LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. KAPLAN, pc Steven J, fa lan BG 83451) plan @sjkaplaniaw:com 11377 WER Slymple Boulevard Suite 500 ORIG! Los Angeles, Cal raja 90064-1683 INAL FILED 2-100 Telephone ae 652-2221 Facsimile MAY 09 2010 Attorney for Objectors Bric Hughes, ene Oe Ors rata SUPERS ESES COURT LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY WINIKOW Jeffrey Winkkow (SBN 143174) jwitikow@yahoo com 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite $00 Los Angeles, California 90064-1683 (310) 479-0070 Telephone 310) 229-0912 Facsimile Attorney for Objectors Stefan ‘Avalos and Art Eisenson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No: BC339972 WILLIAM RICHERT, et al., Hon. Carl J. West, Dept. CCW-322 Plaintiffs, IBJECTORS’ RESPONSE RE ar 1. 30, 2010 POSTING BY BY LetreR FROM PLAINTIFF TLLLAM RICH! BECEARATION OF STEVEN J vs. WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA, WEST, INC., et al., Defendants. RELATED OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION ‘Objectors’ Response Re Posting by Plaintiffs* CounselCe raw eon 10 uw 2 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On Friday, April 30, 2018 at 2:38 p.m., Paul Kiesel, counsel for Plaintiffs, posted on the Lexis Nexis File and Service site for this case the following message: Judge West: I submit this posting, on behalf of Mr, Richert with me here at Kiesel Boucher as we prepare for Monday's hearing. Mr. Richert has written a lengthy correspondence which he has forwarded to the objectors, class representative and | forwarded to Mr. Segall. Without repeatiag the girth of the comments Mr. Richert would like me to simply identify Several areas of concern has several areas of concern, First and foremost is, ‘a statement made by the Executive Director of the WGAW, David Young, after the Court granted prelin approval, Mr. Young sent out a correspondence to all members advising, essentially, that the Court ha[d] affirmed the WGA W's right to collect Foreign Levies. (I did send a correspondence to Ms. Leheny asking her t0 please correct this ‘misstatement though no correction was sent to my knowledge) this misstatement continues to be a concem of Mr. Richert as he believes this creates in improper perception of what this Court has done. Mr. Richert look forward to Monday's hearing. We attach as Exhibit A for the Court’s convenience ¢ copy of Mr. Richert’s letter. As the Court will sce, Mr. Richert criticizes WGA for a letter issued to members by Guild Executive Director David Young, which states: “1 amt pleased to announce that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West gave preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action lawsuit that affirms the Guild’s right to collect and distribute to all U.S, writers - whether WGAW members or not - funds paid by foreign collecting societies ... le Guild hes maintained that there was nothing improper in our handling of these (foreign levy] funds, and Judge West's ruling recogmizes that assertion .. (Emphasis added) Objectors agree with Mr. Richert’s contention that this communication interfered with class members’ ability to make an objective assessment about opting out of or objecting to the preliminary settlement. (Objectors made the same point on page 32:1}-23 of the original objections filed on February 8, 2010 with respect to an even less egregious but similar public announcement by WGA on its website.) Mr. Kiesel’s posting adverts to “several areas of concern” expressed in Mr. Richert’s letter, but omits, for reasons unknown to us, mention of these other concerns. Based on our reading of the letter, Mr. Richert identifies, among others, the following important specific areas of concern: ‘Obiectors’ Response Re Posting by Plaintiffs” Counsel 1ee 10 MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) The breadth ofa release which protects union officials from any consequences for willfully shredding material documents relevant to proving fraud/conversion regarding foreign levies; (2) The breadth of a release that would allow writers to go after studios for taking half of their foreign levy money but which would immunize the WGA from liability when the union acted in concert with the studios; (3) The failure of Plaintiff's counsel to obtain his ~ or other named plaintiffs’ - consent before submitting to the court the proposed revised settlement agreement; (4) The lack of evidence supporting the settlement. As the Court is aware based on papers filed by Objectors, the Objectors agree to points (1), (2) and (4). We understand based on our conversations with plaintiffs” counsel that plaintiffs will clarify their positions concerning the revised settlement and the obvious concerns surrounding item (4) at the May 3, 2010 hearing in this matter. DATE: May 3, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. KAPLAN pe LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY WINIKOW By: Steven J. Kiplan Anttorneys for Objectors Eric Hughes, Stefan Avalos and Art Eisenson Objectors’ Response Re Posting by Plaintiffs: Counsel 2Soma aunnun WW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. KAPLAN 1, STEVEN J. KAPLAN, say and declare: 1. Lam legal counsel for objectors Eric Hughes, Art Eisenson and Stefan Avalos. The matters stated here are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email that I received from William Richert (febfilms@hotmail.com) on April 27, 2010 at 6:12 p.m. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was signed by me on May 2, 2010, in the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Steven J. Kaplan ‘Objectors’ Response Re Posting by Plaintiffs’ Counsel 3Objectors’ Exhibit A 1 Re Posting by Plaintiffs’ Counsel 4From: febfims@otmail.com To: njohnson@jiplaw com, kieset@kbia.com, rkp850@aok.com, stefan@stefanavalos.com, chariiemonkey1@aol.com, jflawton@mac.com, kylemorris@ren.com CC: ninsky18@hotmail.com, dennishayden@otmail. cam ‘Sent 4/27/2010 6:12:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time ‘Subj, UNION LEADER IN BREACH OF AGREEMENT FR: William Richert Lead Plaintiff Richert V. WGAw et al ‘TO: Ann Jamison, Maude Retchin Feil, Bric Hughes, Ron Parker, Stefan Avalos, Art Eisenson, JF Lawton, Kyle Morris, and: TO: “Afi writers, incfuding members of the WGAW and non-members of the WGAW, whose works, whether or not written under any WGAW collective bargaining agreement, eamed Foreign Levy Funds that were paid to the WGAW by foreign collection societies. This class definition includes the lawful heits of any suck writer who is no longer living.” Co Honorable Carl J. West Ce Neville Johnson, Paul Kiesel, Tony Segall Emma Leheny PLEASE FORWARD. April 27, 2010 LEAD PLAINTIFF BELIEVES WGA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MJSLED WGA MEMBERSHIP, BREACHED PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WRITER AND CLASS REP WILLIAM RICHERT DISPUTES DAVID YOUNG'S: CHARACTERIZATION OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE CARL J. WEST’S ROLE IN APPROVING PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT FOR A LARGE CLASS OF AMERICAN WRITERS“Throughout this lengthy process the Guild has maintained that there is nothing improper in our handling of these finds and Judge West's ruling recognizes thal assertion.” -- David Young, Executive Director, WGA. ~ “Mr. Young’s declarations are false and defamatory to writers involved in this case,” — William Richert, Plaintiff, TO ALL PARTIES: On October 15, 2009, less than one month after I signed the Preliminary Settlement Agreement approved by Judge West, while awaiting comments and objections from members of the Class I represent, the WGAw Executive Director sent a letter to “Dear WGAW Members” lying about the settlement and lying about Judge West’s role and approval of the settlement, thereby making it impossible for the WGAw members to make any kind of objective decision about whether to “opt out” or not. It seems to me that in a matter of this importance to WGA members and non members, a fetter informing the membership of the “guild” ought to be sent by the WGA President, John Wells, as Dan Petrie sent a fetter several years ago, where he lied to the membership about foreign levies ue William Richert. Perhaps Mr. Wells didn’t want to be caught lying like Mr. Petrie got caught by Eric Hughes, and gave the job to David Young, who fied so effectively to the union during the 100 day WGA. strike he continues to call “successful,” and which got him an additional half million doliats in a payroll bonus from a‘“guild” whose members hip is mostly unemployed due to Mr. Young’s actions, where he got to “sit back and watch the havoc I've wreaked.” Mr. Young ought to be given no such opportunity in the class action lawsuit RICHERT V. WGAW et. al. which he also calls “successful” even though the original {awsuit in this case started with “FRAUD” and the 2 depositions given to the Class Plaintiff's lawyer Neville Johnson are rife with signs of “fraud” as are documents and evidence provided by Eric Hughes. It is a fact that I signed a preliminary settlement on September 19, 2009, and while I’m not sure Mr, Young bothered to sign the settlement or not - I haven’t seen his signature affixed below mine — he must be professionally aware of its contents, which do not support and cfeariy contradict his letter designed to influence the WGA membership to approve the settlement without review. Mr, Young cannot get away with lying about Judge West, about William Richert, or about Eric Hughes or Stefan Avalos or any other writer, living or dead - as the lawsuit involves the rights of both the living and the dead. “While some individuals have made inaccurate statements to the press,” writes Mr. Young from his bully puipit. But he does not quote these inaccuracies, because he knows thee are none.Inhis effective letter campaign the Executive Director denies the WGAw members the true facts of the settlement, and thus denies them their right to a reasonably informed decision whether to opt out of the settlement or not Mr. Young tells the WGA that “ I am pleased to announce that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West gave preliminary approval to the Settlement of a class action lawsuit that affirms the Guild’s right to collect and distribute to all U. $. Writers ~ whether WGAW members or not funds paid by foreign collection societies.” This is not what Judge West said or did, ‘This statement is smarmy ingenuous: A top judge says the Guild “did the right thing” reads the subtext of his biased letter. “We look forward to continuing and expanding the success of the Foreign Levies Program” for the benefit of writers Success? So far the WGA has had to pay millions of its member’s money to whistleblowers and lawyers, and is only now paying out money it collected (from where?) in, 1974 — 36 years ago! “.. by bringing legal and political pressure to bear, the Wriers and Director's Guilds have beew able to secure a fair and ever-growing share of these monies for writers,” Mr. Young tells WGA members. Actually, for fifteen years or so the WGA gave 93 % of American writer's money to the studios, after giving the collecting societies big chunks up to 20%, The American writers are fully entitled to [00%. ‘Mr. Young knows full well the extent of the WGAw’s fraudulent use of foreign levies. Mr. Young, or Patric Verrone, or both, authorized the payment of tens of thousands in Guild money to pay whistle blower Teri Mial. Ms, Mial told this writer in person that the union leadership ~ Young and Verrone — were in this, up to their “eyeballs.” ‘We have some idea of why the WGA gave the former Teamster Laundry Worker organizer got $300,000 extra bonus recently — but what did Teri Miel do to earn her six-figure payout?Ase Mr. Young and Mr. Wells really going to pay Neville Johnson 1.7 million dollars, because he unearthed a “successful” program and simply informed the membership? Itis an ongoing outrage that the Guild continues to hold ANY of the money intended for U.S. writers pending it being yanked out of their hands by new accounting firms... ‘This Plaintiff, and other writers, call Mr. Young's “success” an unmitigated disaster, noting that the “program” was designed in secret and in violation of the WGA by laws (the same by-laws the ‘union ignored in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT arbitration, which I mention only because that’s when I first became aware of the rot of WGA entrenched corruption, which David Young's pen pat letter only serves to underfine,) CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER Mr. Young understands the trust union members place in his judgment and wisdom. After all, they followed him into a war that ruined many of their lives ~ and yet they still revere him. Mr. Young seems to think he can mobilize writers the way he mobilized the Needle workers and faundry workers and laborers at his last jobs, far and away from the kind of “labor” writers do. ABUSE OF TRUST Inno way has Judge West “affirmed” the Guild’s right to collect these funds. He does recognize that they've been doing it, however, and that it may be in the best interests of the writer class for them (o continue doing so. But even then, the Guild thwarts the court by including a clause that the Guild may stop the collecting at any time, with a letter to the writers involved. Amazing how this collides with their assertion that only they can collect from foreign agencies. First David Young says they want to ‘expand” the program, then he includes a clause saying they can drop it at any time in the future, leading, as per Guild wisdom, nobody able to collect miflions of dollars for U.S. writers. “A. THE FOREIGN LEVY PROGRAM HAS BEEN NOTABLE SUCCESS, PROVIDING MORE THAN 76 MILLION IN PAYMENTS TO WRITERS WHO NEVER COULD HAVE, COLLECTED THEM ON THEIR OWN.” ~ TONY SEGALL. Then, in the same breath, Mr. Segall and Mr. Young demand this clause in the settlement: °10, NO OBLIGATION TO COLLECT. ...WGA may elet at any time not to receive, retain, and distribute foreign levies from some or all collection agencies...”First the Guitd says it paid out 70 miltion of the 97 milion Segall says they collected — (most recent figure) and yet they won’t provide a simple accounting for this money until AFTER the settlement is signed protecting them from fraud, First the Guild says the writers could never collect this on their own. ~ Then the Guild says it can dump this “program” at any time by providing “notice to that effect by mens of a posting on the WGAW website, a single advertisement in the Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and a letter to each writer to whom it previously payed foreign levies.” This is not a good deal, and as Class Representative, { cannot agree to the clause, ‘The dollar amounts Mr. Young claims the WGA has collected but not disbursed since 1974 (or even earlier) differ wildly from month to month and year to year. Tony Segal has almost never given the same figure twice ~ telling Variety one thing, and the courts another. But that is of no concern to Mr. Young, who misleads the membership when he says “ we look forward to continuing and expanding the success of the Foreign Levies Program for the benefit of writers.” He doesn’t mention that he signed a deal with Lithuania in 2005 that forbids the collecting society from even contacting U.S, writers, or being contacted by them, FRAUD AT INCEPTION With his self-serving deceptive and misleading letter to the WGAw membership Mr. Young told them that “during this time the distribution of Foreign Levies will continue uninterrupted.” Does this imply that if the membership opts cut, the distribution of funds will be stopped? Who'd opt out of getting money? Is it strange that while the WGA has been claiming me as a member Emeritus-In-Atrears, I did not get a copy of David Young’s dissembling letter? IT IS WHEN HE FALSELY SAYS JUDGE WEST ‘AFFIRMS’ the union’s right to collect this money that Mr. Young poisons the jury looking at she settlement, Acting within the mandate of Led Plaintiff in a Class Action lawsuit, I signed the Preliminary Agreement having been told by my lawyers that it would not indemnify union officials who shredded documents from future prosecution, But in the “revised” Settlement agreement, it does just that.«.,,.In response to concern expressed in the objections, we have added language clarifying that the legal release only applies to the WGA and its principals, not to other entitles — e.g, , producers or foreign collections societies — with which the WGAW may be in privity of contact” — JOINT STATEMENT, CLASS AND WGA LAWYERS. Can it be that Mr. Segall — with the assent of class lawyers ~ is saying that we writers can go after the studios and foreign collecting societies for their unlawful behavior, but the officials at the WGA ~ who orchestrated the entire scheme in cahoots with the studios — get to go and continue ripping off the membership? Q: Who oversees the Foreign Levy program at the Guild? A. -- The Executive Director If Guild officials have obstructed our ability to collect our funds up till now, and those same employees are to remain charge of the operations after the “one time” accountants leave the Third Street headquarters, who can trust they’)! ever come “clean.” ‘The writers in this class action should not have to wait another hour for a full accounting of their money, settlement or not. If the Guild disbursed 70 million, where did it go? Who cashed the checks? If they know they spent 70 million, are they saying they can only reveal it when they are protected from prosecution under the law? This is not how I envision a righteous lawsuit settling justly. NEGOTIATIONS FOR WRITERS WITH WRITERS EXCLUDED Sonly got a copy of Mr. Young’s letter yesterday, along with a large group of documents signed by my lawyers without any involvement with actual ciass reps, as required by law. These documents were sent to me by via screenwriter Ron Parker from screenwriter and WGA expert witness Erie Hughes, a former WGA presidential candidate, The documents are loaded with bombshells, Eric Hughes and his objectors can't be ignoted because WGA lawyers call them “Procedurally Improper.” What about the “procedure” at the WGA that led to this lawsuit to begin with? THAT is “improper.” only got copies my lawyers “meet and confer” joint report this weekend, long after it was vaitten. Thus the clause 19 “Independent Legal Advice and Authority” included in the settlement has not been satisfied by the attorneys for the Class.AGAINST THE WISHES OF JUDGE CARL J. WEST (On March 23, 2009 Judge West told me that ifI wished to continue as class rep I had to get @ Jawyer. { tried, but couldn’t find one willing to step into such a pile even with the left foot, which the French say brings good luck, Instead, I went 10 a court ordered mediation with Judge William J. Highberger. ‘After meetings with the jurists who decide such issues when a jury is not present, and considering the counsel of class action expert Paul Kies it became clear to me that the fastest best way for writers to really find out about the issues in the case, and to get any money within this coming decade (or £0) would be to settle it, and so Thave stayed with my lawyers and signed the Preliminary agreement. I should add that only Neville Johnson was willing file a lawsuit against the WGA. He got them into court, and got a Class of writers Certified. He deserves credit for that, and for involving Paul Kiesel, I do wish he had done more “discovery,” much more than a total of 2 depositions. But even with his accomplishments, these men are not writers, and what may satisfy their needs, 1 say, will not bring peace to writers troubled by the mendacious actions of their guild, From the documents I received only 48 hours before this writing, it is certain to me now that the preliminary settlement I signed — materially breached by Mr. Young with his egregious letter to influence the Class membership — is inadequate and does not protect the writers in my Class, which basically includes “all” writers. From the documents | received it is also apparent that our lawyers conducted substantive meetings about the settlement without including me or any other writer in their “meet and confer” deliberations, In fact most of the deliberations of this class action lawsuit both recent and during the past 5 ‘years have been methodically concealed from me, a fact which Judge West