Singer has already served 100 hours of community service.
Fade In Demands Retraction
Fade In magazine publisher Audrey Kelly has denied issues raised by an investigative report published by TheWrap last week.
Slideshow
Pictures from inside and outside the late pop star's Holmby Hills home, including shots of the bedroom where paramedics tried to resuscitate him, a mannequin bartender and a bloody shirt hanging in his closet. See more at RadarOnline.
A lawyer for Fade In magazine publisher Audrey Kelly has denied issues raised by an investigative report published by TheWrap last week about a screenplay contest conducted by the publication. The attorney has demanded a retraction and threatened legal action.
Michael Plonsker, Kelly’s attorney, said in a letter that TheWrap's article was misinformed, and responded in detail to allegations by former contest winners.
The letter said Fade In had made good on all promises of cash, prizes and connections to contestants Patrice Williams, Powell Weaver and Craig Berger.
But all three denied receiving portions of their promised prizes and/or industry connections in interviews with TheWrap.
The letter also said that Apple had been a sponsor of the competition since 1996, but “as of this year, Apple no longer participates in any sponsorship.” Apple is currently listed as a sponsor on the current Fade In Awards web page, with no specification of the year of its sponsorship.
Apple spokeswoman Kristen Huguet told TheWrap that the company has had no involvement with the competition “in recent years.” The letter from Kelly's lawyer reiterated that “Fade In has maintained a relationship with both Apple Computers and Waterman (pens) over the years.”
TheWrap's story included interviews with a number of former contest winners who complained that the Fade In Awards gave a false impression that winners would get promoted in Hollywood and get access to top screenwriters, including Eric Roth, James Gray and Scott Rosenberg -- who are listed among 10 members of the Fade In Advisory Board on the contest’s web page and in the magazine’s house ad for the contest.
The letter said that “at least three” of TheWrap's sources were “clearly unreliable,” but named only one, former winner David Schumacher, who the letter said was “under criminal investigation by multiple government agencies.”
An attorney for Schumacher denied it. "The claim that there is an ongoing criminal investigation is a malicious, defamatory lie," Marty Singer, an attorney for David Schumacher told TheWrap on Sunday.
Singer also drafted a letter to Kelly's attorney, in which he said Schumacher never made criminal threats against Kelly.
He added: "The facts are that Mr. Schumacher made a request of Fade In magazine and Ms. Kelly to pay him his $1500 fee and honor his winning. Rather than respond, she filed a police report with the LAPD that Mr. Schumacher was threatening and harassing her.”
Singer, who said he coincidentally had heard from other contest winners dissatisfied with Kelly, said he would be contacting the Los Angeles Police Department about the filing of a "false police report."
The letter denied that Kelly had told Schumacher that she would put him “on a map,” as Schumacher told TheWrap. And she further denied having promised Schumacher that anyone on the board of advisors would judge or give notes on the screenplays.
In the letter, Kelly also denied driving a Porsche, or that the magazine has ever paid her personal expenses, as alleged in a 2002 lawsuit by her former business associate, Douglas Q.
Comments
fifi Says
this is some really, hard hitting investigative reporting.games
Anonymous Says
Ouch. As a quarter-finalist this year (2009) this is nerve-wracking to read. When reading Fade In one assumes (in an industry filled with so many contests that are obviously intended as profit makers only) that this contest is a valid one. But your report seems to point out some harsh realities that are hard to defend against.
But maybe it'll force them to clean up their game.
The one thing kind of left hanging here is why any noted writer would allow them to continue to use their name fraudulently. I know Fade In has a great name but weren't all writers "unknowns" at one point looking to get their shot? I couldn't live with knowing my name was being used to lure entry fees away from people. Your piece says one of the writers allowed them to use his name because they'd been "good to him" in his early career but an untruth is still an untruth (if that's the case as it appears to be here.)
Great piece, folks. Kudos for doing the homework and presenting the facts in such a detailed fashion.
Maybe you should write a script about it...
this story is a sign that there is too much BSC in the world Says
*sigh*
Anonymous Says
Hey, this is some really, hard hitting investigative reporting. Meanwhile the LA Times, Variety and other actual news sources is reporting that the WGA is in the red for a couple mil and slashing jobs after their botched strike. Sorry these contestants didn't get their due, but how about some real reporting about real issues that affect real writers.
Don't feel bad, that hack Fink didn't (or wouldn't) write about this either.
From the LA Times:
Writers Guild to cut workers amid shortfall
About 20 employees will be laid off, perhaps starting this week, to offset a $2-million budget hole.
By Richard Verrier
March 17, 2009
Confronted with a growing budget deficit, the Writers Guild of America, West plans to cut about 20 positions by the end of the month.
The guild, which has about 185 employees, notified worker representatives last week that layoffs, which could begin this week, were needed to plug a budget hole of more than $2 million, said two people familiar with the matter. The union, which has 8,000 members, has annual operating expenses of about $25 million.
A guild representative declined to comment.
The layoffs can be directly tied to the tough times for Hollywood writers.
As scripted shows went dark during the 100-day writers strike last year, television networks beefed up production of reality programs -- which typically don't use union writers -- to fill the airwaves. That continued after the strike ended in February, creating fewer opportunities for writers. Some scripted shows didn't come back, while others returned with fewer episodes.
Writers also found it harder to command the same fees as they had in the past for work on network shows, which have been losing viewers to the Internet. More recently, the slowdown in work has been exacerbated by networks' ordering fewer pilots for new series.
All of which has meant less money rolling into the guild's coffers. The WGA's income depends on how much its members earn. Guild members, as part of their union dues, are required to contribute 1.5% of their earnings each quarter.
Also contributing to the budget shortfall, people familiar with the union's finances say, is the guild's ongoing campaign to organize writers in the reality TV sector who work behind the scenes crafting dialogue for programs. The guild spent about $400,000 on the drive last year, a person familiar with the situation said.
Some of the 20 positions could be eliminated through attrition, resulting in fewer layoffs. Affected employees will receive severance packages and a guarantee that they will be rehired if the union's finances improve.
Patrice Williams Says
I just read the letter from the attorney. I met both Michael and Audrey when I filed suit against Fade In, 11/2008. I got a default judgement when they did not show up. They then appealed and I had to go back to court. (But that was fine as I had all of my documentation proving my case).
Next court date, they showed. We talked. I agreed to drop the case if they came up with the prize money and court costs and promised to submit a press release on my win.
They keep holding onto the falsehood that I somehow "refused" to turn in a W-9 and that is the only reason why I did not get paid. I submitted my screenplay in 2006, was notified I won Summer 2007 and sent in the W-9 at that time. Finally took them to court in 11/2008. I completed "another" 2009 at court and gave to them in front of the Judge as proof. They handed over the payment.
They did agree to "promote" my screenplay (and other 2007 winners) in Variety or Hollywood Reporter through a press release or pay me $119 by Spring of 2009.
When I approached them a month ago regarding the press release agreement, I was told they owed me nothing (to put it in a nutshell) and refused. Our agreement is part of the official court documents we BOTH signed (Beverly Hills Superior Court #08S01601).
Screenwriters, this is what you are in for if you submit to this contest.
Anonymous Says
To write that someone is “under criminal investigation by multiple government agencies" sounds possibly paranoid and certainly libelous if not true.
Ms. Kelly may have another lawsuit to defend against.
Anonymous Says
gee, your story must've hit a nerve..
NEW COMMENT