Moore is suing Showtime and Baron Cohen for $95 million. Here is some context for this lawsuit https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/moore-claims-sacha-baron-cohens-yerushalayim-tv-fraud-voids-deal-1168789?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
Moore has brought a $95 million defamation suit after being duped into an appearance where Cohen pointed at him a device purportedly to detect sex offenders.
Showtime, Cohen and other defendants are holding up the consent agreement that Moore signed to appear on the program as stipulating that any legal disputes would be handled in New York. Moore's complaint was filed in the District of Columbia so Showtime argues for dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction. And if Showtime wins the argument, it may win the overall case too since the consent agreement obviously entails consent (and waives claims).
In opposition, Moore argues that the consent agreement is void for fraud.
"There are at least two primary misrepresentations at issue," writes Moore's attorney Larry Klayman. "The first misrepresentation was that Judge Moore was being flown to Washington D.C. to receive an award for his support of Israel, when in actuality it was so that he could be falsely portrayed as a pedophile on national television. The second misrepresentation was that the television segment was being produced by Yerushalayim TV, and not Defendant Cohen, Showtime, and CBS."
And if that argument doesn't work, Moore is also positing that Showtime can't really enforce the agreement.
"[T]he purported 'Consent Agreement' was strictly between Judge Moore and Yerushalayim TV," continues the opposition brief. "There is zero mention of Defendant Cohen, Defendant CBS, or Defendant Showtime in the 'Consent Agreement.' Yerushalayim Television, LLC is incorporated in the state of Montana. There is no indication on its Articles of Organization or Annual Report that it is in any way affiliated with any of the Defendants. As such, even if the Consent Agreement were a valid binding agreement - which it is not, as set forth above – Defendants clearly have no basis upon which to enforce its terms."
= new reply since forum marked as read
