PDA

View Full Version : Katie Holmes sues Star Mag for $50 million



Sassy
2nd March 2011, 01:43 AM
3273



Katie Holmes Sues Tabloid for $50 Million
28 Comments
By Amber James Posted Mar 1st 2011 05:31PM
Print this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Lifestream
Katie Holmes Sues Star Magazine
Katie Holmes is no longer sitting idly as the tabloids write lies about her. The actress has filed a libel lawsuit seeking $50 million in damages from Star magazine after the weekly published a cover story that insinuated Holmes is a drug addict.

"Of all the fabricated stories that continue to be published about me, this instance is beyond the pale. The publisher knew this outrageous story was false and printed it anyway to sell magazines," Holmes told PopEater in a statement.

The cover photo shows Holmes looking tired and upset, with the tagline: "Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker! The real reason she can't leave Tom." Inside the issue, the story does not say that Holmes uses drugs but focuses more on her use of an "e-meter" during Scientology sessions, which allegedly reflects past emotional experiences.

The lawsuit alleges that Holmes was defamed by the tabloid. According to her rep, Holmes was forced to file this lawsuit "to vindicate her reputation after American Media refused to retract its vicious lies about her."

"Star Magazine's malicious claims about Katie are untrue, unethical and unlawful. Not only do they cruelly defame Katie, they play a cheap trick on the public, making ridiculously false claims on the cover unsupported by anything inside. Someone should bring a class action to get all buyers their money back," Holmes' attorney Bert Fields said in an official statement.

In order to prove libel in U.S. courts, the plaintiff must prove defamation occurred and that injury to their reputation happened as a result.

Star Magazine is standing by their cover story, telling PopEater: "We have not been served with any papers yet, however Star fully stands behind the editorial integrity of what we have published concerning Ms. Holmes' controversial use of the Scientology e-meter. The physical effect of the e-meter on its users is a matter of significant public concern, and we plan to vigorously defend the suit filed by Ms. Holmes. Our attorneys look forward to deposing Ms. Holmes about her experiences with Scientology and the e-meter, and expect that the case will be promptly dismissed by the court."

Holmes and Cruise are frequently featured in the magazine with headlines suggesting that the actress is unhappy and wants out of her marriage.

Back in 2008, the actress reveled she was fed up with the tabloid lies being printed about her family. "I do know what is being said in the press. This is my family, and I do care about them. The stories are not OK. It eats away at me. Some of the crap that's out there -- it's really frustrating the amount of s**t that's out there!" she told Vanity Fair magazine.

Hatshepsut
2nd March 2011, 02:12 AM
I saw the rag. She should sue. They are pushing the envelope, and if the greed to sell more mags doesn't get checked and counter checked...there will be no holds barred.

I used to think a the celebs should just ignore the crap. But look at all the millions in PR that is spent on conveying an image. Everything a person does is to keep their career at its zenith, from clothing to associations to working out to plastic surgery. In other words how the public sees a star is important. Something to be nurtured. So this game of postulate_ counter-postulate is whats up. Many stars grant the mags and interview which they themselves can construct. Bring in their own photographers. Set their own dates etc. Decide what info they will share before hand. Trouble is you can't do that for every tabloid sitting at the grocery checkout.

The photo of Katie was horrible. Someone should be clocked good.

Go get em girl. Don't be takin no shit off none dem fools

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/PH2011030104691.jpg____http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/450_606_celeb_katie_holmes_star_magazine_cover12.j pg

apple
2nd March 2011, 02:21 AM
I dont blame her. I would! These rags just keep plugging away at her until enough is enough. There are many reasons that she could look tired including being stressed by these rags. Even a dog stops wagging its tail if abused enough.

Jachs
2nd March 2011, 02:24 AM
the newspaper is fair game, maybe her drug is scientology driving her into apathy

Its a pity Katie cant spend all her millions helping others, rather than walking around being photographed looking sad.

Royal Prince Xenu
2nd March 2011, 02:30 AM
the newspaper is fair game, maybe her drug is scientology driving her into apathy

Its a pity Katie cant spend all her millions helping others, rather than walking around being photographed looking sad.

