice
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Aurora Member

    • Like Like x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    Oh yeah? Is there a way to cancel out the celebrity blackmailing of the legal system and force the release of those tapes?
  11. DeathHamster Member

    That seems a bit unusual. Submit a deposition to the court, yank it back afterward? What if there was an appeal?

    (Videotape. How quaint!)
  12. Anonymous Member

    Do we have any people in that lawyer's office? ;)
  13. Quentinanon Member

    Cruise's video deposition needs to go viral on the internetz.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  14. Anonymous Member

  15. muldrake Member

    Generally, a deposition is not submitted to the court. It may never even be mentioned in the proceedings. Depositions are conducted prior to trial, either of parties or of witnesses, expert and otherwise, to get an idea what testimony the witnesses will give. They are used at trial, if at all, to impeach the witness if the witness suddenly shows up at trial giving testimony. Then, they are generally used in cross examination with questions like "Do you remember when you testified thus-and-so in your deposition?" "So, were you lying then or are you lying now?" Etc.

    In this case, Cruise argued, apparently successfully, that the plaintiff in this case was likely to exploit the videotaped deposition for its commercial value. Most depositions do not have any independent commercial value, and it is not the purpose of a deposition to enable a party to enrich himself by selling it. The plaintiff in this case is a real scumbag, and the concern is probably legitimate. Apparently, only counsel for plaintiff are allowed to access it, not the plaintiff himself.

    If the deposition actually ends up in evidence in the case, members of the public would have standing to challenge sealing it, if they had some tangible interest in its contents. News media would seem to be the proper parties here. If not, it's really between the parties, and isn't a public record.

    It is likely only parts of the deposition will end up being used at trial, assuming there ever is one, which seems unlikely. It seems likely to settle, or to be thrown out before trial. If it is ordered to go to trial, Cruise will probably pay for it to go away. I think the plaintiff is only interested in money.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    TOM CRUISE “GAY” WIRETAP VIDEO LOCKDOWN - The National Enquirer

    By National Enquirer staff

    Published on December 27, 2012

    TOM CRUISE embroiled in “gay” wiretapping lawsuit and you won’t believe his OUTRAGEOUS demands!

    Cruise has employed extreme measure to make sure what he wants buried STAYS buried.

    Cruise, 50, and his litiginous pitbull, barrister Bert Fields were sued for $5 million by magazine editor Michael Davis Sapir in 2009 for allegedly using private investigator Anthony Pellicano to illegally wire tap Sapir, RadarOnline.com reported.

    Cruise sat for a three hour videotaped deposition on December 18, 2012, but he insisted that the taped interview be conducted and held under tight security so that the contents of his testimony are never released to the public.

    In the exclusive court documents, Cruise lists his demands, writing: “Only one original videotape of the deposition shall be made.”

    He also asserted that “No copies of the videotape, or any video or audio portions thereof, may be made and no one other than the counsel for the Parties and the Custodian, as defined below, may have access to the videotape.”

    In the documents Cruise insists that a custodian be the only person who has the original video tape and they “shall safeguard and permit no one to view, audit or copy the videotape,” without instructions from the court.

    Cruise sued Sapir in 2001 after Sapir scandalously offered a $500,000 reward for video evidence that Cruise is gay. Sapir later claimed he received an email with a video. The suit was settled and Sapir admitted that there was no tape showing Cruise in gay activity.

    If the case goes to trial, the videotape will still be closely guarded, according to Cruise’s demands in the documents.

    "Counsel for Plaintiff, Johnson & Johnson, shall take custody of the videotape and shall maintain and make use of same (including adaptations) through the conclusion of trail; provided, however, that Plaintiff Sapir shall not be permitted to view, use or access the videotape (or any adaptation made there from) at any time prior to trail and, during trial, Sapir’s access to the videotape will be limited to viewing the videotape during open court proceedings."

    Cruise has also demanded that at the end of the case his videotaped deposition will be returned “directly” to his lawyer.

    From www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/tom-cruise-gay-wiretap-video-lockdown
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Anonymous Member

    Man, Cruise musta really gone "swoosh" in this vid. He does NOT want it to go the way of the "Orientation" video.

