| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| "Girls Gone Wild" founder jailed for contempt |
| 2007-04-24 |
| Blowing his nose and wiping away tears, the multimillionaire founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" video empire pleaded guilty to contempt of court Monday and was sentenced to 35 days in jail. Joe Francis, who was sued by seven women who were minors when filmed, apologized to the judge for yelling at the plaintiffs during settlement talks. Francis drew the contempt charge during negotiations to settle the federal lawsuit brought after his production company filmed the women at Panama City Beach in 2003. Attorneys for the women said Francis, who makes a reported $29 million a year taping topless women for his videos, lost his temper in negotiations and yelled obscenities at them. U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak ordered Francis to settle the case or go to jail for contempt of court. When talks fell through, Francis lashed out at Smoak in the media, calling him a "judge gone wild" and questioning the judge's authority to order a settlement. Stupid move. Don't ever slag a judge in the media when you're appearing before him. His attorney, Jan Handzlik, said being in jail had changed his client. "He is a different man. Undoubtedly he is a different man," he said. "After what his cellmate did to him." |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #8 Darn, Joe, I am amazed! I did not need babelfish to read your post and it makes a complete sense! ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-04-24 22:43 |
| #7 Maybe the local prison imam will convert him. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-04-24 22:39 |
| #6 Even so, a person does not have to sign any settlement agreement iff the final terms are NOT what he understood them to be, or something was wilfully concealed from him, i.e. so-called "LEGAL FRAUD/DECEPTION/THEFT". THE US Legal system is intentionally designed to decide guilt or innocence on a case-by-case basis. ANY CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HIS DAY IN COURT AND TO BE MADE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTOOD + COGNIZANT OF WHAT KIND OF AGREEMENT/TERMS IS BEING MADE IN HIS NAME OR ON HIS BEHALF. Its akin to finding a person "guilty" without giving public or formal notice of guilt = judgement, ergo the burden is on the same to prove he's "innocent". FAR TOO MANY JURISTS GO FOR THE QUICK OR CONVENIENT WAY OF LAW OR RESOLUTION WHICH DISRESPECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, AS WELL AS JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS. NO LAW SAYS OR INTENDS ONLY LAWYERS DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE "SETTLED". such interprettaions are fallacious, dubious, andor mostly political/PC, NOT "LEGAL". IMO iff Francis has overwhelming or conclusive evidence on his side, he should appeal including by suit to overturning the settlement. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-24 21:18 |
| #5 My understanding is that a settlement was reached. When it came time to sign the papers, they read something different than the agreement. The plaintiff moved to compel the settlement as agreed to, and the defendant had nothing to say, yet refused to live up to the agreement. The judge would not have Ordered a settlement unless the extraneous evidence supported the fact that they had a settlement agreement. As an old boss once tought me: "An Order is an order." |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2007-04-24 11:43 |
| #4 This guy gives "stupid" a whole new meaning. stupid tax is the answer. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-04-24 10:58 |
| #3 This guy gives "stupid" a whole new meaning. |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-04-24 10:27 |
| #2 In this case he has some degree of sympathy. To start with, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. The girls are guilty of deception, and voluntarily removed their clothing, but are now claiming harm in the millions of dollars for having pictures of their breasts taken. In a few months they would have been legal and it would not have been at issue. He has already paid a $1.6M fine as criminal sanction for not keeping the right records. The judge claims to have been "snookered" by him and his lawyers into signing off on a settlement that was not what he thought it was; but even so, ordering a settlement instead of reaching a judgment is very odd in a civil trial. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-04-24 08:54 |
| #1 Joe Francis, who was sued by seven women who were minors when filmed, apologized to the judge for yelling at the plaintiffs during settlement talks. Well, it wasn't like he was on the phone talking to his child. Paging Mr. Baldwin, white courtesy phone. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-04-24 08:41 |