If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Tom Cruise may not have considered all the implications of his suing some magazine about a story he didn't like. Like, that Katie might get to testify and would be free to speak, unbound by any non-disclosure agreement   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 61
    More: Interesting, Suri Cruise, Radar's Report, Dawson's Creek, In Touch, Tom Cruise, marriages, daughter Suri  
•       •       •

10035 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Nov 2013 at 4:06 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-30 01:01:48 AM
I join the COS if I can bang hot chicks two decades younger than me. Heck I live near their starbase.
 
2013-11-30 03:45:37 AM
popcorn. gif
 
2013-11-30 04:09:27 AM
1curr?

No.

No1curr.
 
2013-11-30 04:21:56 AM
OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...
 
2013-11-30 04:31:20 AM
If he's really gay who is going to be REALLY surprised?
 
2013-11-30 04:33:13 AM

feckingmorons: I join the COS if I can bang hot chicks two decades younger than me. Heck I live near their starbase.



if you're smart, like me, the millions I save by not being in the COS, I'd be banging hot chicks two decades younger than me every day until my heart gives out.
And I don't have to fark David Miscavige whenever he get's all Supreme Being of the Universe.
 
2013-11-30 04:50:22 AM
I clicked TFA and was cornfuzzled as to why this whole case wasn't thrown out under California's anti-SLAPP statute, since Cruise is the epitome of a public person who can't be defamed. A copy of the docket makes it look like the defendants didn't bother filing any sort of motion to strike or dismiss. Odd.

(Federal) Judges Tosses Tom Cruise's Nazi Argument

Random unofficial copy of the docket
 
2013-11-30 04:51:45 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...


There was probably a stipulation that if she said something she would be have to pay a penalty. That is with there was any NDA
 
2013-11-30 05:07:30 AM
I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.
 
2013-11-30 05:26:53 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...


It's not necessarily about money. Perhaps, via their agreement, if she talks about their marriage, Tom can and will expose everything she said in those secret cleansing ceremonies (whatever they're called) that Scientology has, where they make you divulge hideously embarrassing things about yourself (feelings, fantasies, actions, whatever).

To have that pipsqueak Tom Cruise (whom I like as an actor, btw) come out with, "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn" could be damaging, or at least embarrassing, to Holmes.
 
2013-11-30 05:32:26 AM

libranoelrose: popcorn. gif


So much YES to this. DO GO ON, Mr. Cruise.

*finds a sofa, gets comfortable*
 
2013-11-30 05:37:56 AM

MadAzza: B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...

It's not necessarily about money. Perhaps, via their agreement, if she talks about their marriage, Tom can and will expose everything she said in those secret cleansing ceremonies (whatever they're called) that Scientology has, where they make you divulge hideously embarrassing things about yourself (feelings, fantasies, actions, whatever).

To have that pipsqueak Tom Cruise (whom I like as an actor, btw) come out with, "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn" could be damaging, or at least embarrassing, to Holmes.



See, I put no credence to what the weirdos supposedly have on people in way of 'secrets'. Anyone can just 'Well, I just made up stuff because that's what I thought they wanted to hear'. However, photo and video proof of Katie Holmes masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn might be a little harder to brush aside.
 
2013-11-30 05:49:17 AM
1curr? 1curr?

Oh well, still no1curr!
 
2013-11-30 06:13:55 AM
Nice knowing ya, Kate. Sorry about that accident you are about to have.
 
2013-11-30 06:24:27 AM
I'm...I'm trying real hard to give a shiat.
 
2013-11-30 06:58:06 AM

feckingmorons: I join the COS if I can bang hot chicks two decades younger than me. Heck I live near their starbase.


I think that has less to do with being a Scientologist and more with being a very rich and famous movie star.
 
2013-11-30 07:52:46 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...


I'd be surprised if she wasn't offered a lump sum of money or something to go quietly.

I also suspect that a non-disclosure agreement isn't unusual for the rich and famous -- the simplest way to stick it to your ex is to write a tell all book.
 
