Gloria Allred

Open Letter to Charlie Sheen

2010-11-19T07:27:08Z

Dear Charlie,

You did it again. I can almost see the smirk on your face. You were involved in a scandal in New York where you damaged property and your female companion was allegedly so frightened by your conduct that she hid in the bathroom.

The resulting coverage boosted your ratings for your CBS show "Two and a Half Men". What you did in the hotel room seemed not to faze you any more than your past criminal conduct has.

Yesterday you were quoted on Extra as saying "If a guy has one bad night everybody goes insane and panics. I'm not panicking." I can understand why you aren't panicking Charlie. By now, you understand that the mainstream press and the Hollywood press have their own addiction. They are addicted to celebrities and to scandal, and you are one of their favorite "uppers".

They love covering what you do, because it is good for their business as well. The fact that you have hurt women in the past and that you present a potential risk to them in the future if you do not get help seems to be of little or no concern to the press.

They either ignore it, gloss over it or minimize it. For example, last Saturday night, CNN aired what they titled "The Charlie Sheen Story". Nowhere in the broadcast was it mentioned that a criminal case was filed against you in Malibu, CA in 1997 (People v. Sheen, Case #7MA0345) or that in that case, my client, Brittany Ashland, alleged that she suffered substantial physical injuries because of you. Nobody mentioned that you pled no contest in that case to one count of battery with serious injuries, Penal Code Section 243D, a misdemeanor. CNN completely failed to state that your sentence was one year suspended jail time, two years probation, $2,800 fine, 300 hours of community service and 8 counseling sessions.

Elsewhere in the media, there was also hardly any mention of that case when reporters discussed your latest scandal. Instead the discussion was about you, your addictions, whether you party with prostitutes, and your ability to continue to work on your hit show. In other words, with rare exception it was all about Charlie, with minimal mention of women you have hurt in the past.

Almost nobody mentioned that in the recent criminal case brought against you in Colorado that you were originally charged with felony conduct against your wife Brooke Meuller. Almost nobody quoted the full quote of one of the responding police officers to your home in Aspen.

Valerie McFarlane (also my client) has stated "I was one of the responding police officers on Christmas day 2009 to the Sheen home in Aspen. During my investigation I interviewed Charlie Sheen's wife. I also observed her injuries and photographed them for the record. I observed a red mark on the upper part of her neck which appeared to be as a result of a strangulation hold and red marks on her arms. I also saw older bruises that appeared to be in the healing process. A knife was recovered at the scene which Brooke alleged had been used by the defendant to threaten her. Brooke was crying uncontrollably as she described the incident to me."

In fact, the press barely mentioned that you were convicted of misdemeanor assault on your wife, Brooke Meuller for what you did to her in your home on Christmas Day 2009.

After all, it was only the mother of your children that you assaulted in your home.

Dangerous and criminal conduct against a woman seems not to matter to most press. What really matters to them is Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.

The fact that the court failed to require you to serve any time in custody for your criminal conduct in the case involving the victim Brittany Ashland,, and the criminal case involving your wife is not generally considered important enough for serious discussion. Instead there seems to be an almost secret admiration for how you get away without serious consequences for your dangerous criminal conduct.

I was in court in Aspen and noticed the smirk on your face when the court failed to sentence you to jail time. I understood why you smirked. As a celebrity you seemed to get away with what the typical person without money and power cannot. You might also have felt that the criminal justice system as well as most press stands in awe of your celebrity and appears to be seduced by it.

Charlie, I for one am not seduced by it. I don't think assaulting and hurting women is funny. I am not one of those standing in line hoping for an interview with you, or an autograph.

Instead, I think about women you will meet in the future. Will they be at risk of harm if you do not get help?

I think about your young daughters. What kind of message are they receiving about violent criminal conduct that men like you are permitted to engage in with little or no consequence?

What if men did to them what you have done to women?

You may have a smirk on your face now, but I doubt that you would think that it was funny if your daughters were the victims of criminal acts. At this point, for the sake of your daughters and other people's daughters I hope you and your enablers (the celebrity press) get help before it is too late.

