BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: nika01 on November 24, 2013, 01:10:48 PM
Have there ever been any court cases or legal proceedings resulting from conflicts between two anonymous people?

yes.  There have been cases of people held liable for harassing "anonymous" people.

Quote from: nika01 on November 24, 2013, 12:46:07 PM
Sure you can kick people out, but not on any sort of constitutional / 1st amendment basis.

Of course not.  The Constitution doesn't apply to private individuals, companies, etc...

The first amendment doesn't grant you "freedom of speech" anywhere you want.

However, people try to use it as if it is.  When a politician/pundit/entertainer, heck anyone says something controversial and faces backlash for it or loses their job they SCREAM "MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED"  However, they are not.

If I own a website and you post something I don't like, I have the absolute right to censor it and remove you from the website.  You have no "First Amendment" rights here.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 24, 2013, 12:18:15 PM
,f
Yes, yes....yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, with any right comes responsibility, etc.  I get that, didn't infer otherwise.  The point about "freedom of speech" v. "1st Amendment rights" is well taken, however.  I should have used the former expression.

None of this changes my point, however, that I would like to hear Art's position on censoring this site based on someone saying something in poor tastes, beyond the norm, or just plain stupid.  His strong suit as a talk show host was to allow both callers and guests have their say, regardless how out-there.  My guess is Art would not want to see that happen as long as he ( or any other poster) has an equal opportunity to respond to whatever is said.

Wasn't the golden rule on Art's show "no bad language"?  Isn't that a restriction of speech?  Hasn't he (in C2C days) banned people from the show?  I'd be curious about Art's opinion as well; however, I have always seen Art as a great arbiter of what has value.  He has often cut people off in the middle of interviews or during stories they are telling because he doesn't think his audience will be interested.

I can't see him having a problem with people getting banned from this (or any privately owned website) for being disruptive or even downright rude. 

Quote from: Textor on November 24, 2013, 11:27:59 AM
To be specific, the First Amendment essentially DOES say you can say anything you want-- the restrictions on free speech were imposed by Supreme Court rulings as they interpreted the First Amendment to not apply to speech considered harmful:

To be specific and to use your own quote.. no it doesn't say you can say anything you want.

"CONGRESS SHALL make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"   (emphasis added).

It is ONLY talking about government.  If I own a website/shop and you walk in and say something I don't like, I have the right to kick you out.  So you do not have absolute right to free speech wherever and whenever you want.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 24, 2013, 09:17:31 AM
I would be keen to hear Art's take on this one.  As a talk show host, he used the dump button far less than most of his contempararies.  That was one of the things I admired about his shows, Art's guests and callers got their say even when their say was unpopular, in poor taste, beyond the norm, or just plain stupid.  My opinion of Art is that he is a staunch believer in the First Amendment, in fact I think an arguement could be his livlihood depends on him being able to exercise those self-same rights.  That's not to say he might not want to take a swing at a couple folks here on a purely personal level, but I don't see Art being in favor of censoring even the crassest of our lot.

I wish people would stop misquoting the First Amendment as if it is some right to say anything, anywhere to anyone.

The First Amendment only applies to MOST government restricted speech.  (The government retains the right to restrict lots of speech)

People don't have the "First Amendment" right to post any insult they want on a message board.  People don't have "First Amendment" right to say what they want on someone else's radio show.

Now, if you want to say that someone believes in freedom of speech, that is entirely different from the First Amendment, which only applies to government intervention.  It has been many years since I was a philosophy major in college, but there was one philosopher (either Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.. don't remember which exactly) who talked about the value of free speech in that it helped reveal the fault in people's reasoning and essentially helped weed out the idiots.

I get so sick of the moron politicians/pundits who say something stupid and then scream "FIRST AMENDMENT" when they face backlash and boycotts and/or get fired for their stupid statements.

No, you don't have a "First Amendment" right to say anything you want anywhere, anytime without consequences. 

Quote from: Falkie2013 on November 18, 2013, 04:14:37 PM
But ... isn't that a case of closing the barn door after the horse has left ?