observed in his courtroom, Judge West called for “transparency” in the case, and said that the court only had the information it was given. He told Neville Johnson et. al. to communicate with me as Lead Plaintiff in all matters. Recently, since the March 9 hearing, I asked Neville and Paul if they had any new information. They mentioned no new “revised” settlement.But all the while lawyers for both sides were meeting and conferring’ with each other, nary a writer in sight. Who are these lawyers representing, if not their writer clients? David Young says 16,500 + writers got notice of the preliminary settlement. Based on his, union’s record, the number is probably false. And the burning question is: where did this list of writers come from? How far back does it date? Does anybody have a copy of this list? How does it come to pass that money that once was “undeliverable” now gets “delivered?” My lawyers say that the number of objectors is “infinitesimal.” No wonder. Who would object to getting “uninterrupted” funds? And how many non-union writers go on the internet to wga.org? EXCLUDING THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES FROM CLASS NEGOTIATIONS, Itis not lawyers who are suing the union, A huge class of Ametican screenwriters and authors are suing the WGAw. ‘The WGAw hasn't stolen anything from the lawyers. On the contrary, it only gives them money; the union has shelled out millions over the years to “settle” nasty accusations and lawsuits regarding its corruption. Lawyers for class and guild are making millions — literally - during this time, sums inverse to the funds of writers who are ultimately paying them. Considering that Class lawyers met and conceived a revised settlement FOR TWO MONTHS without ever consulting the Class, a fundamental question remains: How can a cfass action lawsuit involving a class of writers be settled with no writer involved? ‘The answer: it won't be. ‘The settlement RICHERT V. WGAW et. al. must be revised yet again to fairly represent the interests of the class of American writers in this lawsuit before this Lead Plaintiff will sign itFurther, David Young must openly secant his letter to the membership misstating the position of the eminent jurist Honorable Carl J, West regarding WGA foreign levy misappropriation or fraud, and Mr. Young must acknowledge his mendacious conduct in applying undue influence ‘upon those writers who trusted him and his union. Sincerely, William Richest Lead Plaintiff, RICHERT VS. WGAwet. al.PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Lam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 1 am over the age of 18 ‘years and not a party to this action. My business address is 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90064-1683. On May 3, 2020, 1 served the foregoing document described as Objectors’ Response Re April 30, 2010 Posting by Plaintiffs’ Counsel Re l.etter from Plaintiff William Richert: Declaration of Steven J. Kaplan on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY U.S, POSTAL SERVICE: This document was served by United States mail. 1 enclosed the document in a sealed envelope ot package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for colfection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Ou the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully paid. 1 BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission teport is available upon request. D_ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: The document(s) were served by overnight delivery via FedEx, L enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) and the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for pick-up by FedEx. Lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence on the same day with this courier service, for ovesnight delivery. 0 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on Court order and an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic service, | served the listed parties electronically via LEXIS-NEXIS and/or enclosed the document to be sent to the persons at the e-mail address listed. | did not receive, within a reasonable time after the ‘transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was ‘unsuccessful. © BY HAND DELIVERY: | caused the document(s) to be delivered by hand during the normal course of business, during regular business hours, BH (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. CD — Gederai) { dectare that | am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 3, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. Steven 7. RaplanNeville Johnson Johnson & Johnson 439 N. Canon Dr., Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Paul Kiesed Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Tony Segall Rothner, Segall, Greenstone & Leheny 510 § Marengo Ave Pasadena, CA 91101-3115 Corey Spivey Gipson, Hoffman & Pancione 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles. CA 90067-6002 SERVICE LIST njohnson@jillplaw.com fax: (310) 975-1095 kiesel@kbla.com fax: G10) 854-0812 asegall @rsgllabor.com fax: (626) 577-0124 CSpivey@ghpiaw.com fax: (626) 577-0124