This is not a "fair game" issue. Katie has not spent money having those photos taken--they are Papparazzi photos.

The magazine has insinuated that Katie has a drug habit, and then failed to back it up with real information. Star magaine's claims are as baseless as the claimed gains in $CN.

Hatshepsut
2nd March 2011, 02:31 AM
gotta admit that looking 'morose' is kinda her defining schtick.

Royal Prince Xenu
2nd March 2011, 02:43 AM
gotta admit that looking 'morose' is kinda her defining schtick.

I don't think the photo in your above post looks "morose". Just because a face isn't beaming a smile it doesn't mean she's feeling down.

I never smile for posed photos. Who says she has to do so?

Jachs
2nd March 2011, 05:15 AM
This is not a "fair game" issue. Katie has not spent money having those photos taken--they are Papparazzi photos.

The magazine has insinuated that Katie has a drug habit, and then failed to back it up with real information. Star magaine's claims are as baseless as the claimed gains in $CN.

Celebs are Papparazzied all the time, as much as i disagree with this hounding, it isnt illegal.

I agree the Drug Addiction claim is defaming, of all the other media attacks, this is the first one ive seen a retaliation.

She looked alot happier in dawson creek days.
Who wouldnt look like that? realising DM knows when and how you and your hubby last rubbed your camel toe?


0

Realitywilltell
2nd March 2011, 05:44 AM
I think they pushed the envelope too far also and I believe Katie has a case.

Carol Burnett successfully sued the National Enquirer for claiming she was drunk in public back in 1981:

Why Did Carol Burnett Sue the National Enquirer (http://www.whyguides.com/why-did-carol-burnett-sue-the-national-enquirer.html)

Jump
2nd March 2011, 06:55 AM
... Holmes was forced to file this lawsuit ...

Who knows what wheels-within-wheels are going on in this relationship. One thing is for certain, Co$ would be the only ones doing the forcing.

Bring it on, we need a good courtroom drama after the Fowler fizzer :drama:

clamicide
2nd March 2011, 07:05 AM
I just always kind of *sigh* when a report shows up on ESMB about something reported in the Star and folks glom onto it. It's a rag. The truth is coming out. We've got the frickin' New Yorker on our side. Bullshit papers giving bullshit stories doesn't help IMHO. People with brains who know tabloid bs know the source reporting and assume it's crap. Bored freakazoids who will latch onto any gossip or rumor will oooh and aaah---folks who probably aren't that much interested in fighting the cult. The rags might have a half-truth, but you can sue over that stuff. If you see something plastered all over the tabloids you either just gossip and get juicy about it, or you discount it all because you see it in the 'rags'.

Hatshepsut
2nd March 2011, 07:35 AM
I don't think the photo in your above post looks "morose". Just because a face isn't beaming a smile it doesn't mean she's feeling down.

I never smile for posed photos. Who says she has to do so?

Its the second pic that's sad looking. I love to shop. I love to look at each and every hollywood mag while I'm in the supermarket checkout lane. You name it, I'm gonna look at them pictures. I like Katie. She was so sweet in Dawson's Creek. I'm used to seeing her radiate more joy. Well, maybe she just hates the paparazzi.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/katie-holmesjk.jpg-http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/katie_holmes_red_carpet.jpg

Jump
2nd March 2011, 07:37 AM
I just always kind of *sigh* when a report shows up on ESMB about something reported in the Star and folks glom onto it. It's a rag. The truth is coming out. We've got the frickin' New Yorker on our side. Bullshit papers giving bullshit stories doesn't help IMHO. People with brains who know tabloid bs know the source reporting and assume it's crap. Bored freakazoids who will latch onto any gossip or rumor will oooh and aaah---folks who probably aren't that much interested in fighting the cult. The rags might have a half-truth, but you can sue over that stuff. If you see something plastered all over the tabloids you either just gossip and get juicy about it, or you discount it all because you see it in the 'rags'.

I think you missed the point. If they can get to argue Scientology in the courtroom, that will be a FIRST (for the internet age), and it will bring the culties' ways more into the public awareness.