I don't want to look up the exact thread but Art didn't discourage us from making our efforts to let Sirius know how WE and the other AB fans felt.

And I don't think he thought about its going near viral which it was about to do when he pulled the plug on it.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not awake yet.

You can close the door anytime.  After my own suit is done I can talk in more detail, but it started off public and then everyone STFU once savvy council was on board.

In law, so you long as you make reasonable efforts to mitigate (Art posting a please stop message) you have CYA.

Quote from: Colorado ESQ on November 18, 2013, 11:49:58 AM
As a "real lawyer" on this forum, I am very suspicious about the user who posted he is representing Art with the NC. Concerns are: 1) the user purportedly solicited Art seeking to represent which is an ethical violation; 2) the user posted information concerning representation which breeches attorney/client confidentiality and is an ethical violation; and 3) the user requested assistance from nonlawyers with ideas and strategy for representation which is an egregious ethical violation in several respects. 

If this user is in fact a lawyer whom Art has retained for representation I am very concerned about what appears to be inexperience and unprofessional conduct. If the user is not a lawyer then I advise caution against attempting to practice law without a license.  Either way, it does not seem good.

In his original post, Surmo doesn't say he is representing Art at that time, specifically, just that he is helping him.

In fact, in the latter part of the post he states, "as a final legal team and plan of action have been selected"

It was a day later that he called himself "Art's legal counsel"... he hasn't posted since then.

I am guessing that sometime between 11/14 and today a savvy lawyer joined the team who told everyone involved the STFU.  This also likely led to Art's message asking everyone to stop attacking Sirius directly, as that could have/would have led to complicating the whole matter with a counter-suit from Sirius.  This needs to be a single issue case... is the non-compete valid.

I am currently personally involved in a medium profile lawsuit as a plaintiff and our attorney has us on complete hush.  Everything we say on facebook, twitter, anywhere has to be carefully crafted so as to not reference the facts of the suit, or disparage any parties involved.  I had to dance around issues in a few interviews with reporters who were doing stories about the case and the parties involved.  Why do you think they posted and immediately removed the "How did the Free Art Bell" campaign start and the image gallery vanish from ArtBell.com?  Art can't be leading a charge against Sirius in any way. 

Quote from: whiptrackercracker on November 17, 2013, 11:48:26 PM
Ha! Had a similar experience earlier tonight. The connection kept breaking up so I did a next caller routine....unfortunately I believe I was the only one amused....

LMAO.

My wife called me "Mr. Bell" tonight because I was on the phone with someone and their cell phone kept dropping out and I told them, "Give me a call when you get to a real phone" and hung up.

Quote from: CornyCrow on November 15, 2013, 05:56:35 PM
I don't think Art gave us much hope. 
No progress report after all this time. 
He did say it would only make matters worse - and why would he care about that unless he still had some hope?

It seems so insulting to buy a radio to listen to Art and getting slapped with Noory.
Do other people think that Noory has so many indications that are mentioned in those "Low T" commercials?

Remember... IF Art gives us "updates" he is also giving the same updates to the other side.  If his lawyers are in contact with their lawyers, Art essentially has to keep "updates" to a minimum.

Quote from: Philosopher on November 15, 2013, 09:27:59 AM


Very valid points.  Some of us may be campaigning for something that Art may not want.  I love Art, but he's on the fence regarding just about everything.  "Free Art" is a lot of fun but it may not be rooted in reality as Art may not care about the NC clause.

People are read WAAAAY too much into Art's message.

His lawyer has likely given him some very sound advice... CALL OFF THE HOUNDS.

If he is seen to be leading and/or supporting an army of attacks on Sirius, then they WOULD Have a counter-suit and the very simple lawsuit to get him out of the non-compete becomes MUCH more complex.

It is safe to say he wants out of the non-compete and thousands of people have made their voices heard to Sirius.

Now it is time to let the lawyers do their thing.

