'Mini Me' Sues Ex-Girlfriend Over Sex Tape

Headline Legal News 2008/08/04 07:32   Bookmark and Share
Verne Troyer, the actor who played "Mini Me" in the Austin Powers movies, wants $20 million from his ex-girlfriend, who allegedly leaked part of their sex tape leaked to gossip Web site TMZ.com before trying to sell the entire tape to the highest bidder.

Troyer says his former girlfriend, Renee Schriber, insisted that the couple make the explicit tape last year. Troyer claims that the tape was only supposed to be for personal use, but last June he heard that a portion of it was playing on the front page of TMZ.

According to the federal complaint, Schriber called Troyer "in tears, expressing her absolute horror that a portion of the videotape was being broadcast on the internet." Schriber said that the tape must have been stolen from the couple's house.

But the story Schriber allegedly told the press was a little different. Schriber gave interviews "to any news agency and television outlet that would listen to her," the lawsuit states, claiming that Troyer had filmed her having sex with him in secret, that she had no idea the tape existed, and did not know how it had gotten into the hands of the public.

Based on Schriber's story, Troyer sued TMZ, and got a temporary restraining order. However, TMZ submitted Schriber's declaration, given under oath and penalty of perjury, admitting that she had filmed the video herself, with her own equipment. Schriber also admitted that she co-owned the copyright to the tape and had given it to TMZ, along with a license to display a clip of the tape. Troyer says Schriber probably leaked the clip as a trailer for the whole tape, which he says she intended to sell all along.
top

Railroad Denies Liability for Smuggled Drugs

Headline Legal News 2008/08/04 07:31   Bookmark and Share
In a sharply worded federal complaint, the Union Pacific Railroad Co. asserts that it is not responsible for the cocaine and marijuana seized on railroad cars as part of a smuggling operation of trains bound for the United States from Mexico.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection found 47 cases of illegal narcotics seized at checkpoints in California, Arizona and Texas. In each case, the Border Patrol found illegal drugs on a train bound for the United States from a Mexican railroad.

Though the trains were ultimately headed to Union Pacific customers, the railroad company claims that it should not have to pay the $37.7 million in proposed penalties against it, because the drugs were found before the railroad cars ever came into Union Pacific's possession.

"At all times prior to the discovery of the illegal narcotics, either the Mexican railroad operating the train of (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) had exclusive control of the trains in which they were found," the plaintiff claims.

It rejects the defendant's assertion that Union Pacific failed to exercise the "highest degree of care and diligence" to ensure drugs were not smuggled on its trains. Union Pacific points out that it owns no railroad facilities in Mexico, and cannot hire, supervise or direct the railroad employees across the border.

The government improperly applied the Tariff Act of 1930 in assessing fines against Union Pacific, the lawsuit claims.

"The Tariff Act does not obligate (Union Pacific) to enter Mexico and conduct extraterrestrial inspections," the railroad claims, "and to do so would require (Union Pacific) to take extraordinarily dangerous and costly measures that the United States itself has found too dangerous and/or futile to undertake."

The risk of setting up security operations in Mexico would expose the plaintiff and its employees "to the risks of murder and mayhem at the hands of Mexican drug cartels, while at the same time potentially running afoul of Mexican law," the lawsuit states.

And it would accomplish nothing, the railroad claims.

"If (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) and the full power of the United States government cannot effectively seize drugs in Mexico, there is no reason to believe that (Union Pacific) could.
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design