2013-11-30 07:53:34 AM
It's all David Miscavige's fault. He's a suppressive person and slowly killing off the life force of Tom Cruise. Miscavige is a real monster and will ensure the downfall of the one religion teaching truth.
 
2013-11-30 08:11:00 AM
The worst part of that entire article, was the last sentence that says Taylor Swift has a part in the upcoming Giver movie.

/yes, I read the entire article
//it was very repetitive
 
2013-11-30 08:18:28 AM

MadAzza: "...enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn"



Who doesn't, really?
 
2013-11-30 08:18:56 AM
Now we're posting articles about something that might happen?
 
2013-11-30 08:25:53 AM
She was/is a B actress that never became really famous until she married Cruise.  Now, that they are divorced, she is still most famous for being his  ex-wife.  I am guessing her career didn't  restart the way she hoped it would and I am guessing she likes having the tabloids talk about her and the one way she can do that (since no one is going to talk about her acting) is start some shiat with Tom.
 
2013-11-30 08:29:05 AM

Pumpernickel bread: She was/is a B actress that never became really famous until she married Cruise.


Did she get the part in Batman Begins because of being married to Tom Cruise or was that before?
I know I heard he forbid her from doing Dark Knight so I'm curious how Batman came to be?
Because you're right, she NOT a good actress, and seemed too young for the role
 
2013-11-30 08:49:01 AM

GungFu: MadAzza: B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...

It's not necessarily about money. Perhaps, via their agreement, if she talks about their marriage, Tom can and will expose everything she said in those secret cleansing ceremonies (whatever they're called) that Scientology has, where they make you divulge hideously embarrassing things about yourself (feelings, fantasies, actions, whatever).

To have that pipsqueak Tom Cruise (whom I like as an actor, btw) come out with, "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn" could be damaging, or at least embarrassing, to Holmes.


See, I put no credence to what the weirdos supposedly have on people in way of 'secrets'. Anyone can just 'Well, I just made up stuff because that's what I thought they wanted to hear'. However, photo and video proof of Katie Holmes masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn might be a little harder to brush aside.


I'd have to judge for myself.

/fap
 
2013-11-30 08:51:32 AM

MadAzza: "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn"


Alright, my pants are off...please...continue on...
 
2013-11-30 09:16:30 AM

MadAzza: Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn.


Pic's or it didn't happen.
 
ecl
2013-11-30 09:36:59 AM

MadAzza: B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...

It's not necessarily about money. Perhaps, via their agreement, if she talks about their marriage, Tom can and will expose everything she said in those secret cleansing ceremonies (whatever they're called) that Scientology has, where they make you divulge hideously embarrassing things about yourself (feelings, fantasies, actions, whatever).

To have that pipsqueak Tom Cruise (whom I like as an actor, btw) come out with, "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn" could be damaging, or at least embarrassing, to Holmes.


Go on...
 
2013-11-30 09:37:12 AM

Gyrfalcon: I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.


This works if they're no longer married?
 
ecl
2013-11-30 09:39:58 AM

Jeteupthemiddle: The worst part of that entire article, was the last sentence that says Taylor Swift has a part in the upcoming Giver movie.

/yes, I read the entire article
//it was very repetitive


If you'd said Guyver I'd be all sorts of interested.  Now though?

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-30 09:46:37 AM

Bslim: Nice knowing ya, Kate. Sorry about that accident you are about to have.


(cruiseelectrocutingOprah.gif)
 
2013-11-30 10:00:32 AM

MadAzza: B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...

It's not necessarily about money. Perhaps, via their agreement, if she talks about their marriage, Tom can and will expose everything she said in those secret cleansing ceremonies (whatever they're called) that Scientology has, where they make you divulge hideously embarrassing things about yourself (feelings, fantasies, actions, whatever).

To have that pipsqueak Tom Cruise (whom I like as an actor, btw) come out with, "Kate (sic) enjoys masturbating to schoolgirl gang-rape porn" could be damaging, or at least embarrassing, to Holmes.


Only if she goes off with, um, certain aspects of Mr. Cruise's life that he and CoS would find more embarassing and damaging.

He can go Pearl Harbor. She has nukes.
 
