Writer Fined for Alter Ego's Acts

[Lone_Quixote]

Author loses fraud case for writing as a man
CNN.com
Law Center
June 23, 2007


To writer Laura Albert, her alter ego was a psychological necessity, but to jurors, the fictitious male prostitute JT LeRoy was a fraud.

A Manhattan jury decided Friday that Albert had defrauded a production company that bought the movie rights to an autobiographical novel marketed as being based on LeRoy's life.

The federal jury, after a short deliberation, awarded $116,500 to Antidote International Films Inc.

The San Francisco author, who went to strange lengths to hide her identity behind the nonexistent LeRoy, condemned the jury's decision, saying it had ominous implications for artists.

"This goes beyond me," Albert said. "Say an artist wants to use a pseudonym for political reasons, for performance art. This is a new, dangerous brave new world we are in." . . .

. . . Albert was identified as the author of "Sarah," the tale of a truck stop hooker. Her friends donned wigs and posed as LeRoy at book signings and they duped journalists with the phony back story about truck stop sex. Posing as the troubled teen, Albert even made phone calls to a psychiatrist.

Antidote and its president, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, said they spent $110,000 working on a film based on "Sarah." The company, which still holds a one-year option on the book, has no plans to use the rights now, but "they might be valuable to somebody else," Curtner said.

The jury ordered the $110,000 paid to Antidote, along with $6,500 in punitive damages. U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said he would determine later whether attorneys' fees would be awarded. . . .

. . . "They made my life public domain. It's about commerce," she said. "They're going to try to hijack my copyrights, which is like stealing my child."

In bizarre testimony punctuated by tears and laughter, Albert told jurors during the trial that she had been assuming male identities for decades as a coping mechanism for psychological problems brought on by her sexual abuse as a child.

To her, she said, LeRoy was real.

But Curtner said Albert stepped over a line by signing contracts and obtaining copyrights under the phony name. . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

"But Curtner said Albert stepped over a line by signing contracts and obtaining copyrights under the phony name. . . .

That's the problem right there. If she'd been able to be upfront with the production company, she might have kept her contract-- entertainment companies don't mind participation in hoaxes, they hate to be made the victim of one...

 

[3113]

It get weirder. Here's more on this story:

The 41-year-old [Albert] added that she believed the character of LeRoy was inside her. "It was my respirator," she told the court in New York. "If you take JT, you take my other and I die."

Ms Albert admitted to conducting interviews in the character of LeRoy, and when a tape of an interview was played to the jury, she said: "It was JT LeRoy speaking and I was there."

She broke down in tears as she recounted a history of sexual abuse which she was too scared to report. "There was no place safe except the places you can go. The places are the boys - I can tell their stories," Ms Albert testified.

The writer added that from the late 1980s, when she moved to San Francisco, she had a manner of jobs including working on a telephone sex line, where she occasionally used a male voice....She said the character of Jeremiah LeRoy developed soon after the birth of her son and due to a character she had created for one of her books.

"I had just given birth to my son and I wanted this other child to be out in the world," the author told the courtroom.

Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, president of Antidote International Films, which is seeking $110,000 (£55,275) in damages from the writer, earlier told the court that he did not realise LeRoy was imaginary until 2006, six years after the hit book was published. Antidote and Ms Albert's company, Underdogs Inc, signed an agreement to option the film rights to the book Sarah in 2003, which they claim is null and void.

An unrelated film based on LeRoy's writings, The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things, was released in 2004, charting the abuse which the young Jeremiah is subject to. The work of JT LeRoy built up a faithful following, with actress Winona Ryder said to be a big fan. Director Gus Van Sant claimed to have cultivated a strong working relationship with LeRoy, who is credited as an associate producer on his 2003 film Elephant.

I think there is a slight difference between this and a pseudonym.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It get weirder. Here's more on this story:

I think there is a slight difference between this and a pseudonym.

She sounds like a character I'd write, if I wrote serious and tragic literatchure.

And that's why I said "if she'd been able to be upfront" because, obviously, she wasn't able to.

Van Sant probably thinks this is very cool.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

Antidote International Films Inc. claims to have spent $110,000.00 working up a film project based upon Ms LeRoy’s novel, “Sarah,” and while they still hold a one-year option, they no longer have any plan to use those rights. This, I believe, is an overlooked factor in this lawsuit.

Recouping those monies, is, I believe, the company’s real objective. Had they wished to continue with their project, simple redress would have required only that Laura Albert sign a duplicate contract, under her legal name. There was no demonstrable intention to defraud the company, only her audience, and that was restricted to perpetrating a fraud regarding her sex.

