Abbitt Photography wrote:

Your comments sound dangerously like the absurd and outdated principle of innocent until proven guilty.  Don’t you know guilty until proven innocent is the new PC trend these days?

It's got absolutely nothing with being "PC" not that theres anything wrong with being "PC" because it literally translates to just not being a shitbucket disaster of a human being...

It has to do with the fact that the system is not built to actually help victims. It has to do with the fact that these systems supposed to be helping victims are rife with the same sexism, misogyny, toxic masculinity, rape culture, violence, racism, classism, homophobia, and transphobia that led to victims becoming victims in the first place. It has to do with the fact that even when a victim is the most "perfect victim" there could ever be, when everything is done perfectly by the book, when everyone on the victims side does everything they possibly can to get justice, it still fails them. Fucking read about the revictimization of the people who even attempt to report sexual assaults by the very investigative and justice departments that are supposed to be helping them and then go on about your "court of law" nonsense.

Python Photos wrote:

Do you know where I could find that Tumblr post/account? I'd be interested in hearing what has happened.

You know the author, my dear, your snake shat on her
Text me and I'll link you.

kickfight wrote:
No, we probably would not instantly believe his claim of sexual assault, and not because we're just cruel meanies, but primarily because of ALL of that evidence available to us as a society, which demonstrates that women do not frequently sexually assault men... quite the contrary

Exactly this was said about the sexual abuse of women by men just 40, 50, 60 years ago.

No. This cannot happen.
Mothers do not kill or abuse their children. (Sorry, but they do.)
There is no rape when people are married. (Sorry, but it is.)
Women never make false accusations. (Sorry, but they do.)

, ALL the evidence available to us as a society demonstrates that it's actually men who frequently sexually assault women... and other men... and children... and animals... and even freshly-baked apple pies.

Evidence had gone past your personal view of the world long time ago... ;-)

Besides this: it is an old and good principle in a state of law that it is better when 10 culprits stay unpunished that one innocent person is convicted.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I'm very ambivalent regarding such actions.

On the one hand I can understand and support the idea to reach more safety by making things more transparent and exchanging information.
That is always a good idea.

On the other hand I feel requested to accept accusations which I simply cannot verify as proven evidence.
In the end suchs lists does not say more than "Hey - they are the predators and we are the good ones! We demand that you believe this!"

No one is requesting you to accept what is written in the list. The list is not written to help you. The list is written to help models avoid compromising and potentially dangerous situations. No one is forced to accept allegations made in the list.
No models are forced to accept what is written,they are simply appraised of allegations of past behavior and are free to make their own decisions.

B R E N N A N wrote:
I'm happy to answer any relevant questions regarding this matter.

Thus, Brenner had the burden of producing evidence that he did not commit those acts.  As the trial court observed, Brenner “could have met that burden by affirmatively and unambiguously stating in his declaration that he never engaged in any of that conduct with models.  But [he] did not do so”

The issue apparently discussed at the hearing on the motion because the trial court wrote, “At the hearing on the Motion[s]
, [Brenner] appeared to fundamentally misunderstand his burden of proof.”

Was he represented by a lawyer at trial? Not sure how a lawyer experienced in these types of cases could fundamentally misunderstand the burden of proof needed.

Exactly this was said about the sexual abuse of women by men just 40, 50, 60 years ago.

As a result of denial of facts. The only difference is that we are now forced to face the facts despite decades of denial.

No. This cannot happen.
Mothers do not kill or abuse their children. (Sorry, but they do.)

Fathers kill or abuse their children far more (sorry, but that remains the most pertinent fact)

There is no rape when people are married. (Sorry, but it is.)

And the vast majority of those, and ALL rapes, are by men (sorry, but that remains the most pertinent fact)

Women never make false accusations. (Sorry, but they do.)

And yet men bear false testimony to a much greater extent (sorry, but that remains the most pertinent fact)

But it is interesting to address these examples of pointing elsewhere while desperately trying to avoid facing the actual point.

Evidence had gone past your personal view of the world long time ago... ;-)

No, evidence actually reinforces the facts that many people don't want to face, and when they don't want to face those facts, they point elsewhere in an effort to distract from those facts.

Besides this: it is an old and good principle in a state of law that it is better when 10 culprits stay unpunished that one innocent person is convicted.

Theoretically, yes. We don't live in a theoretical world.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Blacklist author and lawsuit winner here.

I'm happy to answer any relevant questions regarding this matter.

Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?

B R E N N A N wrote:
Blacklist author and lawsuit winner here.

I'm happy to answer any relevant questions regarding this matter.

Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?

TomFRohwer wrote:
Again: I am a big fan of proven evidence. Of criminal investigations, of court hearings, etc.pp. Because this is the way you get proven and hard evidence. "Blacklists" are not. And even that can bring innocent people to the death row...

This is my personal feeling and my personal opinion.

In almost 40 years of professional work I have been "warned" by fellow photographers, art directors, bookers, editors etc. by the dozens "Hey! Do not work with this model! Do not hire that model! Avoid this MUA! They are making trouble! They are unreliable! This guy is a blockhead and that girl is a nasty bitch!"

I listen. And I try not get biased.

Because I worked with models someone gave a very bad reputation and I had a great experience... Because I worked with models someone gave a very good reputation and I had a unbelievable bad experience...

I give a lot on references from people I know and whose jugdment I can judge...

Some "references" are just gossip. And as long as I do not know the person who is giving references I am very careful and hesitating to rely on these references.

Your rambling responses are problematic for many reasons, primarily because they display a fundamental lack of knowledge about sexual harassment and assault, but I’ll highlight just one of the many inconsistencies in this specific post.

You’ve stated repeatedly that you require some sort of legal ruling of guilt before you’d believe any allegation. However, you trust people “whose jugdment (sic) I can judge.” How did you come to that conclusion? You chose to believe them. But where was the investigation and guilty verdict you require to believe an accuser?

The models sharing information with each other about first hand experiences know and trust each other too. You don’t have to believe them but to require investigations and guilty verdicts in court before believing what anyone says is a standard you apply only when it suits you.

We all form opinions about matters of interest without needing legal verdicts. We evaluate the information at hand, the source of the information, and then reach our own conclusions.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
>>Even more surprising (to me) is that all the court needed from Alan to satisfy the burden of proof is a statement saying he didn't do it... and he didn't make that statement>>

Had there been a denial under oath, two things would have happened: 1. There could be a felony perjury charge if the denial were willfully false; and, 2. The evidence gates  would be open to every model with a "Me Too" story to tell that story at trial.

If the felony perjury charge is the reason for lack of statement, he could always use what's recently been come to be known as the 'Jeff Sessions' defense... stating "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" doing those things.

When a person purposely lies under oath it's perjury.  Not remembering isn't the same as lying and is much more difficult to prove as perjury.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
plaintiff Brenner did represent himself.

His brother is an attorney and I believe they share the same last name.
Could it be his brother that was representing him?
(I didn't see anything that said if any of the parties were represented or not).

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
>>Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?    >>
...
I don’t have the URL, but the pleadings can be retrieved from the Alameda County CA Superior Court website. Reference is Alameda County  Super. Ct. No. HG16816259.
....

I tried to look at the earlier case documents online, but the Court has a ripoff arrangement where viewing filings require exorbitant fees.So much for 'openness' and 'public access.'

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
>>Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?    >>

The “motion to strike complaint” which was granted by the trial court and affirmed on appeal was based on the legal insufficiency of the complaint and/or Brenner’s failure to create a triable factual issue by denying  allegations in the blacklist under oath.  Falsity is an element of actionable defamation.  An answer would only be filed had the complaint been held sufficient, the truth of alleged facts then requiring resolution by a trial.

That's interesting.
So basically, if I was to explain this to a third grader it would be something like:

Court:  Allan, we'll let you sue her if you simply state that you deny the accusations.
Allan: "                   "
Court:  Case dismissed
Court #2:  Yep.  We agree.  Case dismissed.

RVD Photography wrote:
Was he represented by a lawyer at trial? Not sure how a lawyer experienced in these types of cases could fundamentally misunderstand the burden of proof needed.

There was no trial, I moved to have his complaints against me dismissed preceding trial, and my motion to dismiss was granted.
Mr Brenner was not represented by an attorney, as he couldn't find one willing to take his case.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?

https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20171121033

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
His brother is an attorney and I believe they share the same last name.
Could it be his brother that was representing him?
(I didn't see anything that said if any of the parties were represented or not).

He did not have representation. I had a full team representing me.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
>>Can you post Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT?    >>

The “motion to strike complaint” which was granted by the trial court and affirmed on appeal was based on the legal insufficiency of the complaint and/or Brenner’s failure to create a triable factual issue by denying  allegations in the blacklist under oath.  Falsity is an element of actionable defamation.  An answer would only be filed had the complaint been held sufficient, the truth of  alleged facts contested in an answer  then requiring resolution by a trial.

I don’t have the URL, but the pleadings can be retrieved from the Alameda County CA Superior Court website. Reference is Alameda County  Super. Ct. No. HG16816259.

