Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
from the the-sequel dept
We recently wrote about a very strange case, in which the US government apparently ended up with a 10% royalty in a soon to be produced Hollywood movie that is being billed as the "prequel" to Passion of the Christ -- the famous Mel Gibson movie that made over $600 million. The details were convoluted, but apparently our reporting on the subject upset someone, as we were sent an email, claiming that our post was defamatory and could cause damages in "the hundreds of millions of dollars," threatening that legal action would be taken if we did not change the post immediately.In case you missed the original story, it involved a guy by the name of Jorge Vazquez Sanchez, who everyone seems to admit was somehow connected to a Mexican drug cartel. The government specifically charged him with money laundering and extortion. Reporters covering the story, including Guillermo Contreras and Jason Buch at the San Antonio Express-News, refer to Vazquez as a "drug trafficker."
Either way, the extortion claim came from the way he took ownership of a screenplay for Mary, Mother of Christ, which was written by Benedict Fitzgerald, who also wrote the screenplay for Passion.... Fitzgerald, at some point, took out and then defaulted on a business loan for $340,000 with Macri Inc. Because of this, the owner of Macri Inc., Arturo Madrigal, took possession of the screenplay. Some time after this, apparently Vazquez had Madrigal's brother kidnapped in Mexico, and demanded the rights to the screenplay in exchange for his release. Madrigal signed over the rights to the screenplay to Vazquez. Vazquez apparently then was able to sell the screenplay to Proud Mary Entertainment, which was later renamed Aloe Entertainment, in exchange for $1 million (less some fees) and a 10% royalty rate on any profits from the movie. After Vazquez did a plea deal in which he plead guilty and handed over that 10% royalty to the US government, Madrigal hit Vazquez with a separate lawsuit, seeking to regain control of the screenplay that Vazquez had obtained through these questionable means.
As far as we can tell all of the above are undisputed facts. It's what has been reported by others. It's what's in the legal documents. And it's what we reported. Our report focused almost entirely on the oddity of the US government ending up with a 10% royalty interest in a Hollywood movie.
And yet... we received a very threatening email claiming that our post was defamatory. The full email (complete with a series of typos, though minus the odd line breaks) is posted below. The lawyer who sent it claims to represent the producers of the film who purchased the screenplay from Vazquez. This may mean Aloe Entertainment, though the email never names the client. Oddly, the email, while insisting that our post was defamatory, more or less repeats the identical facts as we described them in the original post, and which we are reiterating here. The email does appear to raise two issues:
- Our original post referred to Vazquez as a "drug smuggler." This was based on the San Antonio Express-News report that refers to him as a "drug trafficker." Perhaps there is a difference between one and the other, but it does not seem to be one of significance. Either way, the threat email was quite upset that we did not specify that he was merely "acting as a money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel." I will admit that I do not see how this makes a major difference one way or another, but in the interest of accuracy in reporting, we have changed our original reference from "Mexican drug smuggler" to now say "money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel" -- which is how both the federal prosecutors and the lawyer sending the email appear to describe him. Considering that the lawyer claims to represent the production company, however, I still am at a loss as to how this matters. I do not believe our original statement in any way defamed the production company. It was a mere use of a synonym for the original report. But that should only concern Vazquez. It makes no mention of Aloe Entertainment nor any statement about that company.
- The threat email says that the headline of our post "implies that the film has drug money in it" and suggests that "the film or its production has drug ties." Except we never said that. We did not state it. We did not imply it. We said nothing of the sort. We explained the same chain of events that we explained above, which noted that the production house bought the screenplay from Vazquez. Nowhere did we suggest that drug money went the other way. So, we were left somewhat baffled by the threat.