However, Ms Albert could have avoided the problem with a little thought in advance — by legally changing her name to JT LeRoy, or by incorporating herself under that name, thereby freeing herself to negotiate contracts under that name as the signing officer of that corporation.

The court showed little consideration for an individual with an unorthodox relationship with their gender assignment.

When have they ever?

 

[Stella_Omega]

When have they ever?

Never, in a nutshell. But I'll bet she can recoup by selling the rights to her own story to some other company. It's a timely subject, for sure.

 

[3113]

There was no demonstrable intention to defraud the company, only her audience, and that was restricted to perpetrating a fraud regarding her sex.

Um, no, not just her sex. She didn't call her self "LeRoy Albert" and walk around in men's clothing saying she was a guy. She got an actor to play the part of J.T. LeRoy, a *MALE PROSTITUTE* with a very different background, history and life from hers.

This becomes much more of a fraud than simply hiding ones gender. If the popularity of a story relies to some degree on the fascinating persona of the author, then finding out that this fascinating persona is a lie could seriously undermine the story's popularity.

In other words, would Albert's story have sold as well if she'd presented it as being written by her instead of being written by this male prostitute? If it didn't matter, why did she go to such extremes of having someone act the part? Clearly, LeRoy made good ad copy and good interview material. The implication, on Albert's part at least, is that LeRoy's story and personality was important to the sales of the books and without him, the books would not have sold so well. And this means that if he's a fake, and this comes out, that people might not buy the books.

I don't know if this is true, but Albert evidently believed it, and if the company believed it as well, then they they lose money and credibility if LeRoy is a fiction.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

What story?

Antidote International Films Inc. own a one-year option on Ms Albert’s novel, the same novel for which the court just ordered Albert to return the option fee ($110,000.00) to Antidote International Films Inc. (Plus $6,500.00 in fines, and possibly even the cost of the film company’s lawyer, used to sue her.)

Antidote own her novel for one year, and have just publicly offered it for sale in this report. (Quote: The company, which still holds a one-year option on the book, has no plans to use the rights now, but "they might be valuable to somebody else," Curtner said.)

If the legal fees are also awarded to Antidote, they will even be reimbursed for the costs of the shyster who picked Ms Albert’s pocket.

That is what Albert meant when she said: "They made my life public domain. It's about commerce."

 

[Lone_Quixote]

. . .This becomes much more of a fraud than simply hiding ones gender. If the popularity of a story relies to some degree on the fascinating persona of the author, then finding out that this fascinating persona is a lie could seriously undermine the story's popularity. . . .

I disagree.

If that were true, Grey Owl would be no more that a literary hoax from the first half of the last century.

Is he?

 

[3113]

Antidote own her novel for one year, and have just publicly offered it for sale in this report. (Quote: The company, which still holds a one-year option on the book, has no plans to use the rights now, but "they might be valuable to somebody else," Curtner said.)"

If you're saying that the company should have given back the novel and gotten back the money plus whatever they felt they were owed because of this fraud (i.e. whatever time and trouble they went to to buy the book, etc.), then I agree. The judgement certainly seems to allow the company to have their cake and eat it, too. If the fraud damaged the value of the novel or the sale, then the sale should be null and void.

But you seem to be saying that this wasn't fraud...that's another argument.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

The whole escapade sort of reminds me of the old movie, "Meet John Doe" with Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper.

 

[neonlyte]

What happened to the 'buyer beware' principle. They got stuffed. If they'd made money exploiting the novel and then discovered he was a she, would they have gone to trial? Wankers springs to mind.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I disagree.

If that were true, Grey Owl would be no more that a literary hoax from the first half of the last century.

Is he?

Grey Owl, we can assume, never sold the rights to his novels to a film company in the first years of the 21st century...

 

[Lone_Quixote]

Fraud is a wrongful, or criminal deception, intended to result in financial or personal gain. I don’t doubt that Ms. Albert sought a form of personal gain, but it was not related to anything financial.

The question is, did Albert write the novel and did Antidote purchase her novel, or did they hire Albert as an employee — stipulating that she must be physically able to fill a male role?

I don’t think that was the case.

They bought a novel which they discovered was written by a woman masquerading as a man. They could have gone along with the deception and not exposed her, they could have found a method to use the notoriety that exposure would cause to market their film, or they could have canceled their option and demanded their money back.

They followed neither of those unexceptionable paths.

They used what can only be considered a personal emotional and/or psychiatric problem, from which the author was suffering, to rob her of her work.

And the court went along with their larceny.

Grey Owl, we can assume, never sold the rights to his novels to a film company in the first years of the 21st century...

Are you saying that "Everything changed after 911"[TM] and so logic and judgment no longer pertains?

 

[Stella_Omega]

They used what can only be considered a personal emotional and/or psychiatric problem, from which the author was suffering, to rob her of her work.

