Charlie Sheen to disclose he is HIV Positive on Today Show

[SXFX]

Gwen Stefani is this generations Yoko Ono.....WTF...killed a great band...fuck no...killed two bands!
Well assuming you ignored her shit singing!

[dreamon]

Gwen Stefani is this generations Yoko Ono.....WTF...killed a great band...fuck no...killed two bands!
Well assuming you ignored her shit singing!

Which bands are you referring to? No Doubt is still together.

[fred41]

She doesn't have it now. They slept together for years,so it's hard for me to believe she won't contract it at some point. Regardless if you believe her or not Sheen should have told her.

Dude, they broke up in 2011, and she tested negative recently. She doesn't have it.

[JenniferParisHusband]

Yes, it's the type of case a lawyer working on contingency would pursue, if only to obtain a settlement. And if it proceeds to trial, it's not a slam dunk, but people settle to avoid the worst case scenario.

As a final issue, I'm not really sure what you're arguing. A page or so back you were talking about how ironclad non-disclosure agreements are. Why would he have someone sign an nda if he's WINNING?

2 things to say about this. Nowhere close to a slam dunk in a civil trial, if it is specifically regarding giving an individual HIV. That's the big money case. There would need to be specific proof involved, and that is going to be incredibly hard to get. Lesser money comes with negligence claims that he was negligent in exposing a client to the potential of disease transmission. Try this. Prove to me right now, with evidence that you had protected sex with someone from 2013. Can you do it? did you keep the condom? Will the other person admit to it? Any photos to even show you were even in the same room with them during that time? See, it is incredibly hard to prove. Even the easier claims like infliction of emotional distress are going to be very hard to prove. Without a ton of evidence, it's he said, she said, and no attorney takes that to court on contingency, because a settlement isn't going to come your way. He's also got a lot of defenses.... not going to go into all of them, but most of the ladies brought their own level of risk to the matter.

As for NDA's. There is no such thing as an ironclad NDA. Further, if one is used to cover up an illegal activity (prostitution, illicit drug use, etc.) is it invalid and is deemed to have never taken effect.

Bree Olson is full of shit. She doesn't even have HIV so what the fuck are her damages???
Good luck for any escort who tries to sue Charlie Sheen for contracting HIV.lol

The beautiful thing about suing someone, there are all kinds of damages. She was in the adult film industry, so potential loss of future income, loss of actual income, expenses from testing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. Heck, anyone she slept with after him could also sue, as they would be a victim of his negligent exposure. Moreover, if there was a significant other who followed him and might have considered marriage to Bree, but didn't because of this, there is a potential for "Lack of Consortium" (read as lack of sex due to the potential or actual medical condition, if someone did contract it from him) and they could sue, even if they hadn't been exposed. If Bree slept with a married porn star, and that porn star's wife can't sleep with him now because potentially he may have caught it. Lack of Consortium still applies. Even if it was temporary, like 2 years, there are potential damages, and claims that can come out of that like maybe marriage counseling costs, tests for her, etc. The potential damages are really varied and numerous, and chain of people they apply is huge.

Attorney's fees. Those and the attorney expenses he will have to pay for possibly 50 plaintiffs, who will be hiring big time expensive (read $1500 to $3000 per hour attorneys) is potentially huge. Damages are easy to find, the potential damages depend on the relationship, and distance from Charlie, but they are plenty. Like I said above, proving some of them are going to be hard. If he claims they used a condom, she says they didn't, hard to prove unless there is video or something. Bree and Charlie being in a relationship, easy to prove, assumption that they slept together, easy to prove. Proving he told her he was HIV positive, really hard to do without something in writing, and even then, something like the NDA could be inadmissible if it was based on fraud, done for the purposes of criminal activity, etc. Based on that, I can think of at least 15 potential claims she could win on, maybe net somewhere around $5 mil in damages for past injury, and more for future maintenance. (HIV tests, doctors fees, etc.)

No one is arguing that. That is true of most civil defendants. It's not very often you see lawyers go after people with no money.

The term for a civil defendant with no money is "Judgment-Proof." You're right, most attorneys won't go after a defendant who is judgment-proof, unless they are on a crusade, or pre-paid by their client. If Charlie Sheen was suddenly broke, and living in a box in his dad's garage, if Bree really wanted to send a message, she could pay the attorney herself, and have any future income attached by the court. She'd own every residual check he would ever receive, and any salary he made on future projects. It is very rare, but it does happen.

[dreamon]

The term for a civil defendant with no money is "Judgment-Proof." You're right, most attorneys won't go after a defendant who is judgment-proof, unless they are on a crusade, or pre-paid by their client. If Charlie Sheen was suddenly broke, and living in a box in his dad's garage, if Bree really wanted to send a message, she could pay the attorney herself, and have any future income attached by the court. She'd own every residual check he would ever receive, and any salary he made on future projects. It is very rare, but it does happen.

Even if he were broke and living in a box, he'd still be worth it for most attorneys, simply because, as you said, he has relatively significant future earning potential.

[JenniferParisHusband]

Even if he were broke and living in a box, he'd still be worth it for most attorneys, simply because, as you said, he has relatively significant future earning potential.

Yeah, but if it were me as an attorney, I wouldn't take it. You're betting on him and his movies still being popular after all of this. Robert Blake was found innocent, and you never see his movies or TV shows anymore. No residuals, minimal sales of DVD's... The general rule of future potential is that it always equals 0. And if the DA's office prosecuted him criminally, they could trump any civil claims on this future income, and the money would go to a general victims fund for the state. It's a bad bet, but like I said, if she paid up front, at least you would have your hourly fees. But I wouldn't take it.

[dreamon]

Yeah, but if it were me as an attorney, I wouldn't take it. You're betting on him and his movies still being popular after all of this. Robert Blake was found innocent, and you never see his movies or TV shows anymore. No residuals, minimal sales of DVD's... The general rule of future potential is that it always equals 0. And if the DA's office prosecuted him criminally, they could trump any civil claims on this future income, and the money would go to a general victims fund for the state. It's a bad bet, but like I said, if she paid up front, at least you would have your hourly fees. But I wouldn't take it.

Yes but even Blake was found civilly liable for $30 million.

[nysprod]

Charlie covered his ass, if you look at his steps. He was never stupid. It also appears to have taken the right steps in giving himself protection through NDAs.

Hello...knowingly infecting someone with HIV is a crime and no NDA can override that...it wouldn't have any legal basis, it's worthless.

It's like an assault, there needs to be a witness (i.e. the person assaulted) in order for a prosecutor to win a conviction, which means Charlies pays to keep the witness quiet, which means her lawyer gets paid.

[Mr. Sinister]

Is anyone surprised that it turned out to be Charlie Sheen? He is the only Hollywood Actor that fit the profile.

[giovanni_hotel]

Is anyone surprised that it turned out to be Charlie Sheen? He is the only Hollywood Actor that fit the profile.

Charlie Sheen is the only Hollyweird star whose private life is so public.

Don't be so sure he's the only one who parties with escorts, GG and TS, and isn't too keen on protection.

If it was 30 years ago the logical choice IMO would have been Jack Nicholson.