Sassy
2nd March 2011, 01:40 PM
There have been probably hundreds of tabloid stories about Katie, including pictures of her with purple hands that she covered with mittens, allegedly from the high doses of niacin in the purif rundown. They talk smack about her children, her marriage, her career etc. I think I've even seen a headline about her allegedly using drugs at one point.
This "story" interested me because it's this particular story that has caused her to file suit. Why? There's a shitstorm brewing with her church obviously, so the timing just seems suspect to me. And probably only 1% of celebs even bother trying to sue these rags anyway.

Rene Descartes
2nd March 2011, 02:02 PM
This is not a "fair game" issue. Katie has not spent money having those photos taken--they are Papparazzi photos.

The magazine has insinuated that Katie has a drug habit, and then failed to back it up with real information. Star magaine's claims are as baseless as the claimed gains in $CN.

Uh excuse me but Katie was doing the Pruification Rundown, non? According to the promotionary materials for the Purf the body has stored toxins and drugs.

The lawyers for the Star will tear her apart.

However I do think the Star could have been a little less offensive in the article and photos.

Rd00

Royal Prince Xenu
2nd March 2011, 03:54 PM
Uh excuse me but Katie was doing the Pruification Rundown, non? According to the promotionary materials for the Purf the body has stored toxins and drugs.

The lawyers for the Star will tear her apart.

However I do think the Star could have been a little less offensive in the article and photos.

Rd00

Yes, but if they want to accuse Katie of being a drug addict (implying that the e-meter is a 'drug'), then they need to realize it is not the meter that is addictive, it is the endorphin rush when one "experiences a win". This is where Scientolgists are addicted.

clamicide
4th March 2011, 01:07 AM
I think you missed the point. If they can get to argue Scientology in the courtroom, that will be a FIRST (for the internet age), and it will bring the culties' ways more into the public awareness.

No. I just don't see it happening. History of the Star, the Enquirer, other rags, the cult, etc. make me think the Scio will not really be argued for real in a courtroom off of this. I'd have no problem being wrong about this...would welcome it.

GreyWolf
4th March 2011, 01:38 AM
Addicted, but not on drugs.

AnonyMary
4th March 2011, 02:40 AM
I think you missed the point. If they can get to argue Scientology in the courtroom, that will be a FIRST (for the internet age), and it will bring the culties' ways more into the public awareness.

I agree. While I think it was stupid and irresponsible to imply that Katie is on drugs ( of course I doubt many believed, since scientology is widely known to be 'anti-drug and medication - to a fault), I think this is a great opportunity for the e-meter and its use in auditing and sec-checking to be discussed and I have no doubt that Star is going to bring a formatable arguement to the table.

I think this lawsuit is going to be a footbullet of sorts for scientology. Scientology and it's member's views on the device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter) are documented and lend creedence to the theory scientology espouses that scientology 'spiritual' and mental effects result in a healthier person. Why else would there be NOTS? You can't do NOTS without an e-meter.

And anyone who has done many many hours of OT level auditing will tell you that the e-meter was essential to their completion of the processes and their EPs.

The the e-meter 'endorphins' theory ( raised in the past by Arnie Lerma and other posters with science / electronics backgrounds who have discussed this at length (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1001&bih=581&q=scientology+e-meter+endorphins&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=)) is what Star was discussing.

The addiction issue is controversial, depending upon whether you have experienced it through many hours or not. There will be no lack of witnesses to attest that it was addicting in the sense that one had to go back to get that release or FN.

The cover says "ADDICTION NIGHTMARE -- Katie DRUG SHOCKER! -- The Real Reason She Can’t Leave Tom." and the keyword being DRUG is the issue they are suing for, and the derrogatory connotations that word brings.

Thing is, the FDA definition which was used in it's case against the e-meter and later overturned ( because it is a 'religious' artifact' of no effect despite the church's claims of physical curing - found to be false ). This may be what Star used to define endorphins as a DRUG:

"Some governments define the term drug by law. In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act definition of "drug" includes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug)"articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."[12] Consistent with that definition, the U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages.[13]"
ref:

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the verdict on the basis that the government had done nothing to rebut the church's claim that Scientology was a religion. A new trial was ordered which upheld the findings and verdict of the first trial.