And the court went along with their larceny.


Are you saying that "Everything changed after 911"[TM] and so logic and judgment no longer pertains?

It changed sometime during the Ugly Eighties. Litigation became the Way of The World (at least the USA-type-world), and logic and judgement have become only intermittently apparent.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

A Manhattan jury decided Friday that Albert had defrauded a production company that bought the movie rights to an autobiographical novel marketed as being based on LeRoy's life.

I think the problem here is that Albert marketed the book as being a true story when indeed it wasn't. It's not that Albert wrote the book pretending she was a male, it was that she represented the book as being a true autobiographical account, when in reality it was fiction. That's where the fraud is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A Manhattan jury decided Friday that Albert had defrauded a production company that bought the movie rights to an autobiographical novel marketed as being based on LeRoy's life.

I think the problem here is that Albert marketed the book as being a true story when indeed it wasn't. It's not that Albert wrote the book pretending she was a male, it was that she represented the book as being a true autobiographical account, when in reality it was fiction. That's where the fraud is.

As a matter of fact, so did Grey Owl-- Like I say, he didn't live in a time when lawsuits were the norm.

I hate and detest that they are. I would far rather have the company continue the hoax in concert with this woman-- but you know what? I bet you they were afraid of being sued themselves, by some irate movie-goer.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

As a matter of fact, so did Grey Owl-- Like I say, he didn't live in a time when lawsuits were the norm.

I hate and detest that they are. I would far rather have the company continue the hoax in concert with this woman-- but you know what? I bet you they were afraid of being sued themselves, by some irate movie-goer.

Yes, but did Grey Owl try to sell the rights to his work, and pawn it off as being fact?

It's not that Ms. Albert wrote the story, and portrayed herself as being a male, it's that she attempted to sell the work and represented it to be something other than what it really was. It's a bit like me turning out a copy of the Mona Lisa. I doubt there is anything wrong with that, it's when I try to represent my painting as the real Mona Lisa and try to sell it to you to decorate your bathroom, that's when the fraud occurs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, but did Grey Owl try to sell the rights to his work, and pawn it off as being fact?

It's not that Ms. Albert wrote the story, and portrayed herself as being a male, it's that she attempted to sell the work and represented it to be something other than what it really was. It's a bit like me turning out a copy of the Mona Lisa. I doubt there is anything wrong with that, it's when I try to represent my painting as the real Mona Lisa and try to sell it to you to decorate your bathroom, that's when the fraud occurs.

Arrgh, you want me to go researching!

Okay, from wikipedea;
"Doubts about his Amerindian identity began appearing after his death. The North Bay Nugget newspaper ran the first expose, followed up by international news organisations such as The Times. His publisher Lovat Dickson tried to prove Belaney's Indian identity, but unfortunately had to admit that his friend had lied to him. "Grey Owl" had been an invention, an invented Indian like Forrest Carter, Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance, and Ward Churchill.

The consequences of this revelation were dramatic. Publication of the Grey Owl books ceased immediately, and in some cases they were withdrawn from publication. This in turn had a knock-on effect on the conservation causes with which Belaney had been associated, affecting donations to conservationist causes badly."

So, yeah.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

I think the problem here is that Albert marketed the book as being a true story when indeed it wasn't. . .

Then lawsuits should be pending on approximately 50 percent of all autobiographies, 95 per cent of those about celebrities, and 103 per cent of all political biographies.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Then lawsuits should be pending on approximately 50 percent of all autobiographies, 95 per cent of those about celebrities, and 103 per cent of all political biographies.

And the bible.

 

[cloudy]

And the bible.

Scared the cat.

 

[3113]

The question is, did Albert write the novel and did Antidote purchase her novel, or did they hire Albert as an employee — stipulating that she must be physically able to fill a male role?

Once again NO, NO, NO! you are NOT getting it! You keep missing the point when you insist that she wasn't "physically able to fill a male role." She wasn't *simply* doing that. If her psudonym had been LeRoy and she'd shown up to sign the contracts as Albert and said, "That's my pen name" it would have been no problem. But she DID NOT DO THAT. She: "gained cult status writing as JT LeRoy" and "defrauded [the company] by selling the screen rights to an autobiography" of LeRoy and "conducting interviews in the character of LeRoy."

Do you get it yet? She sold an AUTOBIOGRAPHY (that means she tried to pass this story off as a TRUE story) of a person who DID NOT EXIST, who was not HER and could never BE her (had she ever been a male prostitute? No!) and perpetuated this "lie" by pretending to be that person in interviews. If she'd created an equally fascinating person who was female and pretended to be that person she'd STILL have committed fraud.