    Chanology MUST gets its grubby paws on that footage.
    So, how do we doozit?
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. snippy Member

    Who the f*!< does he think he is? Time for someone to submit an open records request?
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    Wait and see how it plays out. Surely the tabloids have the same thought and want it as badly as we do, with the added bonus they got the legal teams to fight for it.
  20. snippy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. Anonymous Member

    His pattern indicates Analog thinking...

    See above.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. snippy Member

    etc.

    Search Docket for free with Case # at
    https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/onlineServices/civilIndex/
    Public Access Policy
    https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/ui/main.aspx
    Kudzu in the Courthouse: Judgements made in the Shade
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/114634160/Kudzu-in-the-Courthouse-Judgments-Made-in-the-Shade
  23. Anonymous Member

    I'm hoping it will be a part of a much broader investigation.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  25. muldrake Member

    It has to be filed by someone in a proceeding before it's a record. So far as we know, it has not yet been filed. If it ever is, I imagine Cruise will try to have whatever is filed sealed. At that point, I think it likely the Enquirer or other news outlets would file suit trying to obtain it.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. snippy Member

    What happened in GA was two citizens filed an open records request. It isn't a suit. There are minimal processing fees. There are laws that REQUIRE court proceedings be transparent to the PUBLIC. Sealing documents is not (or should not) be standard procedure. Judge Stacy Hydrick unsealed the documents in the Narconon Georgia case and the open records request demonstrated public interest.

    The Georgia case goes to trial in February. I'm not a legal node, but I get the jist of this.

    Cruise acts as though he is negotiating with Paramount pictures from his usual position of being able to name his price. He is the defendant in a lawsuit and his deposition is entered into evidence. If he is testifying on his own behalf, great! He still doesn't call the shots. The justice system does.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Aurora Member

    Was TC, as a defendant, required to make a deposition or was it optional?
    If it was required, then why was he allowed to put conditions on it?
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Hi Anon Homosexual's;

    Due to a massive increase in members, the Church has numerous renovation/construction projects in progress or already planned and about to commence renovations:
    1. Church of Scientology of Kaohsiung, Taiwan-under renovation
    2. Church of Scientology of Harlem, New York-under renovation
    3. Church of Scientology of Cambridge, Canada-under renovation
    4. Church of Scientology of Portland, Oregon-under renovation
    5. Church of Scientology of Pretoria, South Africa-under renovation
    6. Church of Scientology of Basel, Switzerland
    7. Church of Scientology of Sydney, Australia
    8. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Canada
    9. Church of Scientology of Auckland, New Zealand
    10. Church of Scientology of Copenhagen, Denmark
    11. Church of Scientology of Stuttgart, Germany
    12. Church of Scientology of Bogota, Columbia
    13. Church of Scientology of Venezuela
    14. Church of Scientology of Milano, Italy
    15. Church of Scientology Brazil
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  29. Anonymous Member

    DOX or go suck Rathbun's dick.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Great, i'd love to have my home remodeled, too.
    Dave must be a great decorator.
  31. snippy Member

    You got a permit for that font size?
    • Funny Funny x 3
  32. Anonymous Member


    Hi

    With deep regrets, I am sorry to inform you that your prior message posting can not be applied towards this weeks stats.

    Reason: Apostrophe fail

    Please open your dictionary and wordclear "plural".

    Thank you for playing.
    • Funny Funny x 6
  33. Anonymous Member

    Anon homosexuals are teh best.
    Hug a fag today!
  34. Anonymous Member

    Hey MISACAVIGE better get back to your study tech - little Davey won't be happy that you can't spell his name.
    A quick peek at the info informs the world that there will be a whole lot of regging going on up thar in Canadaz.
    Can we place bets on the opening date? I'll go first: December 5th, 20000085. It will be during the 9000th golden age of tech attempt / fail cycle.

    Info / pic for Cambridge org:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketinsite/3726886494/
    1305 Bishop Street North, Cambridge
    Church of Scientology is acquiring the Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan building in Cambridge for $3.75 million or $110.85 psf.

    Building permit, recently issued:
    http://www.cambridge.ca/economic_development/building_activity

    Church of Scientology
    1305 Bishop St.
    3,142 sq. m. (33,820 sq. ft.) renovation to existing building for Church of Scientology
    $1,600,000
    • Like Like x 1
  35. The Wrong Guy Member

    Tom Cruise Makes Diva Demands To The Judicial System! | PerezHilton.com

    The truth is out about the Tom Cruise wiretapping lawsuit, but Tom has made sure we'll NEVER know.