May 15, 2012
EDITOR
techdirt
Re: Mary. Mother of Christ
Dear Editor:
I represent the producers of the motion picture, “Mary, Mother of Christ” This is in response to the article which you published today which suggested that a drug smuggler was involved wth the "Mary, Mother of Christ" Movie Project.The title of the article is demonstrably false, misleading and libelous. Unless this article is taken down immediately and a retraction is published immediately then it is the intention of my client.to sue and your reporter. The true facts are set forth below and the damages to my client if this is not corrected immediately could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.This is because these falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations could cause the film to lose its finacinmg and therefore its profits
If you look at the unsealed affidavit in the government prosecution they do not allege that Sanchez was a drug smuggles. Rather they say he was not smuggliong drugs but rather waqs acting as a money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel. Nowhere in the government prosecution, nor anywhere else, has it been alleged that there was drug money in the film project.
The true facts are as follows: of the two men that sold the screenplay to us, Mauricio Sanchez Garcia and Jorge Vazquez Sanchez, from Macri, which had acquired it by foreclosing on a lien with its original author, Benedict Fitzgerald, (the author of the Passion of the Christ), one of them, Jorge Vazquez Sanchez, had acquired his interest through extortionate acts.
This allegedly took place sometime after a company known as Macri lent money to Mr. Fitzgerald and his partner in 2006, and Macri had foreclosed on their lien on the screenplay in 2008, when Sanchez and Vazquez forced a third man, Arturo Madrigal, to give them his partial interest in the screenplay rights, which was collateral for the loan. They therefore owned the project for a very short period of time in 2008, perhaps a few months, before selling it to our company. They do not have and they never had any role whatsoever in producing the film.
Obviously, we had no knowledge at the time that these men were involved in illegal activities or that they had acquired their interest through extortion. And there is no allegation that the money which was originally lent to Fitzgerald and his partner, was money obtained from illegal activities or narcotics. In fact, if it was Madrigal who had lent the money to Fitzgerald, as is alleged by the government, and then had his interest in Macri extorted from him, then the money in question would be wholly unrelated to any allegations of money laundering in the Federal prosecution.
The article and the headline are therefore false and libelous in many respects. The headline itself is false, libelous and needs to be retracted immediately. The headline implies that the film has drug mopney in it and that he was a drug smuggler. This is outrageous and false and is an allegation that the government has not ever made.
This too is false and libelous. The film has not been produced yet, and the allegation is that the men who extorted an owner of the company that lent money to the screenwriter and secured their debt with the rights to the screenplay had ties to narcotics activity. If the money lent in 2006 was drug money, then how would it be possible for Mr, Madrigal to claim that he was extorted?
The U.S. Attorney has assured me that they are unaware on any criminal activity by Mr. Madrigal and there is no evidence which suggests that drug money was invested in the film project.
The screenplay is not the film, these men have nothing to do with the film or its production and the suggestion of the headline, i.e. that the film or its production has drug ties is simply false and outrageous and will cause my client to be damaged in an amount in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The truth is that the screenwriter for the film borrowed money from someone who was extorted in order to obtain control of the screenplay. It is more than a stretch, rather it is an outright lie,to say that this chain of events means that the as yet unproduced film has drug ties.
If this is not done within 24 hours then we will take appropriate legal action against you. Please contact me immediately to discuss this. The foregoing is not meant to be a complete recitation of all of my clients rights and remedies all of which are expressly reserved
Very Truly Yours,
Richard M. Rosenthal
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arturo madrigal, benedict fitzgerald, defamation, jorge vazquez sanchez, passion of the christ, seizure
Companies: aloe entertainment, proud mary entertainment, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
&
You accidentally a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yep, he definitely. a word.
Also:
This is because these falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations could cause the film to lose its finacinmg and therefore its profits
C'mon Mike, you don't really want this film to lose its finacinmg, do you? 'Cause this is gonna be hilarious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Accidents happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect???
Thank you for bringing this movie to the forefront again. I had originally forgotten about it, but now that I see what kind of jerk lawyers the producers employ, I'm making note of the film to ensure that neither I nor any of my family members watch the film.
Thanks again and have a great day!!
/sarcasm? I'll let you decide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect???
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madre de Dio!
Er, how do you harm the reputation of a "money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel" - oh, doesn't matter because he's not the client.
If this is not done within 24 hours then we will take appropriate legal action against you.