Now sometimes, people make up histories of themselves, outrageously false ones, and sometimes they get away with it. Sometimes, in fact, the company backing them makes up and supports the lies--as Movie Studios did back in the day for their stars. They gave them new names and histories that were lies, lies, lies. And they got away with it. But just because they got away with it--just because others MAY be getting away with it now doesn't mean it's not fraud. That's like saying that if someone gets away with murder it's not murder! Sorry, if it's murder, it's murder whether you get away with it or not. So enough with these comments of yours that "50 percent of all autobiographies, 95 per cent of those about celebrities, and 103 per cent of all political biographies."

So fucking what? Probably you're right. There should be lawsuits against them all. There's not. Does that mean they're not committing fraud? Sorry, if they are, they are. And unfortunately for them, as with the book "A Million Little Pieces" if they are committing fraud, making up lies about themselves and their history, and they're found out, readers are likely to get really, really mad at them. And that lie can backfire BIG TIME.

As with Grey Owl--I think the proof is in the pudding there. The minute the fraud came out, the books went out the window. The same could have happened here. Which is WHY companies don't like it when you lie to them and put them at risk of losing lots of money. Albert should have NEVER lied to ANYONE she was selling her book to about it's authorship. If *they* want to go along with the deception, that's their decision. But if she lies and doesn't tell those paying good money for her book about the lie (and this company was in the dark about the truth for 6 years!), then she's involved in fraud because she's making them buy a lie. They didn't just buy the book. They bought the author who was *the subject of this book* and who's background was *important* to the success of the book.

That is why it's fraud and not just a woman using a male pseudonym.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

I went looking for a little more detail and found this amongst several earlier stories. It does somewhat clarify the sequence of events.

Going to Court over fiction by a fictitious writer
International Herald-Tribune
Culture
By Alan Feuer
June 15, 2007

[snip]

As movie people say, the "inciting incident" of the lawsuit came with the publication in late 2005 of an article in New York magazine that questioned JT Leroy's identity. The Times followed with an article in February that identified Albert as the true author of "Sarah” producers at Antidote were stunned; they were also worried that the commercial prospects of their project might crumble. As Curtner put it: "The whole autobiographical back story aura that made this so attractive was a sham."

Weinstein told the jury that the contract with Antidote was for a book, not a back story, and that the film company could have made the movie no matter who wrote the novel. He then went on to suggest that the project was in freefall (a bad screenplay) and that Antidote had used the excuse of disputed authorship as an escape hatch.

It was at this point that the sort of lemonade-from-literary-lemons notion that can exist only in Hollywood was introduced. Weinstein said the director, Shainberg, decided he would now make a new film, something in the vein of "Adaptation" or "Being John Malkovich," a "meta-film" that mixed the novel with the lives of its real and purported authors in a project touted in-house as "Sarah Plus."

But that required obtaining the rights to Albert's story — a story of such apparent darkness that she herself had required a literary dopplegänger to tell it.

She refused to grant the rights. "And that," Weinstein said, "is why we find ourselves here."

So, unless she can successfully appeal the judgement, both the option for “Sarah” and the money paid her for the option are now the properties of Antidote. Which leave Laura Albert to return option money that may already have been spent, or perhaps to cooperate with Shainberg, to write her part of the fictional story upon which he hopes to form the basis of the “Sarah Plus” film of which he has conceived (if it is not all some director’s wet dream and/or a litigator’s alibi) at no further cost to Antidote.


Now, what I can’t decide, is whether the court’s increasing tendency to side with business over the individual, or the effect of the exposure of Laura Albert's convoluted gender management was what motivated the court to pronounce a decision skewed so far in one litigant’s favor.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I went looking for a little more detail and found this amongst several earlier stories. It does somewhat clarify the sequence of events.

...


So, unless she can successfully appeal the judgement, both the option for “Sarah” and the money paid her for the option are now the properties of Antidote. Which leave Laura Albert to return option money that may already have been spent, or perhaps to cooperate with Shainberg, to write her part of the fictional story upon which he hopes to form the basis of the “Sarah Plus” film of which he has conceived (if it is not all some director’s wet dream and/or a litigator’s alibi) at no further cost to Antidote.

That's exactly what I would want to do, in their place-- both "Adaptaion" and "Bieng.." made some money back and were very prestigeous portfolio pieces, the kind of think any director would love to be able to claim. Only Albert doesn't seem inclined to deal with the fictional nature of her alter ego.

Now, what I can’t decide, is whether the court’s increasing tendency to side with business over the individual, or the effect of the exposure of Laura Albert's convoluted gender management was what motivated the court to pronounce a decision skewed so far in one litigant’s favor.

...Both-- Why shouldn't they kill one bird with two stones?