Meg Whitman / Nicky Diaz Santillan

2010-10-07T19:29:43Z

Last week Nicky revealed how she was treated by Meg Whitman when she was employed by her as her housekeeper for 9 years.

Since then there have been many assertions by Meg Whitman that Nicky is being "manipulated."

Ms. Whitman has also gone on record as stating that Nicky was her friend, a member of her extended family and part of her family.

We are here today to respond to these statements.

Ms. Whitman has stated publicly over the past week that Nicky was "a part of our extended family".

The truth is that Nicky never asked or expected to be part of Ms. Whitman's family. She expected nothing other than to be treated as an employee, to be treated fairly, to be paid for the hours that she worked in accordance with California law and she certainly did not expect to be kicked to the curb and thrown out like yesterday's garbage when Ms. Whitman decided to run for political office.

Ms. Whitman, desperate to save her political campaign, has now compounded her mistreatment of Nicky by lying about their relationship. A member of her extended family -- really?   Nicky was never invited to any family events or even to share a meal with any member of Ms. Whitman's family. Even when Nicky was pregnant Ms. Whitman never offered her so much as a sandwich or a glass of water.

Ms. Whitman goes on to say in one of her public statements that she saw Nicky as "part of our family" The truth is that she never really saw Nicky at all. Where was Ms. Whitman when Nicky gave birth to her child? A visit to the hospital, a card or a phone call would have been nice but Ms. Whitman did none of these for the person that she said was part of her family. Also, during the 8 months that Nicky was home with the baby following the birth Ms. Whitman never called even once to find out how Nicky and the baby were doing, and when Nicky returned to work Ms. Whitman never inquired about the baby or bought the baby a gift.   This is the reality.

Perhaps Ms. Whitman should look up the definition of family and what it means before she starts throwing these words around as part of her political campaign. She should learn that family means being there in good times and bad and showing compassion.

Let's be very clear -- Ms. Whitman and Nicky never had the type of relationship that Ms. Whitman claims they had. Nicky was invisible to Ms. Whitman. Nicky was there to take out the trash, make the beds, clean the toilets, and do whatever else needed to be done. Now Nicky has to listen to Ms. Whitman talk about the close relationship they had and how they were friends and that Nicky was part of her extended family. When you have been treated the way that Nicky has been (fired, given no severance, told to pretend that you never met or worked for the Whitmans) it is hard to listen to these lies and hypocrisy.

It was especially hard for Nicky to listen to Meg Whitman suggest that the reason that Meg Whitman and her husband might not know about the 2003 Social Security letter, which they at first denied receiving, was because Nicky might have intercepted (and by implication stolen) it. Even though we later revealed that it was in fact received at the Whitman household and that Dr. Harsh's handwriting was on it and that he gave it to Nicky, Meg Whitman has never apologized to Nicky for the defamatory and false statements she made about Nicky's character.

This morning, Jill Armstrong, a former nanny in the Meg Whitman household spoke out publicly (in the San Francisco Chronicle P.8). Ms. Armstrong stated, "I totally believe" (Nicky Diaz). She told the reporter, Carla Marinucci, "I know the family, I know what it was like."

As for me, all I can say is if what it means to be part of Meg Whitman's extended family is to be her servant for nine years and then be discarded like an old shoe in the name of political expediency without any severance then count me out- I would like to go on record right now that under no circumstances do I wish to be a part of Ms. Whitman's extended family.

Ms. Whitman should tell the truth and not hide behind these false characterizations. She did not care about Nicky while Nicky worked for her. She did not care about Nicky when she fired her, and she did not care about Nicky after she was fired.

And she does not care about Nicky now.

Ms. Whitman has stated that "After Nov 2, no one's going to be watching out for Nicky Diaz." I guess that means that after November 2nd Nicky will no longer be considered a member of Whitman's extended family and their friendship will come to an end. Can we assume that after that date the Meg Whitman will reveal her true feelings about her former housekeeper and Ms. Whitman will no longer have to pretend that she cares one bit about Nicky Diaz?

