``BUMFIGHTS'' Film Makers Sued in Civil Court by Homeless Plaintiffs.Business Editors SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 2002 Rufus Hannah and Donald Brennan Seek Damages for Egregrious Acts Allegedly Done at Their Physical and Emotional Expense Rufus Hannah and Donald Brennan filed a civil suit today in San Diego Superior Court against Ray Leticia, Ty Beeson, Ryan E. McPherson, James McPherson, Zachary Bubeck, Daniel J. Tanner, Michael J. Slyman, and Indecline Productions, the parties behind and the production and promotion of "Bum Fights: A Cause For Concern, Volume I," as well as Inkers Tattoo & Body Piercing body piercing Body image A disruption of a mucocutaneous surface with jewelry or dangling artifices. See Tattoos. . Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer. , for egregious acts allegedly done at their physical and emotional expense, for example: tattooing the word "Bumfights" in bold letters across their forehead and other body parts, burning their hair, and running into stone walls, crates and other inanimate objects. Mr. Hannah and Mr. Brennan are represented by Browne Greene and Mark Quigley with the Santa Monica, CA law firm of Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, LLP LLP - Lower Layer Protocol . The Hon. Wayne Peterson will preside over the matter, Rufus Hannah vs. Ray Leticia, et.al., Case No.GIC GIC See: Guaranteed Investment Contract GIC See guaranteed investment contract (GIC). 797239. Plaintiffs are both homeless, residing in the County of San Diego. Rufus Hannah, age 47, served in the U.S. Army. Donald Brennan, age 53, was in the U.S. Army and is a Vietnam war Vietnam War, conflict in Southeast Asia, primarily fought in South Vietnam between government forces aided by the United States and guerrilla forces aided by North Vietnam. veteran. The complaint alleges that Defendants Leticia, Beeson, McPherson, Bubeck, Tanner, and Slyman coerced Plaintiffs without their consent via the lures of money, alcohol and other enticements to perform inhumane, deplorable acts which were filmed, and then sold as a videotape under the title of "Bum Fights: A Cause for Concern, Volume I" on the Internet at www.bumfights.com. Their images were used without their consent to advertise and promote both the website and videotape sales, in further violation of their civil rights. Inkers Tattoo & Body Piercing allegedly breached their duty to Plaintiffs when they performed tattoo services knowing that the men were intoxicated in·tox·i·cate v. in·tox·i·cat·ed, in·tox·i·cat·ing, in·tox·i·cates v.tr. 1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol. 2. and unable to provide consent. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great physical harm, mental anguish When connected with a physical injury, includes both the resultant mental sensation of pain and also the accompanying feelings of distress, fright, and anxiety. As an element of damages implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress; it is more than mere disappointment, , embarrassment and humiliation. "Deplorable. Exploitive. Criminal. Words alone cannot fully express the inhumanity in·hu·man·i·ty n. pl. in·hu·man·i·ties 1. Lack of pity or compassion. 2. An inhuman or cruel act. inhumanity Noun pl -ties 1. behind the making of the `Bum Fights' videotape," said Browne Greene. "The Defendants coerced fragile, vulnerable human beings into despicable performances without any regard for their rights or personal safety. This lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Rufus Hannah and Donald Brennan to send a clear message that such egregious behavior, which assaults not only the mind, but the spirit, will not be tolerated." "Our clients were intimidated and forced into extreme behaviors," stated Mark Quigley, "to their physical and mental detriment by the Defendants. What was done to them was unconscionable Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. , and we see this lawsuit as sending a strong message to stop this type of conduct in the future. Our firm is proud to stand behind these men and to see that they have their day in court." |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion