Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Stolen "Breaking Bad" Script from car of Bryan Cranston


Afraid that guarded secrets could come to light before the series "Breaking Bad" returns this summer.

Star Bryan Cranston reported a theft March 1, alleging that someone broke his car window and snatched a shoulder bag containing an iPad and his Breaking Bad script, according to Albuquerque’s ABC affiliate, KOAT-TV. Court documents obtained by ABCNews.com reveal that one of Cranston’s employees, Taryn Feingold, was contacted by a confidential informant, who reportedly overheard a man at a local bar boasting about how he broke into a vehicle in the Sandia Mountain Range.

 He then reportedly showed his company “some type of laptop or iPad,” according to the complaint, while “describing how he also had a script from the Breaking Bad series.”

On Saturday, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office arrested suspect Xavier McAfee for burglary, the complaint states.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/breaking-bad-bryan-cranstons-script-430876


CBS "Glass House" at War with ABC "Big Brother"


Last year, CBS went to war against ABC over the latter's strangers-living-together reality TV series Glass House, alleged to be a copycat of Big Brother.

A judge won't stop the network from pursuing claims that ex-'Big Brother' producers violated trade secrets by creating an alleged copycat show on ABC.

After a federal judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred ABC from airing Glass House, the lawsuit was dropped. The fact that the series hadn't performed particularly well in the ratings likely contributed to CBS' decision to retreat.

But that doesn't mean the legal battle is over.

Even as CBS announced it was dropping its claim against ABC, the network said it would continue to fight Glass House producers alleged to have stolen trade secrets. Now, thanks a decision from a federal judge last week, Glass House executive producer Kenny Rosen, ABC vp alternative programming Corie Henson and Glass House producer Michael O'Sullivan could be in danger of having to pay a lot of money to CBS.

Although much of the attention paid to last year's CBS-vs.-ABC skirmish focused on the issue of copyright -- and formed the basis for U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess' denial of a restraining order -- the trade secrets aspect of the case arguably was more provocative, a rare instance in Hollywood where the flight of producers from one network to another instigated a battle over duties of secrecy.
After CBS dropped its case against ABC, the network announced it would proceed in arbitration, which caused Rosen, Henson and O'Sullivan to file a lawsuit against CBS, alleging that CBS was "using the 'litigation equivalent of war' " and has brought arbitration against them "as part of its campaign to prevent or, at the very least, disrupt and harass the production of "Glass House."
The producers demanded that CBS be ordered to cease the harassment. The producers argued that the network had given up its right to arbitration by suing them.
But on March 18, Feess rejected the producers' attempt to stop CBS, allowing the network to go ahead with arbitration.

Read the full ruling here... http://www.scribd.com/doc/132292027/Glasshouse

The judge analyzed the contract between the parties, in particular the provision that states “any effort by any party to enforce, interpret, construe, rescind, terminate or annul this Agreement, or any provision thereof” is to be resolved by binding arbitration.

Feess concludes that "challenges to its enforceability and its interpretation should be arbitrated," meaning it will be up to an arbitrator to decide whether the dispute is arbitrable (as funny as that might sound).

But Feess also provided the reason why the dispute likely will stick in arbitration, saying that even if this particular decision wasn't up to the arbitrator, "the result would not change."

"The dispute in the initial litigation was complex and involved not only Rosen but also ABC, which was not a party to the Arbitration Clause and could not have been forced into arbitration," the judge wrote. "Moreover, the suit included non-arbitrable claims, most notably the CBS claim that ABC’s Glass House infringed on CBS’ claimed copyright in its Big Brother reality series."

The judge concluded that the "relative brief" lawsuit brought by CBS last year didn't prejudice Rosen nor waive CBS' right to arbitrate.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-allowed-pursue-glass-house-430672


"The Lone Ranger" Fined by OSHA after Death of Crew Member


OSHA fines the production company behind the new "Lone Ranger" movie -- after a crew member drowned in a diving accident on set last year -- issuing fines exceeding $61,000.