    The Jack Reacher actor was deposed on December 18, 2012 to discuss his involvement in illegally wiretapping magazine editor Michael David Sapir's phone conversations and public court documents reveal Tom went to great lengths to make sure the deposition would never and will never be released to the public.

    Prior to the three hour deposition, Tom stated in court documents:

    “Only one original videotape of the deposition shall be made..No copies of the videotape, or any video or audio portions thereof, may be made and no one other than the counsel for the Parties and the Custodian, as defined below, may have access to the videotape.”

    This deposition comes over a decade after Tom's initial lawsuit against the journalist after Sapir reportedly offered $500,000 to the person who could supply him with video evidence that Tom is gay.

    Tom's demands continue in the event that the deposition does go to trial:

    “Counsel for Plaintiff, Johnson & Johnson, shall take custody of the videotape and shall maintain and make use of same (including adaptations) through the conclusion of trail; provided, however, that Plaintiff Sapir shall not be permitted to view, use or acces the videotape (or any adaptation made there from) at any time prior to trail and, during trial, Sapir’s access to the videotape will be limited to viewing the videotape during open court proceedings."

    That is a looonnnngggg lawsuit and some serious demands from a man being deposed.

    We bet the trial would go by a lot quicker if Tom wasn't so frantic and it certainly doesn't help his claims of innocence!

    Why go to such great lengths to keep this private Tommyboy?!

    From http://perezhilton.com/2012-12-28-tom-cruise-high-security-deposition-sapir-lawsuit
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Tom, Tom, Tom, you're bilge gerbil bling glib.

    Scientology never did handle your dyslexia, did it? Maybe you could get a refund on your donations?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    VaD needs attention from everyone here
    Tom Cruise is trying to avoid undue attention to whatever's on that tape.

    I say we give them each the diametric opposite of what they want.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    fixt
  39. The Wrong Guy Member

    Tom Cruise And His Lawyer, Bert Fields, Win A Court Wiretapping Case

    Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise has scored a major legal victory after a Los Angeles judge tossed a lawsuit which alleged the actor hired a private eye-to-the-stars to spy on his ex-wife Nicole Kidman.

    Former tabloid magazine editor Michael Davis Sapir had sued 50-year-old Cruise for $5 million, alleging he maintained a “long-standing business relationship” with Anthony Pellicano, a crooked investigator who is now serving 15 years in prison for tapping the phones of Hollywood’s rich and famous.

    On Monday, Los Angeles Superior Court Elihu Berle ruled that Sapir’s allegations failed to fall within the statute of limitations. What does that mean?

    A statute of limitations is a time period after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Berle said Sapir should have investigated the Pellicano link in 2003, when he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. But he didn’t — and it took until December, 2009 to file suit.

    Unless Sapir appeals the ruling, the sensational claims against the Mission Impossible star will now not be tested in a court of law.

    That’s a major relief, no doubt, for Cruise, who has been battling backlash since he split from ex-wife Katie Holmes on June 28 last year.

    As Celebuzz previously reported, the allegations against Cruise and and his lawyer, Bert Fields, were detailed in paperwork filed with the L.A. County Superior Court.

    “In or about the mid 1990s,” Sapir claimed, “Cruise visited Pellicano’s office for the purpose of listening to wiretaps.”

    He alleged: “During the time Cruise was about to divorce Nicole Kidman, Pellicano recorded conversations of Kidman and Cruise. Pellicano discussed with at least one of his employees the substance of those recorded conversations.”

    Cruise, according to Sapir, had a “pattern and practice of hiring Pellicano, either directly or indirectly, for the express purpose of conducting wiretaps.”

    He claimed Pellicano taped conversations between him and his attorney to gain an advantage for Cruise in slander litigation he’d filed, after the editor offered a $500,000 reward for evidence proving the Top Gun actor was gay.

    Source: www.celebuzz.com/2013-03-18/finally-some-good-news-for-tom/

    Court documents: www.celebuzz.com/photos/tom-cruise-accused-of-wiretap-conspiracy/
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins