Forums > Model Colloquy > Models Win Defamation Lawsuit

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 8155

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
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.

I do not have a count either.  I have no idea how many appellate court decisions I have read over the years, much less what the break down in the opinions are.  The cases are either relative to my work, or they are not, or they might be someday.  Sometimes, the cases in other states don't impact me.  Sometimes they do.  Either way. it is important that I know what the courts say about my profession and the mistakes that people in my profession make and how the courts resolve some principles.  If trial courts always got it right, there would be no need for appellate courts, so yes, sometimes the lower courts are all of the things that Eagle Rock listed.  Most of the time they are not nefarious, but they sure aren't Solomon either. There is a process for dealing with bad judges.  Pennsylvania has had a few removed and a few go to jail.   A law professor who often conducts continuing education courses for my peers at an annual conference, has said in his class, "You get all the justice you can afford." And, "It is better to know the judge than to know the law."  He has also been kind enough to advise me to tell certain clients that they will spend $xx,000 to get to trial court and then that much again to get to an appeals court, where the ruling is more likely to be based on law.   I have witnessed several judges in cases in which I was an expert witness or otherwise involved, ignore the law and split the baby.  I have seen a judge pressure the parties to settle, threatening one side for refusing to take a lousy deal, because the judge had to go to a funeral.  In my county, the same trial court judge ruled that one person in the whole county "doesn't need" to have a wood stove because his neighbor complained.  That is not equal protection.  I have more faith in the appeals level, but the higher you go, the more politics is an issue, rather than the law- or justice.  The ACLU is aware of all this.

If you have some need to know what I do professionally, please ask me privately, as I prefer to keep that out of the forums.  Otherwise suffice it to say, I am not an attorney, but my field requires constant interaction with legal principals and decisions.  My continuing education courses tend to focus on the various legal considerations that I may face.

Nov 30 17 04:39 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 8155

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

B R E N N A N wrote:

I read it again.

appeal decision wrote:
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

Filed November 21, 2017.

State Courts in California. California has 2 types of state courts, trial courts (also called “superior courts”) and appellate courts, made up of the Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2113.htm

appeal decision wrote:
Alan Brenner, one of those on the list, sued the models for defamation and related torts. The models successfully moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).1 We affirm.

See the last three paragraphs of I. BACKGROUND for trial court findings.
Excerpts below:

appeal decision wrote:
The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motions. The court considered all evidence submitted on both motions when ruling on each motion.

The court also ruled that Brenner had not shown a probability of prevailing on his claims. The defamation claims failed because the statements that Brenner was "inappropriate" were nonactionable statements of opinion, not fact.

At the hearing [on the] Motion[s], [Brenner] appeared to fundamentally misunderstand his burden of proof. . . .

However, in the context of an anti-SLAPP motion, it was not Hill's [or Prescott's] burden to prove that [Brenner] engaged in the inappropriate [conduct]. . . . Rather, once Hill [and Prescott] met [their] burden of demonstrating that the claims against [them] arose from protected activity, it was [Brenner's] burden to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, his probability of prevailing on his claims ...

The court further ruled that Brenner had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his other causes of action. In light of his failure to deny inappropriate conduct, Brenner had not produced evidence of extreme or outrageous conduct by Hill or Prescott necessary to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. He had not shown that Hill or Prescott knew of and intended to disrupt a business relationship of Brenner's as necessary to prove intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. He also had not shown that Hill and Prescott conspired with others to commit any tort as necessary to establish conspiracy liability. Brenner appeals.

I can keep going but it isn’t going to change.  The appeals court affirmed the trial court ruling.  They do not normally rule on matters that have not been appealed.

I understand your perspective and frustration.

Laura:  It really doesn't matter what the person who experienced it says.  What matters is what is in the court record.  (And note: the record provided has not been approved for recording into the public record at this time.)  This isn't about us (some of us) hating to believe ya'll.  We are working to understand and explain it to each other and ourselves.

Again, this is nothing personal.  Nothing against the defendants.  Just reading the case.  In the past, I have read the comments of both the plaintiff and defendant in these forums.  I respected them both for their professionalism and knowledge.  I am very sorry to hear of all this.

Nov 30 17 04:43 pm Link

Photographer

Virtual Studio

Posts: 6725

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Wow. The level of chest thumping shitheadery really doesn't go down even when the place becomes a ghost town.

I wonder if just maybe there is a link?

Nov 30 17 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

I've worked with both models.  I've hosted Brennan in my home on several occasions.  I've also hosted Brennan's roommate.  I believe them.

Dec 14 17 02:31 pm Link

Photographer

Eagle Rock Photographer

Posts: 1286

Los Angeles, California, US

Gary Melton wrote:
I've worked with both models.  I've hosted Brennan in my home on several occasions.  I've also hosted Brennan's roommate.  I believe them.

Confusing. Let's eschew plural pronouns and ambiguity:

Do you believe Brennan? His roommate? Or 'both models?'

Dec 14 17 02:54 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Confusing. Let's eschew plural pronouns and ambiguity:

Do you believe Brennan? His roommate? Or 'both models?'

I suppose I could have been a little clearer, but I think the confusion is yours.

I believe Brennan (one of the 2 models sued by the photographer for posting him on a blacklist) and Nicole Vaunt (the other model sued by the photographer for posting him on a blacklist).

Since you said "His roommate", I'm assuming you confused the model's name "Brennan" with the photographer's name "Brenner" (since Brennan is a "she", you should have said "her roommate" instead of "his roommate").

To be crystal clear: I have worked with both models in question - Brennan (several times) and Nicole Vaunt (once) - and I believe their complaints against the photographer in question (Brenner).

I have also hosted the model Brennan (on several occasions) and her roommate (on one occasion) in my home.  I mention the hosting to make it clear that I know her pretty well...well enough to vouch for her.

Dec 14 17 03:13 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

Honestly, I find it so disheartening to listen to so many here who seem ready to believe a photographer defending himself over models who are accusing him.  Why in the hell would these hard working models put themselves through all this crap if they were lying?  They've got better things to do than deal with all this legal crap.

Yes, I know that occasionally there are false accusations of woman against men...but any of you here who have been working with models for years like I have know that they put up with sexual harassment on a pretty regular basis - and most of the time, they don't do anything about it because they fear they will be further harassed for reporting it.  The photographer in question here has been reported by multiple models (not just these 2).

I'm sure someone here will accuse me of being a "white knight", but I'm just telling it like it is.

Dec 14 17 03:57 pm Link

Photographer

Eagle Rock Photographer

Posts: 1286

Los Angeles, California, US

Gary Melton wrote:

I suppose I could have been a little clearer, but I think the confusion is yours.

I believe Brennan (one of the 2 models sued by the photographer for posting him on a blacklist) and Nicole Vaunt (the other model sued by the photographer for posting him on a blacklist).

Since you said "His roommate", I'm assuming you confused the model's name "Brennan" with the photographer's name "Brenner" (since Brennan is a "she", you should have said "her roommate" instead of "his roommate").

To be crystal clear: I have worked with both models in question - Brennan (several times) and Nicole Vaunt (once) - and I believe their complaints against the photographer in question (Brenner).

I have also hosted the model Brennan (on several occasions) and her roommate (on one occasion) in my home.  I mention the hosting to make it clear that I know her pretty well...well enough to vouch for her.

Thanks for clarifying.

Dec 14 17 04:20 pm Link

Photographer

JQuest

Posts: 2431

Syracuse, New York, US

Gary Melton wrote:
Honestly, I find it so disheartening to listen to so many here who seem ready to believe a photographer defending himself over models who are accusing him.  Why in the hell would these hard working models put themselves through all this crap if they were lying?  They've got better things to do than deal with all this legal crap.

Yes, I know that occasionally there are false accusations of woman against men...but any of you here who have been working with models for years like I have know that they put up with sexual harassment on a pretty regular basis - and most of the time, they don't do anything about it because they fear they will be further harassed for reporting it.  The photographer in question here has been reported by multiple models (not just these 2).

I'm sure someone here will accuse me of being a "white knight", but I'm just telling it like it is.

I couldn't agree with what Gary has written above more. I too have worked with both Brennan and Vaunt on multiple occasions and I take them at their word. They're both complete professionals.

Dec 14 17 04:51 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18392

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

JQuest wrote:

I couldn't agree with what Gary has written above more. I too have worked with both Brennan and Vaunt on multiple occasions and I take them at their word. They're both complete professionals.

Brennan stays with me once a year. I heard about a lot of this long before the "blacklist" and the lawsuit.

Dec 17 17 03:56 pm Link

Photographer

JQuest

Posts: 2431

Syracuse, New York, US

Just read what I had previously written, I wrote "T couldn't agree" what I meant to write was "I couldn't agree more."

Dec 17 17 04:10 pm Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 4005

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

I've worked with Brennan and Vaunt and I genuinely believe they are both people with integrity and that they would have very little to gain by outing sleazy photographers. I wholeheartedly back their decision to take a stand and I truly wish there more who had the courage to do the same.
After reading some of the completely misguided drivel defending those accused, I am sincerely reminded as to why I pay these forums so little time.

Dec 18 17 04:08 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18392

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

Rik Williams wrote:
I've worked with Brennan and Vaunt and I genuinely believe they are both people with integrity and that they would have very little to gain by outing sleazy photographers. I wholeheartedly back their decision to take a stand and I truly wish there more who had the courage to do the same.
After reading some of the completely misguided drivel defending those accused, I am sincerely reminded as to why I pay these forums so little time.

Yep...

Dec 20 17 07:50 am Link

Photographer

Chris Rifkin

Posts: 25581

Tampa, Florida, US

Rik Williams wrote:
I've worked with Brennan and Vaunt and I genuinely believe they are both people with integrity and that they would have very little to gain by outing sleazy photographers. I wholeheartedly back their decision to take a stand and I truly wish there more who had the courage to do the same.
After reading some of the completely misguided drivel defending those accused, I am sincerely reminded as to why I pay these forums so little time.

Same here..

Dec 21 17 05:46 am Link

Photographer

IMAGINERIES

Posts: 2048

New York, New York, US

I find it amazing that only 2 or maybe 3 models participated in this topic.....
I heard stories from models I collaborated with that were fairly pathetic regarding some "photographers"
behaviors....They feel that reporting them to MM will not go anywhere because of the "she said he said"
situation and they it go, and move on....

Dec 23 17 01:00 pm Link