Unfortunately, the appellate briefing is not available online. It can be viewed hard copy by visiting the clerk’s office of the CA Court of Appeal, First Appellate District at 350 McAllister St. SF CA 94102.

It's available online: https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20171121033
Can you please update the typo in your OP to reflect my proper name please?

B R E N N A N wrote:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20171121033

That's the appellate decision. I'd like to see Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Mr Brenner was not represented by an attorney, as he couldn't find one willing to take his case.

Just a bad idea suing anyone without an attorney even if he truly believed he had been wronged.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:

That's the appellate decision. I'd like to see Brenner's COMPLAINT and your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT.

The appellate court summarized the arguments extensively in the background section. Not sure what you're trying to parse beyond the trial court having a short leash on a plaintiff that didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

RVD Photography wrote:

The appellate court summarized the arguments extensively in the background section. Not sure what you're trying to parse beyond the trial court having a short leash on a plaintiff that didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

among other good reasons, looking at the ACTUAL pleadings, Motions, etc. gives the reader a better grasp of arguments and purported facts. It also may be the only way to know if the Court is being honest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid.

And RVD, please skip the gutter language ...

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
among other good reasons, looking at the ACTUAL pleadings, Motions, etc. gives the reader a better grasp of arguments and purported facts. It also may be the only way to know if the Court is being honest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid.

Do you often feel the need to check on the courts in this way or is it just this particular case where you question the judges? How many times have you found the courts to be dishonest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid?

And, do you have a legal background that's able to provide an unbiased rebuttal based on your expertise that highlights the issues in such rulings?

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
among other good reasons, looking at the ACTUAL pleadings, Motions, etc. gives the reader a better grasp of arguments and purported facts. It also may be the only way to know if the Court is being honest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid.

And RVD, please skip the gutter language ...

The person submitting the appeal is obligated to bring up any short comings of the lower court, which would include, but probably not using your terms, your terms, and the appeals court will consider those issues in their findings.  Since the trail court does not set precedent, the entirety of the lower court documents are not relevant.  Your opinion of the integrity of the court is not relevant.  You are free to disagree.  It won't change the ruling.

I have found the phrase "Our learned colleague" in an appeal decision, to indicate a rebuke to the lower court.

Red Sky Photography wrote:

No one is requesting you to accept what is written in the list. The list is not written to help you. The list is written to help models avoid compromising and potentially dangerous situations. No one is forced to accept allegations made in the list.
No models are forced to accept what is written,they are simply appraised of allegations of past behavior and are free to make their own decisions.

Nevertheless unproven accusations are just: defamation.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
You’ve stated repeatedly that you require some sort of legal ruling of guilt before you’d believe any allegation. However, you trust people “whose jugdment (sic) I can judge.” How did you come to that conclusion? You chose to believe them. But where was the investigation and guilty verdict you require to believe an accuser?

There is big difference between:

# I for myself judge an information and make a decision based on this information

# Certain information is published and spread over the country and this information denounces some people but is not proven.

If my grandmother tells me "Do not lend my neighbour 200 Euro if he asks you to do so - I have made the experience that if you lend him money you will never get it back!" and I think my grandmother is a trustworthy person than I will take this information very seriously.

If I find a "blacklist" in some internet blogs "Hey Folks! Do not lend money to this guy named Model Mayhem Edu - he is a creep and will cheat you!" that is another matter altogether.

By the way: in Germany and most European countries publishing or spreading this "blacklist" would have been stopped within a few days by the courts. As long as you cannot prove it a court simply would call this "defamation". You would risk to be fined or even go to jail up to 2 years and you get a court order that forbids further distribution or publication and you would have to pay a penalty to your opponent for each further infringement. Besides this you would have to pay the legal costs of your opponent, too.

TomFRohwer wrote:

Nevertheless unproven accusations are just: defamation.

This is inaccurate on a few levels.
Defamation: "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander."
It is only defamation if the statements are false. Unproven has nothing to do with it, though in the highest court in the state it was proven that my statements were true.

TomFRohwer wrote:

What you are saying is that if a newspaper prints a story about a person being arrested, they can be jailed?  Certainly, when a person is arrested, they have not been proven guilty.