Judge Gerhardt A. Gesell found that:

Hubbard and his fellow Scientologists developed the notion of using an E-Meter to aid auditing. Substantial fees were charged for the meter and for auditing sessions using the meter. They repeatedly and explicitly represented that such auditing effectuated cures of many physical and mental illnesses. An individual processed with the aid of the E-Meter was said to reach the intended goal of 'clear' and was led to believe that there was reliable scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most, illnesses would successfully be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All this was and is false.[citation needed]

The judge ordered use of the E-meter be confined to "bona fide religious counseling" and the device be prominently labeled with a warning notice:

The E-Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.[16]

Here is the actual order, from Buttersquash site to scribd: (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5024758/Court-Order-FDA-Scientology-Dianetics-Hubbard-Emeter)
E-METER AND SCIENTOLOGY/DIANETICS LITERATURE:
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS (US) ORDER OF United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
No. D.C. 1-63. September 29, 1971,
as amended by ORDER OF the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 71-2064, March 1, 1973We know that the e-meter is used for things it is not authorized for.
Like Security Checking. "I am not auditing you". The case for getting the e-meter reviewed is not far off, as so many have left the church and can attest to how it was and still is being used by the church. This case against Star may well be the can of worms the church wishes it never opened ( and we know the church is behind this now if not at the start because it is their e-meter and counseling that is being attacked, too ).

So I think has the potential to be a very interesting court case, one that is raising awareness about the dangers of scientology. We may even find out if Katie was being sec checked during the period time they took that photo of her leaving CCI. God knows that she looks like she left with 'bad indicators'.

LongTimeGone
4th March 2011, 02:50 AM
I don't know where these clowns come up with their obscene payout figures.

"Ooooh he said something nasty about me - Per my calculations that's worth $50 Million."

Totally off the planet.

If it is based on what they would have been paid to make a movie, but were not considered for the part because of this slight, then they are paid way too much and that is obscene too.

LTG

Wisened One
4th March 2011, 03:14 AM
I saw it. Thought is was a really stupid article! She probably should sue them! (Though 50 mil seems a bit excessive, idk).

Royal Prince Xenu
4th March 2011, 03:36 AM
I...

The the e-meter 'endorphins' theory ( raised in the past by Arnie Lerma and other posters with science / electronics backgrounds who have discussed this at length (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1001&bih=581&q=scientology+e-meter+endorphins&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=)) is what Star was discussing.

The addiction issue is controversial, depending upon whether you have experienced it through many hours or not. There will be no lack of witnesses to attest that it was addicting in the sense that one had to go back to get that release or FN.
...


Given that it is possible to induce the experience of "Auditine" without the use of a meter, I think the argument it moot.

AnonyMary
4th March 2011, 03:54 AM
Given that it is possible to induce the experience of "Auditine" without the use of a meter, I think the argument it moot.

Not the same kind of auditing. If that were the case, there would be no need for the e-meter.

AnonyMary
4th March 2011, 04:32 AM
update:

Photo, drug claims spark lawsuit from 'disheveled' Holmes

by Suzanne Condie Lambert, Republic columnist - Mar. 2, 2011 05:52 PM
The Arizona Republic .

Katie Holmes sues over "Katie DRUG SHOCKER!" headline in Star magazine; in related news, Cosmo will not actually deliver the secret to your best sex ever, and despite Tiger Beat's veiled promises, Justin Bieber will never date you.

Holmes' attorney, Bert Fields, says in a statement that the January cover was not supported by the story inside the magazine. He called the cover, which featured a disheveled photo of Holmes, "untrue, unethical and unlawful."

Holmes says in a statement that Star knew the story was false but published it to sell magazines, USA Today reports.

Star says in a statement that it stands by its story, which, it says, raises significant concerns about Scientology practices. The magazine claims that the actress is "trapped in a cycle of addictive treatments" and that it looks forward to deposing her on her experiences with Scientology.

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2011/03/02/20110302photo-drug-claims-spark-lawsuit-from-disheveled-holmes.html

Jump
4th March 2011, 09:53 AM
Star says in a statement that it stands by its story . . . it looks forward to deposing her on her experiences with Scientology.