2013-11-30 10:03:45 AM

HotWingAgenda: I clicked TFA and was cornfuzzled as to why this whole case wasn't thrown out under California's anti-SLAPP statute, since Cruise is the epitome of a public person who can't be defamed. A copy of the docket makes it look like the defendants didn't bother filing any sort of motion to strike or dismiss. Odd.

(Federal) Judges Tosses Tom Cruise's Nazi Argument

Random unofficial copy of the docket


Cruise has already won defamation cases (in this case about him having an affair with a guy). Celebrities can be defamed, but the bar is set higher than for non-public figures
 
2013-11-30 10:05:29 AM

ecl: Jeteupthemiddle: The worst part of that entire article, was the last sentence that says Taylor Swift has a part in the upcoming Giver movie.

/yes, I read the entire article
//it was very repetitive

If you'd said Guyver I'd be all sorts of interested.  Now though?

[img.fark.net image 500x848]


Is she wearing Depends?
 
ecl
2013-11-30 10:09:15 AM

Evil Mackerel: ecl: Jeteupthemiddle: The worst part of that entire article, was the last sentence that says Taylor Swift has a part in the upcoming Giver movie.

/yes, I read the entire article
//it was very repetitive

If you'd said Guyver I'd be all sorts of interested.  Now though?

[img.fark.net image 500x848]

Is she wearing Depends?


I love that picture.  She was originally wearing a bathing suit that merely resembled a diaper.
 
2013-11-30 10:20:07 AM

ArkAngel: HotWingAgenda: I clicked TFA and was cornfuzzled as to why this whole case wasn't thrown out under California's anti-SLAPP statute, since Cruise is the epitome of a public person who can't be defamed. A copy of the docket makes it look like the defendants didn't bother filing any sort of motion to strike or dismiss. Odd.

(Federal) Judges Tosses Tom Cruise's Nazi Argument

Random unofficial copy of the docket

Cruise has already won defamation cases (in this case about him having an affair with a guy). Celebrities can be defamed, but the bar is set higher than for non-public figures


Unfortunately for Cruise, one was a statement of fact ("I had sex with Tom Cruise") and the other has a great amount of subjectivity (Cruise "abandoned" his daughter and "chose" his religion over her). This ain't England.
 
2013-11-30 10:24:55 AM
However, Cruise insists he is an attentive and loving father, who stays in constant contact with Suri through phone calls and emails as his film commitments take him all over the world.

Bullshiat. You're not some jobbing actor struggling for work to put food on the tables or to keep a career going. You could stop working tomorrow, spend all your time with your kid living off residuals and still live well.

Or more realistically, you could take work in films that were being shot near where you live, not do promotion around the world and still make good work and see your child.
 
2013-11-30 10:54:58 AM

alice_600: If he's really gay who is going to be REALLY surprised?


Nobody. And he totally is. I'd tell you a "my ex's brother, an L.A. casting agent, told me about this one time..." story but no one would believe me. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA go ahead and sue me Tommy boy, I'm broke!
 
2013-11-30 10:59:01 AM
The only part of her testimony I'd be amused to read, is that one time she walked in on Tom and David Miscavage having a little pole-on-pole action.

/ Danger zone, indeed...
 
2013-11-30 11:21:58 AM

Gyrfalcon: I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.


Wrong. Each spouce holds and may waive.
 
2013-11-30 11:23:37 AM

foo monkey: Gyrfalcon: I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.

This works if they're no longer married?


The privilege covers only what occured during the marriage.
 
2013-11-30 11:42:04 AM
i244.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-30 11:46:53 AM

Por que tan serioso: foo monkey: Gyrfalcon: I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.

This works if they're no longer married?