Meg Whitman is wrong. Many people care about Nicky and will continue to do so long after November 2. It is unfortunate that Meg Whitman will not be one of them.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
Representing Nicky Diaz
October 5, 2010

I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHO I AM, WHICH IS WHY I AM HERE TODAY. I MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS AND I AM NOT ANYONE'S PUPPET. I REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT BEFORE I DECIDED TO SPEAK OUT. NOBODY MADE ME DO IT. MEG WHITMAN WAS WRONG WHEN SHE SAID THAT SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. NOBODY DID.   I SPOKE OUT BECAUSE I WANTED PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO MEG WHITMAN REALLY IS AND I AM GLAD THAT I DID SPEAK OUT.

    I WANT TO BE HEARD. I WANT PERSONS WHO CLEAN HOMES AND DO THE JOBS THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND WITH DIGNITY. I FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WE DO.

    HOUSEKEEPERS ARE HUMAN BEINGS TOO. WE LAUGH, WE CRY, WE HAVE FEELINGS. OUR BLOOD RUNS THROUGH OUR VEINS JUST LIKE IT DOES FOR ANYONE ELSE.   I AM NOT DOING THIS ONLY FOR ME, BUT ALSO FOR ALL PERSONS WHO ARE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THEIR EMPLOYERS.

    I KNEW THE RISKS OF SPEAKING OUT AND I WAS AFRAID FOR THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY. DESPITE MY FEAR, I DECIDED TO COME OUT FROM THE SHADOWS -- THE SHADOWS IN WHICH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIVE EVERYDAY. IT IS NOT FAIR THAT WE WORK HARD AND THEN GET THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE WITH NO THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US.

    WE HAVE FAMILIES TO SUPPORT JUST LIKE YOU DO. WE ARE HERE, WE NEED YOU - JUST LIKE YOU NEED US.

    MEG, DON'T SAY I WAS PART OF YOUR FAMILY BECAUSE YOU NEVER TREATED ME LIKE I WAS.

    NICANDRA DIAZ SANTILLAN
    Represented by Gloria Allred
    October 5, 2010

An Historic Day

2010-08-07T08:29:36Z

This is an historic day. For the first time a federal court has overturned

Proposition 8 and found that it violates the rights of gays and lesbians who should

enjoy a constitutional right to marry. The decision was a courageous one and I'm

proud of Judge Walker who made it. He conducted a trial which proves the harm

that loving gays and lesbians suffer when they are denied the right to marry, the

right that others are permitted to enjoy solely on account of their sexual orientation.

This case will now be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the

United States Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision on Proposition 8. This

may be a temporary victory but it's sweet. I hope that no stay will be granted

because I know what it means to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry and I

agree that they suffer irreparable harm for every day they are denied the right to

marry.

The Court concluded that the evidence proved that Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. The Court went on to say that California has no interest in discrimination against gay men and lesbians and that it is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. I believe that this decision was well reasoned. I hope that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will agree and once and for all afford equal rights to those who for too long have been denied them."

Kristina Hagan's Day In Court

2010-07-29T07:35:02Z

Today we have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Kristina Hagan, an actress, against

David Boreanaz alleging sexual harassment in employment. Ms. Hagan is a member of

both the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio

Artists.

She is an actress who is working towards her goals, but who like many other

actresses has not yet been able to achieve them. For that reason she is extremely

vulnerable as many actresses are in Hollywood.

Ms. Hagan's allegations are set forth in her lawsuit and we will have no further

comment on them.

We also represent another woman who has filed a charge of sexual harassment in

employment against Mr. Boreanaz. We have asked the California Department of Fair

Employment and Housing to investigate.

Ms. Hagan is looking forward to her day in Court.

Open Letter to Mel Gibson

2010-07-08T06:35:43Z

Dear Mr. Gibson,

Yesterday, shocking sexist and racist statements reportedly from you were published around the world. You allegedly told the mother of your youngest child that the way that she was dressed would get her "raped by a pack of N---ers' ". As an attorney who has represented many sexual assault victims and as a woman who is a survivor of rape myself, I want you to know how deeply offensive, appalling and harmful your reported statements are.