According to official documents, Cal OSHA (aka California's Occupational Safety and Health Administration) issued the fines against Silver Bullet Productions, claiming the company was directly at fault in the death of Mike Bridger, a welder and water safety guy working on the film.
Mr. Bridger died last September while cleaning one of the movie's deep water tanks.

OSHA cited Silver Bullet for numerous violations, but the four big ones were -- 1) SB failed to obtain medical records for the diver, 2) SB did not have a standby diver available when Bridger was in the water, 3) SB let Bridger dive without a tether, 4) Bridger dove without a partner.

For these violations, OSHA fined SB $45,000. In addition, there were six less serious violations for which SB was fined $16,445 ... bringing the total fines to $61,445.

Source: http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/25/the-lone-ranger-osha-silver-bullet-fined/#ixzz2OegHVHul



Monday, March 25, 2013

Teenagers spy on taxi drivers to avoid repeat of child Sex Ring Scandal


The young “mystery shoppers” are being asked by the local council to catch taxis in a bid to root out “inappropriate behavior” by potential sex abusers.

It is part of a crackdown by Rochdale council on cab drivers and takeaway workers in the town following the conviction of nine men last year for offenses including rape and sexual activity with a child.

Two of the nine men convicted of exploiting girls as young as 13, who were often plied with drink and drugs before being passed around for sex, were taxi drivers, while another two worked in a takeaway.

It is understood that licensing officials have been recruiting the teenagers, aged 15 and 16, from outside Rochdale in a bid to ensure there are no recriminations for their participation in the scheme.

The council stressed that the checks were not aimed at “entrapping” cabbies but were designed to ensure they were complying with their licenses.

But the youngsters are also being asked to listen out for any “inappropriate behavior or language” used by cabbies and takeaway workers who could have their licenses taken away and be reported to the police if they show predatory behavior.

The intelligence-gathering youngsters will pass on any concerns to the licensing authority who will work with the police on any further action.

Colin Lambert, Rochdale council leader, said: "All aspects of the safety of adults and children will be explored within the borough and that includes ensuring the safety of those who use private hire or licensed taxis, food outlets or other premises.”

The town hall said that many improvements had already been put in place and that they were offering advice to other councils about keeping children safe.

           Have you seen any “inappropriate behavior” by taxi or any other forms of public transportation?


Read More... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9953385/Teens-asked-to-spy-on-taxi-drivers-to-avoid-sex-ring-scandal.html



Yoko Ono sued over fashion inspired by her husband John Lennon


a New York designer, who alleges that the 80-year-old artist copied her work for a new fashion range supposedly inspired by John Lennon.

Haleh Nematzadeh a 36-year-old Iranian-American claims that the "1969-2012" menswear series features motifs from her own designs, which she had submitted to a retailer now selling Ms Ono's clothes.

Ms Ono has said that the range – which features $335 trousers (£220) and $200 jock straps – was influenced by a set of drawings that she gave Lennon as a present when they married in 1969.

She alleges that Opening Ceremony and Ms Ono lifted her designs for their range without consulting her or giving her credit, and dismisses Ms Ono's "feeble attempt" to explain her influences.

Read More... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/the-beatles/9953043/Yoko-Ono-sued-over-fashion-range.html



Scammers on the Rise again pretending to be Family Members


The scam was popular about 10 years ago in the form of phone calls, emails and chats through social websites.

 The latest an elderly Swiss couple have been duped out of more than £355,000 by a woman pretending to be their granddaughter – one of the largest such scams on record in the country.

Police in Zurich said the couple, aged in their 70s, received a call in February from a woman posing as their granddaughter, claiming she was in financial difficulty.

Over the course of several weeks, she allegedly convinced the couple to hand over money to a friend of hers.

The couple only realised they had been scammed in mid-March, when they contacted their real granddaughter to ask why they had not heard back from her in a while, only to find out she had never asked them for money.

She said these types of scams – where someone posing as family pretends to be in desperate need of money to trick elderly people out of their savings – have long been a problem in the Swiss financial capital.