The privilege covers only what occured during the marriage.


that still makes the point relevant though, as what the article is talking about is the NDA being negated and her being able to talk about what happened during the marriage.  so if he CAN say he doesn't want her testifying, whether or not the NDA is in play becomes irrelevant... all she can talk about is what happened AFTER they divorced...  or before they got married, i guess, but somehow i don't think any of THAT is what's being contested here.

dunno.  it really sounds like what's at the core of this lawsuit is the definition of "abandonment" and whether or not its usage in this situation crossed a line to gain shock value and sell copies of the magazines, ya know, like tabloids do.

personally, i would say that as long as SOMEONE responsible (i'm sure between the two of them they can afford child care while they're at work) is actively caring for suri, the fact that both parents are in the acting biz and therefore subject to remote shooting locations, it's not exactly fair to say that either of them should turn down work that would have them gone for long periods of time.  as long as some form of reasonably consistent contact is maintained, so what?  this is really only a thing because they're famous.  how many people do you think went for a month growing up without seeing a parent due to some form of business trip?
 
2013-11-30 12:01:57 PM

cynicalminion: Por que tan serioso: foo monkey: Gyrfalcon: I'm not sure Katie will be able to testify. In California, the spousal communication privilege can be invoked by both spouses--so Tom can have her testimony suppressed regardless of whether she wants to testify and regardless of any nondisclosure agreements. Since this is a civil suit, not a criminal case, and Katie isn't being subpoenaed for her testimony regarding Cruise's crimes--Tom can say "I don't want her testifying" and that should be that.

Assuming the attorney is bright enough to do that, which may not be true if HotWing is right.

This works if they're no longer married?

The privilege covers only what occured during the marriage.

that still makes the point relevant though, as what the article is talking about is the NDA being negated and her being able to talk about what happened during the marriage.  so if he CAN say he doesn't want her testifying, whether or not the NDA is in play becomes irrelevant... all she can talk about is what happened AFTER they divorced...  or before they got married, i guess, but somehow i don't think any of THAT is what's being contested here.

dunno.  it really sounds like what's at the core of this lawsuit is the definition of "abandonment" and whether or not its usage in this situation crossed a line to gain shock value and sell copies of the magazines, ya know, like tabloids do.

personally, i would say that as long as SOMEONE responsible (i'm sure between the two of them they can afford child care while they're at work) is actively caring for suri, the fact that both parents are in the acting biz and therefore subject to remote shooting locations, it's not exactly fair to say that either of them should turn down work that would have them gone for long periods of time.  as long as some form of reasonably consistent contact is maintained, so what?  this is really only a thing because they're famous.  how many people do you think went for a month growing up without seeing a parent due to some form of business trip?


Wrong. Either spouce holds and can waive the privilege. Neither spouse can invoke or waive on behalf of the other. If she volunteers info from the time of the marriage that is in violation of a separate agreement then she may be held responsible under the terms of that agreement.
 
2013-11-30 12:03:24 PM
Only in a civil case.
 
2013-11-30 12:09:17 PM
In a separate action brought after the breach.
 
2013-11-30 12:16:17 PM
*shrug* okay.  not a lawyer, and not in california, so however it works is fine by me. i am, however, still standing by my assessment that the only reason this is a thing is because of tabloid-hollywood-power-couple-omg BS.  ESPECIALLY because katie's not even involved in this UNLESS either tom or the magazine WANT her to testify.
 
2013-11-30 12:18:03 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: OK, I'm a little lost here. From what I recall, Katie wasn't entitled to any money in the divorce settlement beyond the child support. No doubt she probably gets an obscene amount in child support, but the point is she's legally entitled to it and Cruise can't take it away. So then, where is the incentive on Katie's part to adhere to this non-disclosure agreement? Did she have to agree to it in order to finalize the divorce? I've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of divorce, but IANAL and I've never been divorced, so...


I'm guessing the agreement was to not talk smack about $cientology or what Tommy was really doing in the pool house with all those greased up dudes in Speedos, or else she'll be joining Shelley Miscavige, wherever she's imprisoned/buried.
 
2013-11-30 12:20:11 PM
I recall that Oscar Wilde made this mistake in 1895, attempting to sue the Marquess of Queensberry for libel, and his karma ran him over like runaway coach.
 
2013-11-30 12:21:17 PM
He attempted, not "attempting." Sorry, bad grammar.
 
2013-11-30 12:22:14 PM
A runaway coach. Damn, I need coffee.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report