T. Cruise loses suit, must pay porn wife $28,000

[Guest]

The nations authoritative newspaper;-), the National Enquirer reports that Tom Cruise lost his much-publicized $100 million lawsuit against the wife of porn star Chad Slater. Cruise sued Mrs. Slater because she told the Enquirer her hubbby said he'd had an affair with Cruise. Chad Slater himself retracted his story when Cruise sued him. Mrs. Slater's attorney, Charles Kester noted: "They put in a declaration from Slater saying 'I never told anybody this story, I never told my wife this story; therefore when she told the Enquirer the story, she must have just been making it up.'"

But Cruise's suit against Slater alleged just the opposite--that Slater was spreading the story of an affair between the two men. The glaring contradiction did not escape the judge, who noted Cruise "cannot have it both ways." The court found the allegations against Mrs. Slater to be without merit, and ordered Cruise to pick up Mrs. Slater's legal tab.

Well, one of the things that riles me about the U.S. legal system is that we're one of the only countries without a "loser picks up both sides' legal fees" system. How did Mrs. Slater get justice in this instance? Does the suit have to be particularly outrageous or what?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>The court found the allegations against Mrs. Slater

>to be without merit, and ordered Cruise to pick up Mrs.

>Slater's legal tab.

>Well, one of the things that riles me about the U.S. legal

>system is that we're one of the only countries

>without a "loser picks up both sides' legal fees"

>system. How did Mrs. Slater get justice in this instance?

>Does the suit have to be particularly outrageous or what?

 

Maybe it's brain damage from New Year's Eve, but I'm a little confused by the question...didn't you say the judge did make Cruise pay Mrs. Slater's legal fees (which would mean the loser did pay both sides' fees in this case)? Or are you saying she should have gotten damages on top of her fees without having to countersue for them?

[Guest RydeMyButt]

>Well, one of the things that riles me about the U.S. legal

>system is that we're one of the only countries

>without a "loser picks up both sides' legal fees"

>system. How did Mrs. Slater get justice in this instance?

>Does the suit have to be particularly outrageous or what?

 

OK - so when people are injured by products created by large corporations, and they go to a lawyer for help, and the first thing the lawyer tells them is "Ok, Mr. Smith, I'll take the case, and it will be on a contingent fee basis...but if we lose, you will probably have to pay the ABC corporation $50,000 to $100,000 or more in legal fees, and will therefore lose your savings and have your wages garnished, etc." how many people would go forward?

 

Not many. You make ordinary people liable for legal bills (which are in most other cases covered by insurance) and you will lock them out of the courthouse, making "justice" available only to the wealthy.

 

Cheers.

[+ deej]

Isn't this sorta 3-months-old news?

[Guest]

>>The court found the allegations against Mrs. Slater

>>to be without merit, and ordered Cruise to pick up Mrs.

>>Slater's legal tab.

>>Well, one of the things that riles me about the U.S. legal

>>system is that we're one of the only countries

>>without a "loser picks up both sides' legal fees"

>>system. How did Mrs. Slater get justice in this instance?

>>Does the suit have to be particularly outrageous or what?

>

>Maybe it's brain damage from New Year's Eve, but I'm a

>little confused by the question...didn't you say the judge

>did make Cruise pay Mrs. Slater's legal fees (which would

>mean the loser did pay both sides' fees in this case)? Or

>are you saying she should have gotten damages on top of her

>fees without having to countersue for them?

 

Gotta sober up, Devon. I said that Mrs. Slater DID get justice. I'm just (pleasantly) surprised she did. I'm just wondering why Kristina Slater managed to get her money back, whereas most people who have to defend frivolous suits are usually SOL. You're right, though. Tom should have had to pay Mrs. Slater punitive damages for his abuse of the legal system. He's clearly doing the "Scientology" technique of using the legeal system for intimidation rather than justice.

[Guest]

You may be thinking of Tom Cruise's suit against Chad Slater. Tom dropped that suit after Chad retracted his statements. The current story, regarding Kristina Slater, is in the current (1/8/02) issue of the National Enquirer. It turns out that Tom's suit against Chad bit him in the ass. This is because it the first suit, he alleged Chad was telling everyone he'd had a sexual relationship with him. Then, in the next suit, he alleged Kristina lied about Chad having told her he'd had a relationship with him. Tom Cruise's duplicity was glaringly obvious, even to the judge.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Gotta sober up, Devon. I said that Mrs. Slater DID get

>justice.

 

Ohhhhhh, you meant "how did she manage to get justice," not "how is that justice?" -- sheesh... now you know the "D" in "Devon" stands for "duh..."

[+ deej]

That's the same case, the one against the wife. I could swear I read about the decision weeks ago, or heard it on ET or somewhere like that.

 

Of course, we ARE talking about a story in the Enquirer. Why should their timeliness be any better than their accuracy? :o

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>and will therefore lose your savings and have your wages

>garnished, etc." how many people would go forward?

>

 

Well - let's see now - If I had my wages "garnished" I think I would pick some thinly sliced cucumber, perhaps a dollop of horse radish and some capers - all on a bed of romaine