Scientology, a blend of science and spirituality, wouldn't be afraid of some rational, open, public discussion?

:drama:

Lermanet_com
12th March 2011, 06:13 AM
Here is the complaint, with the article as an exhibit and copies of the entertaining letters to and from Star Magazine - this is a 3 meg PDF
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Katie-Holmes-American-Media-Complaint.pdf

Here is a reply I wrote a few minutes ago in RMACK's thread outlining the some of the E-meter I have been researching:

I won't be commenting upon the wording of the cover story but I think the lawyers are going to have fun if it ever gets to court..after all, even court is nothing more than a theatrical though an expensive one


Here you go:

1) A search of google scholar provides 2100 pages when you search for

electricity endorphins LINK (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=electricity+endorphins&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on)


2) I measured a Neurostim 2000 TENS (Transient Electrical Nerve Stimulation) and including the pulse duty cycle in the math to determine current equivalents,, the E-meter beat the Neurostim by over a factor of TEN as far as DOSE of current goes, as being DC it is a 100% duty cycle.. Hulda Clark's Zapper, in turn, beats the E-meter by about a factor of five or ten more also. (Note1)

Put

electricity endorphins

into google web, the top 3 links are pages from Lermanet.com Exposing the CON LINK (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=electricity endorphins&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi&aql&oq)

The 4th is a thread I spent considerable time on WWP addressing this topic and contains some later cites..
The 6th or 7th is a thread on Physorg.com where I described the situation and cites I had and asked those guys if anyone knew anything...they did not.

Tons of good cites have confirmed that even small electrical stimulation is associated with release of the body's own opioids, call endorphins. The only question remaining is what the equivalent dose of morphine might be per hour of auditing. It is likely not enough to be noticeable - but response varies by a large factor. I don't have any idea, but the citations HERE (http://www.lermanet.com/endorphin-emeter.htm) lead me to believe that there is always some endorphines generated. Whether it is 5 micrograms per hour, 50 micrograms or 500 micrograms..or more morphine equivalent per hour, I don't know. This effect is NOT the whole story of $cientology, you have suggestion, covert hypnosis, expectation, and some old psychological techniques LINK (http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm)but the e-meter story is the hidden effector..and that effect needs to be EXPOSED.

There is no other occupational exposure I can find to direct current exposures, other than a study of telco linemen who had a higher incidence of leukemia.... This is because the internal ionization effect of direct current, and how BAD they are for you was known even to the electro-quacks of the 19th century...See THIS directory with 600 meg of stuff on electrotherapy guys from the 19th century: LINK
http://www.lermanet.com/members/electrotherapy/ (http://www.lermanet.com/members/electrotherapy/)

who used AC not DC because even they knew DC was BAD.. In many of the studies it was observed that the lower the AC (Alternating Current) frequency got, the higher the endorphines.. well the lowest frequency of all is Zero cycles per second and that my friends is called DC Direct Current.

Note1 - Hulda Clark's device is pulsed DC - the frequency you dial for killing various parasites is riding upon 5 volts direct current, so it goes from from 5 to 9 - I built one, didn't matter what frequency I used, I felt pretty good but not because I killed some parasites...which is also how her scam works! - its your body's own opioids called endorphines!

http://www.lermanet.com/cos/elron.jpg

The truth is that Electricity has worked since 154 AD, LINK when Scribonius Largus treated a man's leg pain by having him place his feet upon an electric eel! (Some say it started in the middle east 4500 years ago)

Scientology doesn't...and I can prove it: if there were was just one OT in $cientology you would not be reading this line of text.

Thank you for reading
Arnie Lerma

"How long would I have to send a small electrical current through your body,
while telling you things that you wanted to hear,
before you believed that I held the secrets to the universe?"

PS: pass the popcorn :drama:

Royal Prince Xenu
12th March 2011, 10:05 AM
"Glazed eyes and vacant expression" sounds like TR 0 hasn't been completed to EP.

The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that, "Scientology is no longer any fun."

If they can't keep celebs happy,
How can they keep the plebs in line?