Women are not raped because of the way that they are dressed. Babies have been raped. Ninety year old women have been raped. Nuns have been raped. It had nothing to do with the way that they were dressed. Rape is an act of power, not of sex. It is an exercise of dominance by men who wish to exercise their power, and who care only about themselves, not the long lasting damage that they are inflicting on vulnerable victims.

Rape is not the fault of the innocent victim. It is the fault of the rapist who refuses to control his urge to hurt the person whom he has targeted. What if the rapist targeted your daughter? Would you blame her? I hope not. All female victims are someone else's daughter. How dare you blame them rather than those who commit a crime of rape against them. Also, I am disgusted that you would use a racist myth to suggest that African American men would want to rape a white woman. Most rapists are not African American and your reported statement is clearly and simply a racist stereotype about African American men. You owe all women and African American men a public apology and action to rehabilitate yourself so that you will never make such sexist and racist statements again.

Another Victim Of Roman Polanski

2010-06-30T07:29:09Z

Another alleged victim of Roman Polanski's sexually predatory conduct has come forward. Charlotte Lewis, of London England, who appeared in Roman Polanski's film, "Pirates", alleges that she was victimized by Mr. Polanski when she was 16 years old.

Mr. Polanksi had previously been charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

These charges have not yet been dismissed, but Mr. Polanksi entered a plea of engaging in unlawful intercourse with a minor, (a sexual crime against a child) and was scheduled to be sentenced on Feb 1, 1978. However, rather than appearing for sentencing, Mr. Polanski fled on that date. If Charlotte's allegations are accepted as true, than Mr. Polanski was able to victimize another child while he was a fugitive from justice. This means that Charlotte's allegations are relevant on the issue of sentencing. The defense , for example, may wish to portray their client as a loving father, and a law abiding citizen after he fled and failed to appear for his sentencing. The judge, however, can also consider credible claims of predatory conduct after Mr. Polanski fled when determining the appropriate sentence for Mr. Polanski. If the judge believes these claims it could certainly have an impact on the court's decision, especially if the judge believes that Mr. Polanski engaged in a similar modus operandi (M.O.) with Ms. Lewis.

Yesterday, Ms. Lewis and I met with a detective from the Los Angeles Police

Department and a high level Deputy District Attorney from The L.A. County

District Attorney's Office to provide details of what Ms. Lewis suffered as a result

of Mr. Polanski's conduct with her.

Even though Charlotte was afraid to report her allegations to law enforcement

at the time the incident allegedly occurred (for reasons common to many victims)

she did present fresh complaint evidence to law enforcement and it is in their

possession. Charlotte is also ready to testify under oath if as and when that would

ever be necessary in the legal process.

If Mr. Polanski thought that the sentence he was about to receive for the crime he committed against a child was unfair he could have withdrawn his plea. Instead of doing that , however, he chose to flee from the criminal justice system. To make matters worse, if he took advantage of another very vulnerable young victim after making his escape and avoiding the imposition of legal consequences, than he needs to face justice now for what he has done in the past.

If the court believes and gives weight to Charlotte's allegations, then Mr. Polanski deserves no compassion for the commission of his original crime to which he entered a plea, and no compassion for his age or the number of years that have passed since that crime was committed.

I hope that Charlotte's example of courage in coming forward will empower and encourage others who may have been victimized by Mr. Polanski to also come

forward and report their experiences to the law enforcement or me. Charlotte and I

commend L.A. County District Attorney, Steve Cooley, for pursuing justice in the

case of Roman Polanski. Accountability for a crime against a child has no time limit

and the pursuit of Mr. Polanski sends an important message to others. That message

appears to be - don't flee or law enforcement will come after you. Even if you are

rich, famous and powerful, if you become a fugitive from justice you will not get a

pass because no one is above the law.

I am honored to represent Charlotte, who is very brave and who contacted me

for assistance to make sure that what she suffered at the hands of Mr. Polanski

would be taken into account in the criminal justice system.