Here is part of what I wrote to Sirius... I think you want to be a bit more detailed than simply sending an e-mail with "free Art Bell" in the title.  Certainly that is a great hashtag on Twitter and something to put on their FB page.. but when communicating with the execs, give them a REASON to end this standoff.


Below is the later part of my letter to them sent via e-mail and fax.

It has come to my attention that Sirius is currently stopping Art from doing an independent broadcast online, in reliance of a non-compete clause.  Given that the program only lasted 6 weeks, it appears that Sirius is simply being mean-spirited and I would have to say that fighting to keep Art Bell off the air would certainly influence whether I would ever choose to subscribe again in the future.

The only people you are ultimately hurting are the fans of Art Bell, who are going to walk away from this with a highly negative impression of Sirius.  As a former entertainment attorney, I know that non-compete clauses are generally thrown out in any court case, unless significant additional consideration is granted.   Thus, if Art chooses to fight you on this, he will ultimately win; however you will have lost thousands of potential future customers by creating negative feelings among his fans.  On the other hand, you could choose to do the right thing, release Art from his non-compete, incur good will with his fans and maintain the possibility that in the future, some of them will subscribe.

Quote from: ItsOver on November 12, 2013, 11:05:06 PM
Doesn't the fact that Art was with Sirius for such a short time enter into the validity of the NC, as well?  Six weeks is nothing.

That certainly doesn't hurt.

Sirius can't really make the claim that they are protecting trade secrets.

For example, when a salesperson is under a noncompete and goes to a competing company, the claim is often that they will bring their clients to the new company.  Often the industry is limited, so the court will uphold the non compete because there is no way the salesperson can work in the same industry and not have influence over clients they have worked with for years.

Very tough to make that argument here.  Sirius didn't invest a significant amount of money in Art.  They gave him an out clause in his contract and competition is something considered healthy in this business.  Its not like there is a rule stating that companies can only advertise on 1 paranormal theme show in a given year.

Quote from: Snowdoggie on November 12, 2013, 10:52:58 PM
Depends. If you want to determine the intent of the contract, you might want to depose the guy who wrote it. If you think somebody was DDOSing the site to interfere with Art's streaming, subpoenas to internet service providers may be involved. If you think there is funny business between XP/Sirius and Premiere you could send stacks of Requests for Productions and Requests for Admissions to both parties. You could depose Mr. Noory to see what he knows.

There as many ways to run up the bills as there are attorneys in the room. 

I was JOKING about the DDOS thing.  This suit wouldn't need to go to any of that.  It is a single issue.

The only way they would need to determine intent of the contract is if they are disputing the MEANING of a clause.

This one is simple.  You accept the clause as written and then challenge its validity, stating it is overboard and a restraint of trade.  No evidentiary conflicts, no need for depositions.

The contract is the evidence. It stands on its own.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 10:46:18 PM
No, my point was your learned colleague said he'd tell Art it wasn't worth fighting for, IHO.  You apparently disagree with that. 

Any downside legally with Art either asking for and/or accepting donations to fund this deal as Ms Sherry suggested?

If you had read a little bit further on, that person altered their opinion and said, "I think we can agree that if money isn't an issue he ought to fight it. "

His comment was that it will cost 10's of thousands of dollars, which I agree with. I put the cost in 20-30K range.  His personal opinion was that if Art wasn't willing to part with that type of cash, then he shouldn't fight it, because that is what it will cost... I agree with that 100%.

WORTH is a matter of perspective based on how much money you have.

Quote from: Mind Flayer Monk on November 12, 2013, 10:27:31 PM
I'm pretty sure its in New York. Sirius has done this before.
I don't think this would be cheap at all. Probably $800 an hour, with lots of hours going back and forth.
I imagine there are some pretty good NC lawyers in Vegas with the importance of shows to hotel branding.

If it is NY that would bode very well as NY isn't very favorable to NCs.

I think the big misconception here is that there would be "lots of hours going back and forth".

Most of the cost in these matters happens during discovery.  There is no discovery here.

The contract is what it is.  There is no additional evidence needed.  Likely no depositions needed.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 10:23:36 PM
So it sounds like you would disagree with your learned colleague, that it is "worth fighting for". 