Defamation remains a criminal offence in Germany.
The German Criminal Code provides the following three types of defamation-related offences:
Insult (Criminal Code Art. 185) is punishable by up to one year in prison (two if committed “by means of an assault”) or a fine .
Defamation (Criminal Code Art. 186) is defined as assert[ing] or disseminat[ing] a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him”. It is punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. A sentence of imprisonment for up to two years can be imposed if the act is “committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials .
Slander (Criminal Code Art. 187) consists of a defamatory statement that the speaker knows to be false and that is aimed at damaging a person’s reputation “or endanger[ing] his creditworthiness”. The punishment is a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. A sentence of imprisonment for up to five years can be imposed if the act is committed publicly or via media.

http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/germany/

I looked at some of the other info on the site.  You guys really aren't free.

However, you are missing the point by applying your laws to events and court cases in the United States.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Unproven has nothing to do with it, though in the highest court in the state it was proven that my statements were true.

Sorry, I did not see that in the decision.  Would you mind quoting it?

B R E N N A N wrote:
<snip>
There was no trial, I moved to have his complaints against me dismissed preceding trial, and my motion to dismiss was granted.
<snip>.

If there was no trial, where were your statements proven true?  The appellate court said that the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail, not that you had prevailed.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Sorry, I did not see that in the decision.  Would you mind quoting it?

If there was no trial, where were your statements proven true?  The appellate court said that the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail, not that you had prevailed.

The appellate court ruled in my favor. The transcript is linked above.

B R E N N A N wrote:

The appellate court ruled in my favor. The transcript is linked above.

Yes, they did,  They did not rule that the statements you made were true.  They ruled that you had the right to make them because they are in the public interest (SLAPP) and they ruled on procedural grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof (defamation).  That does not make them to be proved as true.  I will read the ruling for a fourth time this evening when I arrive at my destination.  If I find where I am incorrect, or someone else posts information that I failed to absorb, I will quote the ruling and apologize.  No animosity is intended here.

In the meantime, I take you at your word.  I am not saying you were not aggrieved by the plaintiff.  Which does not mean that I would dismiss a rebuttal without hearing it.  Considering some of the accusations, I would expect that you would have a certain amount of proof.  I believe that one of the accusations was that he sent dick pics.  It would be possible that you saved such things as evidence and you could have presented such elements at a trail.  But the case did not go to trial.  I am not suggesting you present evidence here.  The ruling stands and any discussion will not change the ruling.

Congratulations, by the way.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:

Do you often feel the need to check on the courts in this way sometimes i like to or is it just this particular case where you question the judges? How many times have you found the courts to be dishonest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid? haven't kept count

And, do you have a legal background that's able to provide an unbiased rebuttal based on your expertise that highlights the issues in such rulings? depends on the case, issues, and other factors

my responses are in bold, above.

TomFRohwer wrote:
...
Nevertheless unproven accusations are just: defamation.

You have an incomplete grasp of defamation law in the USA.

B R E N N A N wrote:
... in the highest court in the state it was proven that my statements were true.

Nope.

1. The highest is the CA SUPREME Court, not appeals court;

2. The decisions - on an anti-slapp motion - never ruled on whether the statements were true or not, much less proven.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Nope.

1. The highest is the CA SUPREME Court, not appeals court;

2. The decisions - on an anti-slapp motion - never ruled on whether the statements were true or not, much less proven.

1. It was heard in supreme court. It was thrown out of supreme court. The initial SUPREME COURT ruling stood in his appeal. Go armchair attorney somewhere else.

2. The rulings are publicly available and ready for your consumption. As is his initial complaint (there is no need to capitalize this, by the way).

I just proved myself multiple times in supreme court, I surely don't need to prove anything to you, so I'm back to only answering relevant questions. Yours are not since you clearly haven't bothered to do much, if any, research into this case. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
my responses are in bold, above.

Your responses only answered my first question, while the other two were vague and irrelevant.

You "haven't kept count" of how many times have you found the courts to be "dishonest, biased, slovenly, or just plain stupid?" Can you be a little more specific - never, once, many times?

If your answer is one or more that's quite an allegation and I'm sure the American Bar Association, ACLU and many news outlets would be interested in the evidence you uncovered of some sort of kangaroo court operating in California.

You also failed to explain your legal qualification/expertise and how it relates to the cases you uncovered.

B R E N N A N wrote:
1. It was heard in supreme court. It was thrown out of supreme court. The initial SUPREME COURT ruling stood in his appeal. .

I don't mean to start a fight or argument, especially because I really commend you for all you've done, but I think that you're confusing Superior court with Supreme court.

Generally, Superior courts are the venues where cases like this are initially heard and / or tried.
Court of Appeals is the next step if there are challenges to the Superior court ruling.
Supreme court is the top level and often used when there are challenges found in the appellate court.ruling.  An appeals court can't reverse the decision of the Supreme court.