I believe that the sentencing judge needs this information to make an informed decision and we look forward to continuing to cooperate with law enforcement in the pursuit of Mr. Polanski, a man who is both a sexual predator and a fugitive from justice.

She Will Prevail

2010-02-20T16:54:00Z

We are here today to announce the filing of a lawsuit against Shaquille O'Neal. Mr. O'Neal is widely perceived as one of the most dominant players in the history of the NBA. Standing at 7 feet one inch tall and weighing 325 pounds he is one of the largest players to ever play in the NBA. In 2000, 2001 and 2002, playing alongside Kobe Bryant, he led the Los Angeles Lakers to three consecutive championships. In 2004 he was traded to the Miami Heat where he won his fourth NBA championship in 2006. He was then traded to the Phoenix Suns and now plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers, alongside LeBron James.

Throughout his career Mr. "O'Neal has used his size and strength to overpower opponents on the Court. But today, we are not here to speak about Mr. O'Neal's accomplishments on the basketball Court, but rather to announce that he will have to face our client in a Court of law to answer allegations contained in a lawsuit which will be filed today in the Florida Court in Orlando.

Our client, Vanessa Lopez, stands two feel shorter than Mr. O'Neal and weighs less than 100 pounds (less than a third of Mr. O'Neal's weight) but she is determined to take Mr. O'Neal on and hold him accountable for his behavior in a courtroom where his size, money, and power will not matter and where the final score will be determined by the scales of justice and not by how many dunk shots he makes or how many baskets he scores and where he will face an opponent who will not be intimidated by his size or power.

Ms. Lopez has known O'Neal and his family since she was fourteen years old. She went to school with his sisters and brother In 2004 she was in a nightclub with a friend and he approached her and bought her and her friends drinks and from there was relentless in his pursuit of her. He insisted on getting her phone number and called for weeks until she finally went out with him for lunch. Ms. Lopez knew that he was married but he told her that he had an open marriage and that he remained married for his image and for his children. He said, " I do what I want and she does what she wants." Ms. Lopez accepted that and for the past five years she has had a private, intimate, consensual relationship with Mr. O'Neal. He told her that he loved her numerous times and revealed to her private and personal information, some of which he said that he had never revealed to anyone else. He told her that he wanted to have a child with Ms. Lopez. He told her that he wanted to always have her in his life. He expressed his concern and affection for her. At various times he told her that he wanted to buy her a condominium and an expensive car, all of which she declined as she never wanted their relationship to be based on money.

This past summer Ms. Lopez and Mr. O'Neal spent a great deal of time together including at her home and at his home. Though she was reluctant to come to his home Mr. O'Neal assured Ms. Lopez that his wife was out of town and said that he did not want to go to hotels with her anymore.

In September 2009 Ms. Lopez was late with her period and thought that she might be pregnant. She communicated this to Mr. O'Neal who responded by stating that she needed to tell the baby's father and then went on to state that there was no way that the baby could be his. Mr. O'Neal knew that he and Ms. Lopez engaged in unprotected sex and that they had been together numerous times in the preceding months and that she had not been with anyone else during this period of time. She felt that his response was very disrespectful and she was deeply hurt and offended. Though he apologized to her for his reaction she told him that it was over and that she wanted him to leave her alone. He said that he was not going to leave her alone and that he loved her and that she loved him and she would never leave him. Mr. O'Neal kept calling her and finally Ms. Lopez said that if he did not stop she was going to tell his wife everything.

This lawsuit involves a pattern of harassment by Mr. O'Neal against Ms. Lopez afterwards which include him requesting an associate to "shut dat bitch up". Today, Ms. Lopez is here to announce that although she may be small she will not allow Mr. O'Neal's size or power to deter her from standing up for herself. We remember the story of David and Goliath. Everyone was afraid of Goliath and thought that he was invincible, but, David brought Goliath down with a small stone. Ms. Lopez does not have a stone, but she has truth on her side and with the truth she believes that she will prevail.