*looking for those eight other attoneys in the room*

Where would you get the idea that I don't think it is worth fighting for?

Whether it is "worth fighting for" is up to Art.  There is a cost, risk and benefit  analysis that he has to decide on.

Based on VERY limited hearsay of Art's financial situation, I believe this wouldn't be a major expense to him.  I could be 100% wrong about his financial situation.

Based on my knowledge of the law, I believe his chance to win to be higher than average.

Thus, in my personal view, it is a fight worth having.  But, I am not Art and can't speak for him, nor would I judge whatever decision he makes.

Quote from: Scully on November 12, 2013, 10:22:10 PM

Only drawback I see is IF Sirius wants to make a big deal out of it.  If so, obviously they hold all the aces in terms of financial ability.

Here's the thing.  There is nothing for them to make a big deal out of.

It is a single issue case.  If Art were suing for damages or breach of contract or something else, yes, it could spiral, but this is a simple matter.  Is the NC enforceable?  There is nowhere for Sirius to "go" with it.

Could they file a defamation suit and try to claim that Art hurt their business by things he said... maybe.  Could they file a breach of contract, yes, but, since Art had an out built into his contract, that is a non-starter.  If they file a defamation suit, they likely have more to lose than to gain because all those things told to Art in confidence could become part of the public record and since Art has been very careful with his words, they would lose the lawsuit and likely have to pay attorney's fees.

Just because they have deep pockets doesn't mean they can drain Art's bank account on the question of "Is the non compete valid"

Quote from: Xavier on November 12, 2013, 10:20:03 PM
So a few weeks here and a few weeks there... bingo bango it's over? And all for 25 grand? Umm yeah no

Actually.  Yes.  It might not be over in the way you want it to be.  A court could rule the NC valid, but this isn't a complicated legal matter, thus, it wouldn't take a lot of time or money (in the legal sense where complicated matters can cost hundreds of thousand or millions of dollars). 

This is a single issue.  Is the non compete clause valid.

Quote from: Stan_Holeman on November 12, 2013, 10:19:31 PM
I think we can agree that if money isn't an issue he ought to fight it. I'd want to look at tortious with contract against C2C...what exactly were Noory and C2C up to poaching guests and negotiating with Sirius for Art's slot? Pretty shady.

Tortious interference with a contract.  Oooo.  I like the way you think!

I'm not sure it would qualify since they would have to be doing with the intent to cause one party to breach the contract and poaching guests is just part of the business.

HOWEVER, if evidence could be uncovered that showed that someone was intentional creating a DoS situation causing the streaming dropouts, which they knew would cause people to drop the service or would infuriate Art causing him to leave... well.. then you would have something. 

I am NOT suggesting this happened, I am just suggesting the type of evidence I believe would be necessary for a tortious interference suit to have legs.

Quote from: malachi.martini on November 12, 2013, 10:14:00 PM
Cellphones stood in his way.

That is a quality of show issue.

Look, I am not suggesting that 10, 20 or 30K is trivial.  However, that is pretty much the top end.

If Art wants to spend it, he will.  If he chooses not to, I wouldn't be upset at him. 

Without seeing the contract and knowing the venue (state) in which it is set, I don't know EXACTLY how difficult it will be to strike down.  If this was California, there would be almost 0 chance of a NC being enforced, unless Art got some type of signing bonus, or stock grant.  Other states are more lenient, but even the strictest states don't like enforcing them unless there is a need.

Ultimately, Art will speak to an attorney who will give him an idea of the cost and odds of winning and Art will weigh the odds with the cost and make a decision.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 10:07:00 PM
*laughs* Yeah.  Guess I'll never learn.

Seriously, as long as you're here, care to give an opinion on the question of whether fighting the NC is fiscally viable if SXM opts to go to the wall?

There is no "wall" for them to go to.

This is a fairly simple matter that requires a few filings, a hearing and a decision.  I can't see it costing more than 20-30K from a high end entertainment firm if he wanted to hire a Beverly Hills firm, less if he goes for a boutique firm.

