Caught In the Act

From California’s Ethical Standards for Mediators:

For mediation to be effective there must be broad public confidence in
the integrity and fairness of the process.  Mediators in court-connected
programs are responsiblke to the parties,  the public,  and the courts
for conducting themselves in a manner that merits confidence.
      
When William Richert  was informed by Plaintiff’s Counsel that
there would be a mediation in the WILLIAM RICHERT VS.
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA lawsuit,  on this date
March 14,  2008,  the name of the mediator was Joel M. Grossman.

Richert,  who after being told by Plaintiff’s Counsel for almost
three years now that there was nothing on paper for him
to review -  Richert has never been provided with a copy of
the DGA/WGA/AMPTP  Foreign Levy Agreement that is being
posted today on screenrights.net,   had grown uneasy with
the lawsuit,  suspecting that he and the class he represents
were being led off the path to justice.  He asked me if I knew
the name Joel M. Grossman.

Richert’s unease was justified.

During the writers strke of 1988,  Grossman,  then a partner at
Selvin & Weiner,  was outside counsel to the Writers Guild.

The primary aim of that strike was to secure contractual rights
to residual payments for foreign broadcasts of television shows.

At the same time,   President Reagan was preparing to sign the
Berne Convention.

When the strike was in its sixth month,  Lew Wasserman appeared.

A hidden deal was made,  and the strike was over.

Soon after,  the hidden deal was put into play and the conspiracy
involving so-called foreign levies began.

Every particpant in that hidden deal made in a back room of
the 1988 negotiations had a payday.

Immediately after the strike,  Grossman became executive
vice president of the labor relations and litigation divisions of
Sony Pictures Entertainmernt.

Any party to a mediation can object  to the mediator based on
the mediator’s ability to conduct the mediation impartially.

Richert objected to Grossman acting as a mediator based on
Richert’s understanding that Grossman had signed a foreign
levy agreement.

Plaintiff’s Counsel,  Neville Johnson,  told his client,  plaintiff
William Richert  that he and Grossman had no problem with
Grossman continuing and that Grossman had never signed
a foreign levy agreement.

Richert still objected and asked for a hearing before Judge West.

Grossman refused to budge and Johnson,  refusing  Richert’s
request for a meeting with Judge West,  told Richert he was
removing him as plaintiff in RICHERT VS. WRITERS GUILD
OF AMERICA,  which Johnson does not have the authority to
do.

There are two other plaintiffs,  heirs to deceased writers,
a widow of  a screenewriter and the daughter of another.
The mediation is now underway. 

Under  Rule 1620.5. Impartiality,  conflicts of interest,  disclosure and withdrawal,  a mediator must disclose the existence of
any grounds for disqualification of a judge specified in
Code of Civil Procedure 170.1.

Also -

Under Rule 1620.6. Competence (b) Truthul representation of background:

             “A mediator has a continuing obligation to truthfully
                represent his or her background to the court and
                participants.  Upon a request by any party,  a          
                mediator must provide truthful information regarding
                his or her experience,  training,  and education.”
 
Yesterday,  I wrote that the unions were not concerned with being
reckless in court because a key piece of evidence would be impossible
for anyone to produce.

That’s what  they think.

Today,  you will be seeing and reading the 1990 secret  agreement,
signed by Joel  M. Grossman,  in fact,  signed in four places by
Joel  M. Grossman.

Grossman violated Rule 1620.6. Competence (b) Truthful representation
of background.

It is unlikely that Grossman  came clean to the two women who,
at this moment,  are participating in a mediation that is corrupting
the integrtity of the court.

Under Code of Civil Procedure 170.1,

Grossman should have disclosed grounds for his disqualification
based on:

           Personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
           WILLIAM RICHERT VS. WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA.

           Knowledge that he is likely to be a marterial  witness in
           WILLIAM RICHERT VS. WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA.

The  WGA has claimed through former officer and board member
Carl Gottlieb and current board member Peter Lefcourt that
Robert Hadl represented the WGA in the negotiation of the original
1990 agreement.  You will see that is not the truth.
Hadl signed on behalf of  Wasserman.

Now,  this is confidential,  so please keep it to yourself.

There is a settlement on the foreign levies class action lawsuit
against the DGA.  Mediated by,  yes,  Grossman. 

So today is not the first time they have corrupted the integrity of
the court.

These guys are on a roll.

TRUST ME,    TO BE CONTINUED

Scroll Down for signatures.

Click Here to see the 'Original Secret Agreement'