From: Samantha Cornog Date: Jan 22, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: "Seeing Red" To: contact@hollywoodinterrupted.com

Message from: Samantha Cornog
Site name tag: hollywoodinterrupted.com
Received from: 209.79.22.62
Refered from: http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archives/entries/contact.phtml
Subject: "Seeing Red"

Body
-----
Hello Mark,

I am contacting in regard to you recent Eric Red story. I am one of Eric's publicists.

In response to your recent article "Seeing Red" you refer and only use as your reference an article in LA Weekly written by Paul Cullum. My question to you is - did you do any additional research on this story? I would like to take a moment to clarify some parts of the "speculated" story that Paul wrote more than a year ago.

FIRST - We speculate, for good reason, that Paul Cullum was paid (outside the LA Weekly) to write the story - he has been stalking Mr. Red for more than 20 years and the plaintiffs used that to their advantage knowing that Mr. Cullum would relish getting close to my client. The story ran a week before the new owners took over (a rush to print job). And one week after we informed new owner, Jim Larkin of this, editor Alan Mittelstaedt was fired. The LA Weekly is not a pay for play publication. Which the family of lawyers admitted without admitting in court (there was a "no comment" regarding the allegation, because if they lied about being involved and got caught, they could have risked disbarment).

Cullum: I was never paid by the plaintiffs or anyone else outside of the L.A. WEEKLY to write this story - that's demented. They made those claims in court before the story ran, and they're included in the published story. The story was held a year after I filed it, and during that time I did numerous drafts to remove anything remotely actionable, as Red and his attorneys were very aggressive in trying to kill the story. As far as stalking him, in my one formal communication with him - a series of questions I submitted by e-mail - I mentioned that I thought I had met him in Austin in 1983, a fluke in that I briefly knew a woman he was dating. That conversation might have lasted a minute. If news editor Alan Mittelstaedt was fired because of false claims that were made against him or me, then I advise him to consult a lawyer.

SECOND - Mercury Insurance did not want this trial to go to court for the sole purpose of saving money on a huge judgment - it was in fact an insurance company conspiracy. Imagine that, an insurance company trying to screw people out of getting their money. Since then, one of the lawyers hired by Mercury Insurance has admitted malpractice and a settlement was been made regarding that case. The case against the other attorney and Mercury are still in progress.

Cullum: Mercury Insurance defended Red in five separate venues over four years in three separate states, representing an estimated $200,000 to $300,000 in legal costs. Once Red had exhausted the appeals process, he sued his own attorney for sanctioning his bankruptcy bid in Texas, where he had gone to circumvent a looming civil judgment. Or that's what his advisors' e-mails suggested they were going to do the last time I dealt with them.

THIRD: Eric Red never fled the scene. He was passed out and there was a witness to testify this (Mercury "couldn't find" the key witness to testify in three years and then the minute it was too late for admittance, they deposed him. Again, can you believe an insurance company would do that to save a buck?). Eric was checked into the hospital and put into an ICU unit where he laid semi-conscious for days with a breathing tube down his throat.

Cullum: This is correct: Red never fled the scene - although I can't find that claim in your story. Witnesses inside the bar claimed he was both conscious and unconscious prior to the impact. The witness they're referring to - Kenny Hughes, the driver of the front car - is quoted in the story, and is conflicted at best in corroborating Red's claim that he drove through the front of the pool hall while passed out.

FOURTH: Eric never checked himself into the hospital and let alone under that name. A person that is basically incapacitated for several days does not have the mental capacity to create that name, let alone a pen and paper to come up with an anagram. UCLA created the name under their policy for admitting celebrities (please check with them regarding their policy).

Cullum: A spokesman for UCLA said patients would have to formally request being admitted under a name other than their own, as is duly noted in the story.

FIFTH: There were never any charges pressed, hence there were never any charges to be dropped.

Cullum: The District Attorney's office never filed criminal charges against Red, even after a five-month investigation. This was after O.J., Robert Blake and several other high-profile film industry trials where the defendants were exonerated. Their decision indicates they were never confident they could prove their case to a jury. As investigating officer Det. Mike Fischer says in the story: "I would have loved to have charged the guy. After going through all this? Give me something. Put me in front of a grand jury, I'll walk you through everything I did."

SIXTH: The screenplay you are referring to "But in a monumental bit of reporting, Cullum documents every twist and turn - including the similarities between the accident and his own films and unproduced screenplays, and the script he wrote after the fact making fun of the whole thing. It's not a tale for the faint-hearted". The script he is referring to was written by my client's wife, Meredith Casey (check with the WGA - you will find that the script is registered under her name ALONE).

Cullum: Perhaps you should check the date of the Writer's Guild registration for Fenderbent, the script where small-town miscreants run over pedestrians for points. The draft I have, dated May 1, 2003, exactly three years after the accident, is credited to both Eric Red and Meredith Casey, and his agent at the time, Scott Penney of the Chasin Agency, certainly shopped it under his name and on his reputation.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would consider taking down your speculated story off your website or clarifying your facts. This is a one-sided story that is purely based on article written on "speculation" and was paid for by the plaintiffs. It is simply resurfacing at the moment because of the recent box office numbers on the re-make of "The Hitcher."

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at scornog@cswpr.com.

Cheers,
Samantha Cornog

Cullum: The story speaks for itself, and everything claimed above, as far as I can tell, is refuted therein. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Cullum
Los Angeles