This is a single issue case... is the non-compete valid.  Art would essentially be filing for an injunction to keep Sirius from enforcing the NC.  You either win or you lose and it is over.

Quote from: Stan_Holeman on November 12, 2013, 09:39:30 PM
As an attorney, let me assure you that a competent entertainment lawyer(really a firm)...one that actually gives you a good chance of beating the non compete...is going to cost 10's of thousands of dollars. Of course, maybe Art has an agent (attorney) who's competent in litigation (doubtful but possible)...that might cut costs substantially. But, the point is, fighting a billion dollar + company with a fleet of attorneys on call is not just something you do to prove a point.

As others have mentioned, non compete clauses are not looked on favorably as they are a restraint on person's ability to make a living. They have to be very limited to really hold up, and I have serious doubts whether a court would enforce the clause.

So, don't be so down on Art for not fighting the NC.

Maybe I completely misread Art's financial situation, but do you really think 10's of thousands of dollars is going to stand in his way.

You know this isn't a complicated matter, requiring months of discovery and thousands of hours.  It is a very simple matter.  Is the clause valid.  Did they give him extra compensation for it.  Is he likely to utilize trade secrets, etc.  It is a few weeks of filing and 1 day hearing and a few weeks waiting for the decision.  Then it is over.

I could see a top entertainment firm taking this for 25K.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 09:34:23 PM
OK all you real attorneys, if Art does fight this, what is the potential he wins the battle but loses the war?  I'm sure Art is well off, but I can't imagine he has the financial wherewithall to fight a protracted suit against the corporate deep-pockets of SXM.  Yes, I understand that assumes SXM would go to the wall, but this whole thing will have apparently gotten to that level on both sides if Art is forced to sue.  Principle is one thing, financial insolvency is quite another.

If his goal in such a fight is to free himself to produce a webcast program, is there enough money in same to recoup the small fortune he might be forced to spend to get there?  I suppose one could make the arguement if the NC is voided, he could go back on the air with another free, over-the-air network, assuming some network was willing to take the risk.  Sounds like Cumulus might be first in line, based on previous posts.

It is a fairly easy fight, not very costly at all.  The only thing they would be fighting over is whether the NC clause is valid, which it very likely is not.

No real discovery involved, not a long protracted trial.  Just a hearing in front of a judge and a decision.

Quote from: Redwolf on November 12, 2013, 09:28:15 PM
I have been talking to my friend who is an entertainment atty that has been working in LA for over 25 years and in that time he has represented many 'top names' in the 'biz'. His words to me have been...Non Competes are VERY HARD to enforce for the full duration (in Art's terms 2 full years). In a court of a law a judge will deem that to be too long to be 'reasonable' for Art to be able to do what he does i.e. broadcast radio. The only way they can BE ENFORCED is if Art received full compensation or extra compensation for the full term (buyout) of his contract. This is what happened when he left Premiere and thus had to stay off the air. That being said, he forfeited his SXM salary and has not had full or extra compensation from SXM. My Ent. atty friend said that the most any judge would hold him too would be no more than 6 months and probably given that he was on the air for 6 weeks and cited 'streaming' problems that were never addressed by sxm...a judge would rule he would be free and clear of any NC. A good Ent. atty would be able to litigate this in a few weeks and Art would either have to sit and wait a few months or could get right back to work immediately.

The fact that sxm replaced his show with c2c (I know the times slots differ a bit) and c2c streams their show from their site as well as archives their shows on their own apps...this is enough reason for an atty or judge to rule in favor of Art being able to begin work right away and not have to wait 2 FULL YEARS! Art offered sxm the same thing that c2c does...non-exclusive content streamed from other sources. sxm said NO to ART and YES to c2c. No judge in the land would make Art sit on the sidelines for 2 full years.

This is not conjecture...this is full disclosure from a very reputable entertainment atty who knows his stuff! Big time!

All Art needs to do is fight it and he will be able to 'win his freedom!'

I hope he wants it!

I hope he wants back on the air!