Translation: I know we got no leg to stand on here, but my client's really upset and paying me (insert - e.g. $1,000) to write a letter. So to be clear, "appropriate legal action" in this context means, "We will do nothing." Which is actually appropriate, so it is a truthful statement that I am making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing ever happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
....It's a sponge?
Err, nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*SNIKT!*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
reminds me of another site. what is it's name now? oh yes, that's it, The Pirate Bay!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the Implications of the comparison may or may not be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike writing up a full sized article about the 'legal' threat (in quotes because the grammatical, spelling and formatting errors, lack of Esquire and other important pieces of information leads me to believe this isn't real), does not fit the definition of ignoring it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have read somewhere controversies like this often get the project killed until at least the legal issues are sorted out and often permanently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It could also be some random troll too. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People will invest in Transformers 8: The Passion of the Optimus before this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is probably a troll
This smells of horsepoo.
Either that or we got a nominee for lawyer of the year at abovethelaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is probably a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is probably a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is probably a troll
http://movies.yahoo.com/person/richard-m-rosenthal-esq/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is probably a troll
This is clearly a feeble scare tactics. As some of the other sites that covered this story and I bet you they got a copy/pasted version of the email addressed to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is probably a troll
Mike...here's a troll test. Email your colleagues in the other news sites that covered this story...and see if they got an email as well...it'll almost certainly be copy-pasted except for the name of the site/paper receiving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is probably a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is probably a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is probably a troll
Notice the AOL email address. Techie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is probably a troll
If it is also the same guy as this, the email could actually be real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is probably a troll
http://www.regretsy.com/2012/04/24/update-ecologica-malibu/
and then the absolutely amazing reply by Ken White
http://www.regretsy.com/2012/04/25/no-you-cease-and-desist/
with the best quote ever (other than "snort my taint") of “The rest of your letter relies on vague and bumptious legal threats buried amongst misspellings, bizarre malapropisms, misstatements of law and gibberish.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is probably a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also I agree with the "Typical semi-literate Techdirt troll trying to pose as a lawyer" sentiment. Speaking of which, I wonder what bob has been up to lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bob "news"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe he finally learned to...a new era of Bob is rising,he is learning, adapting albeit very very very slowly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can however speak English unlike this idiot.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they ask for your domain name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is/are:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is/are:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is/are:
They are large, blanket-like robe things that are also fire retardant so you don't catch fire when you drop the roach clip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a matter of titles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you wonder why people here think you and the ACs just like you are a joke and shills/trolls?
Besides, no offense, but I live right next to the border, as in we routinely have shootings/bodies turning up practically on our doorstep. Those Mexican drug cartels have one thing going for them, fear. The people who stand up to them and the people who aren't afraid to call their bluff, because that's what they usually are, bluffs, are the people who put fear into them.
This email up above, a part of me wouldn't be at all surprised if it was someone writing it on behalf of the cartel member. The local news stations/papers have all received similar emails as well as recordings, basically threatening them (not with legal action, but genuine threats in the form of actual physical harm). You know what they did, the news stations/papers that is? Kept on reporting the facts, including the threats. Know what happened? Not a damn thing.
But since you mentioned finding body armor, I wonder... can you find a clue? Or a backbone, Anonymous Coward/Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have no idea what your babbling post was trying to convey. Did you just want to inform us that you live in a high crime area? Too bad; move. Or are you seriously suggesting the cartels sent Masnick a Google translation of a bogus legal threat? In which case you are a complete idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My "babbling" was conveying that most of those drug cartels are all talk and are always threatening people who post anything relating to them. They've been known to have idiots send stuff on their behalf. I didn't say they sent Mike a Google translation of a bogus legal threat. I don't know how you got that from what I said. I think there's one complete idiot here. You.
If you were joking, make it more obvious. "Too bad; move." Geez, now you sound even more troll-like. "Oh, legal content isn't available in your country, that's not justification for piracy... to bad, move." Seriously, if you don't want people to reply to your stupidity, don't post such stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Mexican drug cartels have been known to send libel threats? Please, you're dumber than I first imagined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No wonder you troll websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These organizations members aren't all rocket scientists. Some of them are idiots. Some of them have a thing about how they are perceived to the public. It is completely within the realm of possibility that someone sent the letter above as a terrible attempt to intimidate a website/news source to changing a part of the story to reflect the person in a slightly better manner. That it is a "libel threat" is irrelevant. I mean geez. Are you an idiot or do you just try to be one? If it had been an out and out letter stating "Mike, I am a drug cartel member. Change your story or you will be hurt." Would that have made you happy? Or better said, would that conform to your apparent belief/knowledge of how the Mexican drug cartels work?
