Kemo
03-13-2016, 03:37 AM
On Monday morning, Pinellas County, Florida, Judge Pamela Campbell \will address two motions from third parties in the civil trial of Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former Gawker writer/editior A.J. Daulerio. The matters are Bubba the Love Sponge Clem’s motion to quash his subpoena to testify on Gawker’s behalf and various media companies trying to overturn a previous ruling refusing to release the jurors’ names. As for the jurors, that motion was filed by Times Publishing Company, First Look Media, Inc., WFTS-TV, WPTV- TV, Scripps Media, Inc., and WFTX-TV as intervenors. The situation with them is pretty simple: The news organizations are arguing that the judge’s previous ruling with regards to not releasing the jurors’ names is unconstitutional and overly broad without basis in Florida law.
With regards to Bubba, it’s much more complicated, a topic we first addressed this topic when the story broke last week when it was revealed he intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. Yesterday, in the motion filed by his attorney, Gawker’s theory that it had to do with past lies was…well, not quite confirmed, but here’s what it says:
It may be argued by a party in this cause that Mr. Clem has given multiple statements on whether the plaintiff knew he was being taped while engaging in sexual conduct with Mr. Clem’s then wife, now ex-wife, Heather Clem. Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution. Further testimony under oath on this issue could subject Mr. Clem to additional harm. Mr. Clem could also be subject to prosecution for the act of making the taped recording of the plaintiff and Ms. Clem. Mr. Clem lawfully may invoke his right against self-incrimination on these issues.
With regards to the next to last sentence, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely. From the police report regarding the theft of the DVDs of Hogan/Bollea having sex with Heath Cole:
I reviewed the case reports and noted that on 10/16/2012 Atty David Houston and his client, Terry Bollea, meet with the FBI at the Pinellas Office. Houston informed them that he had contacted Clearwater PD and the St Petersburg PD reference the filming of his client. He was told that the filming was “out of statute” and was encouraged to contact the FBI.
One would think that at least with regards to that half of the argument, Gawker’s attorneys will point that discrepancy out on Monday morning. As for perjury charges, what Bubba Clem said under oath during his deposition was the version that support’s Bollea/Hogan’s case: That Bollea had no idea he was being filmed. Bubba did say otherwise on his radio show right after Gawker posted the video clips, but he explained during the deposition that he was doing damage control and lying to cover himself. So if that’s the truth, he’d be fine when it comes to perjury on that matter.
BFHe2wBrNN0
As for federal charges of making false statements, that’s probably why Bubba Clem is “pleading the fifth.” Cornell’s Legal Information Institute classifies “making false statements” as being when someone, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” lies in various forms or fashions (see the link for more details.
As noted above, Bollea/Hogan first met with the FBI on October 16, 2012, the day after he filed the lawsuit that’s now at trial. Bubba Clem didn’t settle with him until on or around October 29th, when the settlement was announced. Presumably in the interim, the FBI spoke to Bubba. Most of the contents of the FBI file and motions referring to them are sealed, but in January, the trial judge unsealed (albeit in partially redacted form) two of Gawker’s sealed motions, one of which included the following (again, emphasis mine):
Bubba Clem testified at his deposition that Bollea did not know about the cameras in his house and that Bollea did not know he was being filmed with Heather Clem. But, Mr. Clem told the FBI the opposite, stating to FBI agents that Bollea knew about his cameras and knew he was being filmed during his sexual encounter with Ms. Clem.
In the context of what’s going on now, it sure looks like that was a false statement, both in the literal and possibly legal senses. That said, testifying under oath for the second time that the opposite of what he told the FBI is true for the second time (the first being the deposition) is not a crime in and of itself. But, while yes, it’s not as if he’s not already at risk for federal charges of making false statements if he’s able to get out of testifying here, that may not necessarily matter. Why? If Bubba Clem did lie to the FBI, he would, technically, be incriminating himself by testifying under oath again to the opposite scenario during the Bollea v. Gawker trial.
It certainly makes you wonder if he didn’t know about this when he was deposed, and if that’s the case, why he didn’t know, doesn’t it? This should be a very interesting hearing, and it will start on Monday (March 14th) at 8:30 a.m. local time.
With regards to Bubba, it’s much more complicated, a topic we first addressed this topic when the story broke last week when it was revealed he intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. Yesterday, in the motion filed by his attorney, Gawker’s theory that it had to do with past lies was…well, not quite confirmed, but here’s what it says:
It may be argued by a party in this cause that Mr. Clem has given multiple statements on whether the plaintiff knew he was being taped while engaging in sexual conduct with Mr. Clem’s then wife, now ex-wife, Heather Clem. Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution. Further testimony under oath on this issue could subject Mr. Clem to additional harm. Mr. Clem could also be subject to prosecution for the act of making the taped recording of the plaintiff and Ms. Clem. Mr. Clem lawfully may invoke his right against self-incrimination on these issues.
With regards to the next to last sentence, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely. From the police report regarding the theft of the DVDs of Hogan/Bollea having sex with Heath Cole:
I reviewed the case reports and noted that on 10/16/2012 Atty David Houston and his client, Terry Bollea, meet with the FBI at the Pinellas Office. Houston informed them that he had contacted Clearwater PD and the St Petersburg PD reference the filming of his client. He was told that the filming was “out of statute” and was encouraged to contact the FBI.
One would think that at least with regards to that half of the argument, Gawker’s attorneys will point that discrepancy out on Monday morning. As for perjury charges, what Bubba Clem said under oath during his deposition was the version that support’s Bollea/Hogan’s case: That Bollea had no idea he was being filmed. Bubba did say otherwise on his radio show right after Gawker posted the video clips, but he explained during the deposition that he was doing damage control and lying to cover himself. So if that’s the truth, he’d be fine when it comes to perjury on that matter.
BFHe2wBrNN0
As for federal charges of making false statements, that’s probably why Bubba Clem is “pleading the fifth.” Cornell’s Legal Information Institute classifies “making false statements” as being when someone, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” lies in various forms or fashions (see the link for more details.
As noted above, Bollea/Hogan first met with the FBI on October 16, 2012, the day after he filed the lawsuit that’s now at trial. Bubba Clem didn’t settle with him until on or around October 29th, when the settlement was announced. Presumably in the interim, the FBI spoke to Bubba. Most of the contents of the FBI file and motions referring to them are sealed, but in January, the trial judge unsealed (albeit in partially redacted form) two of Gawker’s sealed motions, one of which included the following (again, emphasis mine):
Bubba Clem testified at his deposition that Bollea did not know about the cameras in his house and that Bollea did not know he was being filmed with Heather Clem. But, Mr. Clem told the FBI the opposite, stating to FBI agents that Bollea knew about his cameras and knew he was being filmed during his sexual encounter with Ms. Clem.
In the context of what’s going on now, it sure looks like that was a false statement, both in the literal and possibly legal senses. That said, testifying under oath for the second time that the opposite of what he told the FBI is true for the second time (the first being the deposition) is not a crime in and of itself. But, while yes, it’s not as if he’s not already at risk for federal charges of making false statements if he’s able to get out of testifying here, that may not necessarily matter. Why? If Bubba Clem did lie to the FBI, he would, technically, be incriminating himself by testifying under oath again to the opposite scenario during the Bollea v. Gawker trial.
It certainly makes you wonder if he didn’t know about this when he was deposed, and if that’s the case, why he didn’t know, doesn’t it? This should be a very interesting hearing, and it will start on Monday (March 14th) at 8:30 a.m. local time.