Fingers crossed!

Go get 'em Art! The law is ON YOUR SIDE!!!!!!!!!!!

^^^^ This... 100% true ^^^^

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 09:00:23 PM
So counselor, we both agree I didn't call you a lair. Good.  Am I skeptical of claims I read on an internet blog/bulletin board?  Sure I am, people misrepresent themselves all the time.  If that offends you, I'm sorry.

I learned two things over the years working with/around lawyers.  First, you put ten of them in a room and ask for a legal position, you'll get ten different opinions unless one or more of them are in that room with their boss.  Second, attorneys get very defensive when challenged by non-attorneys.

No, we don't both agree on that at all.  I actually said you DID call me a liar, which you did.

I was simply pointing out to you that you do not have to use the word liar to call someone a liar.

Such as me telling you that your denial is not honest.

Did I just call you "a liar".  Semantically... no, but actually, yes.

Lawyered... again.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 12, 2013, 07:03:05 PM
Actually, and I am sorry to say it, I have been right all along.  Nothing to apologize for, therefore.  I also challenge you to show a post where I called Art, or anyone else, a "liar".

I understand you are hurting and feeling powerless as a result of how things worked out.  Lashing out at me and others who are pragmatic, and therefore less emotionally immersed, is also understandable.  If it makes you feel better about the situation and yourself, I have no objection.

http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5069.msg191054#msg191054


We can play the semantics game and no you didn't use the word "liar" but "raising the bullshit flag" and claiming that no attorney would comment on something, thereby suggesting that I was not an attorney is the same thing.

LAWYERED.

Quote from: indigoo on November 12, 2013, 07:00:03 PM
I found it odd that Art thinks he'd probably win his freedom by going out and getting a lawyer to help waive the NC, but doesn't think he'll do that. Then a few paragraphs later he says if there's anything to do to get back he will do it. Which is it Art? The indecision is fucking annoying. If you want out, that's fine, and we can respect that decision. But I don't want to be strung along anymore.

Keep something in mind.   Art is waging two battles right now and they stand in delicate balance  (I am in the middle of one myself right now so I understand).  You WANT the other party to agree/settle/backdown/whatever, so you can't go on a PUBLIC message board and make bold statements, because it simply puts the other party off.

Art wanted a deal where he was an independent broadcaster, etc.. you can't make that deal happen if you post about how bad the company is you are dealing with.

Art wanted out of the non-compete.. graciously.  You don't get that by going on a PUBLIC message board and posting "and if they don't let me out, I'm going on the air anyway and F em if they don't like it".

When you are involved in a public dispute, you MUST be careful about what you say and how you say it, because the other side is reading it.

Quote from: Art Bell on November 12, 2013, 06:30:05 PM
Wait a moment, I said I would honor the NC, I did not say I would not take Legal action to try and change it.

                                                                                                                                   Art

DING DING DING DING DING.

Most non-competes aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Sooooo, what I seem to be reading is that you will not just go on the air/internet and dare them to sue you under an invalid non-compete, so you can fight them off... but instead may challenge it up front to get it invalidated and THEN start up a show... am I in the right area?

Quote from: nooryisawesome on November 12, 2013, 04:13:39 PM

Yay Castiel!

Just want to post this info again for anyone who wants...

CEO of Sirius' e-mail address: James.Meyer@siriusxm.com or jmeyer@siriusradio.com
You can also try Scott.Greenstein@siriusxm.com as he is chief content officer.

Or Fax them at 1-212-584-5200

IF you want to help Art get back on the air, maybe you remind that you were a subscriber and unsubscribed when Art left, but let them know that you would be happy to resubscribe if they had the archive content available or you may want to let them know that you don't understand WHY Sirius would get between you and content you enjoy.  Remind them that the people they are hurting are the fans.  Art doesn't need the money, so if they really care about their reputation as a company, they will graciously step aside and let Art host his own show on the internet. 

Just remember... BE POLITE.  Sending a ranting message is very easy for them to dismiss, but if you are polite and to the point, we will get results.