I think we're done here. Obviously, the cartels aren't the only places idiots are found. Proof of that is apparent in the form of the person I'm bothering to reply to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how original mr lawyer no one has ever heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.flashforwardhollywood.com/rick_rosenthal.html
It looks like he used to represent Jane Fonda and had a falling out and sued her- which didn't go well:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/862/1398/20042/
Though it appears that there are more than one Richard M. Rosenthals practicing in california, this may or may not be the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
apparently Vazquez had Madrigal's brother kidnapped in Mexico, and demanded the rights to the screenplay in exchange for his release. Madrigal signed over the rights to the screenplay to Vazquez. Vazquez apparently then was able to sell the screenplay to Proud Mary Entertainment...
In what bizzaro world is a contract signed under duress legally binding anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
The answer to your question: Mexico. Make sure you roll your "r"s when you say "bizarro", btw. It's important for some reason....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who was that reporter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such thing as bad press in Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To: Richard Rosenthal
SUBJECT: Response to defamation charges.
Hi Johnny, this is to inform you that someone played a very bad practical joke on you. They even mistyped your name and put Richard Rosenthal instead of your real name Ima Buttkiss. But do not fear, we know that your legal office, or maybe Microsoft Word 1987 spell check was to blame for this hideous, yet laughable attempt to communicate. We applaud your attempt to use modern technology and understand your difficulties. After all, your company has made a massive leap in technology advancement. Remember, just 2 weeks ago your office used 2x dixie cups and a really long string. Now you have a computer with 256 kilobytes of RAM... Awesome. Keep up the good work, and thanks for the laugh.
Capt ICE Enforcer
Comm Phone: 867-5309 Ext:1999
Smoke Signal: Puff, Puff, Hold Puff Puff Then Smoke trail when connected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To: Richard Rosenthal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Introducing: Do-It-Yourself Lawsuit Classes!
Selecting a target: facts are irrelevant.
What constitutes a tortious issue (formerly titled Obfuscate! Obfuscate! Obfuscate!).
IANAL - Look in the mirror 'cause it's not a porn reference.
Spellcheck and You: a working relationship!
Prerequisites for the course:
Valid email account.
Ability to maintain/nodding acquaintance with sentence structure.
A pulse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is sought to be silenced will now receive wider publicity. What had passed without much hup-a-la is now back in the news and front page.
No better way to get a message out than complain about it. Or perhaps that is the point. I've heard off and on, through news reading that there is no bad publicity. Maybe that's what is being sought here, I'm not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But ossifer, I only had ti martoonis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROSENTHAL & MARSH, LLP.
Malibu Canyon Plaza
26500 W. Agoura Road, Suite 211
Calabasas, California 91302-1952
TELEPHONE: (818) 746-9222
FACSIMILE: (818) 746-9212
EMAIL: info@RosenthalMarshLaw.com
Warning the website looks like it was designed by a 5 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMFG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I missed the story the first time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The MARIJUANA goes in the top drawer. The COCAINE and SPEED in the second. The HEROIN in the bottom. Always separate the drugs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desperate tactics
Especially with a misspelled and just barely readable threat.
I wonder if it rates on the scale with pasted on letter threats?
"Ur kids will dye soon if u don't give us monee."
Right.
I thought lawyers had better writing skills-even the guys representing the drug dealers. Business must be slow or something for them to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smuggler vs. Trafficker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, "my clients", "us", "we" and "they" or "them" sort of leaves me wondering who the hell he's talking about.
If he has an monetary interest in the production then all that I come away from here is "A fool is his own lawyer in court". Old saw, largely true and wonderfully illustrated here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or something seriously weird like that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]