Read More... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/9952975/Couple-duped-out-of-thousands-by-woman-pretending-to-be-granddaughter.html


NYC's Met Museum duping on fees $25.00 a ticket, Not Really!


6 million visitors a year, and most pay $25.00 when they don't have to. At the heart of a class-action lawsuit this month accusing the Met of scheming to defraud the public into believing the fees are required.

Before visitors to the Metropolitan Museum of Art can stroll past the Picassos, Renoirs, Rembrandts and other priceless works, they must first deal with the ticket line, the posted $25 adult admission and the meaning of the word in
                                    smaller type just beneath it: "recommended."

Many people, especially foreign tourists, don't see it, don't understand it or don't question it. If they ask, they are told the fee is merely a suggested donation: You can pay what you wish, but you must pay something.

Confusion over what's required to enter one of the world's great museums, which draws more than 6 million visitors a year, is at the heart of a class-action lawsuit this month accusing the Met of scheming to defraud the public into believing the fees are required.

The suit seeks compensation for museum members and visitors who paid by credit card over the past few years, though some who choose to pay less than the full price pull out a $10 or $5 bill. Some fork over a buck or loose change. Those who balk at paying anything at all are told they won't be allowed in unless they pay something, even a penny.

"I just asked for one adult general admissions and he just said, '$25,'" says Richard Johns, a high school math teacher from Little Rock, Ark., who paid the full price at the museum this past week. "It should be made clear that it is a donation you are required to make. Especially for foreign tourists who don't understand. Most people don't know it."

Met spokesman Harold Holzer denied any deception and said a policy of requiring visitors to pay at least something has been in place for more than four decades. "We are confident that the courts will see through this insupportable nuisance lawsuit," he said.

"The museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to their financial circumstances," said Arnold Weiss, one of two attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of three museum-goers, a New Yorker and two tourists from the Czech Republic. "But instead, the museum has been converted into an elite tourist attraction."

Among the allegations are that third-party websites do not mention the recommended fee, and that the museum sells memberships that carry the benefit of free admission, even though the public is already entitled to free admission.

Lined up to testify is a former museum supervisor who oversaw and trained the Met's admissions cashiers from 2007 to 2011, said Michael Hiller, the other attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The Met's Holzer said the basis for the lawsuit — that admission is intended to be free — is wrong because the state law the plaintiffs cited has been superseded many times and the city approved pay-what-you-wish admissions in 1970.

As to the wording change on the sign, he said the museum "actually thought at the time, and still thinks, that 'recommended' is softer than 'suggested,' so the former employee is quite wrong here."

New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs agreed to the museum's request in 1970 for a general admission as long as the amount was left up to individuals and that the signage reflected that. Similar arrangements are in place for other cultural institutions that operate on city-owned land and property and receive support from the city, such as the American Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Museum. It's also a model that's been replicated in other cities.

The Metropolitan Museum is one of the world's richest cultural institutions, with a $2.58 billion investment portfolio, and isn't reliant on admissions fees to pay the majority of its bills. Sixteen percent of its $239 million budget in fiscal 2012 came from admissions. That same year, the city paid 11 percent of its operating budget.

                          As a nonprofit organization, the museum pays no income taxes.

Holzer also noted that in the past fiscal year, 41 percent of visitors to the Met paid the full recommended admission price — $25 for adults, $17 for seniors and $12 for students.

A random sampling of visitors leaving the museum found that there was a general awareness that "recommended" implied you could pay less than the posted price.

But Dan Larson and his son Jake, visiting the museum last week from Duluth, Minn., were unaware there was any room to negotiate the admission price. They paid the full $25 each for adult tickets, with a credit card.

"My understanding was you pay the recommended price," said Larson, 50. "That's clearly not displayed."

Alexander Kulessa, a 23-year-old university student from Germany, said friends who had previously visited New York tipped him off about the admission fee.

"They said, 'Don't pay $25,'" said Kulessa. "They said it will be written everywhere to pay $25 but you don't have to pay that. You don't even have to pay the student price."

Read More... http://news.yahoo.com/nycs-met-museum-accused-duping-fees-175540738.html

                                                            What did you pay?