QR Code Business Card

Illyanne Kichaven to be new executive director of the Hollywood Branch? The Ol’ Dog has a Variety of declarations why maybe that ain’t such a good idea!

April 19, 2005 (20:23) | 2005, SAG Politics | By: Arlin Miller

Share to Google Plus


This story from today’s Variety!

Posted: Wed., Dec. 7, 2005, 10:00pm PT

SAG’s closer to Kichaven

Guild turns to vet exec as director for H’wood branch


Leaders of the Screen Actors Guild have taken the first step toward naming veteran guild communications exec Ilyanne Kichaven as executive director of the Hollywood branch, a post that’s been vacant for more than four years.
SAG’s Hollywood board approved the promotion of Kichaven, currently national director of communications, at a meeting Tuesday night, with the proviso that SAG’s national board also OK the action.

Kichaven’s appointment as SAG’s No. 2 exec may run into some resistance at the national board due to ongoing feuding between the Membership First faction — which dominates the Hollywood board — and United Screen Actors Nationwide, which draws its support from New York members and the other 18 branches. The more assertive Membership First side has a slim majority on the national board thanks to gains in September’s elections.

SAG made no official announcement Wednesday about Kichaven, who has been SAG’s public voice on hundreds of occasions in the past five years.
Should the national board approve, Kichaven would be the first to hold the post of Hollywood exec director since Leonard Chassman retired in 2001. Chassman had headed the Hollywood branch, which serves more than 53% of SAG’s 100,000 members, since 1984.

Membership First has been pushing to fill the post, but did not have the political clout to follow through until this fall’s elections.

If approved, Kichaven will face a daunting task. Although factionalism has been a constant, bitter feelings have escalated since Alan Rosenberg became president in September. The SAG board fired SAG CEO Greg Hessinger and three other execs in late October; USAN leaders recently went to the U.S. Dept. of Labor seeking to invalidate Rosenberg’s election amid allegations of inappropriate use of emails.

Kichaven was hired in 2001 as associate director of communications after a year of work as a SAG consultant working on the media planning and campaigns for the six-month commercials strike and the 2001 film-TV negotiations.

Before joining SAG, Kichaven operated her own marketing/promotional consulting firm, IMK Inc., with clients including Columbia TriStar, Cowboy Booking Intl., Merchant Ivory Films, Artistic License, Strand Releasing, First Look Releasing and Zeitgeist Films. She also held exec slots at Overseas Filmgroup/First Look Pictures, Hemdale Film Corp., 21st Century Film Corp., New Regency Entertainment, Stephen J. Cannell Prods. and Lorimar.

Hmmm, you certainly see why Ms. Kichaven was in step with CEO Pisano! But, I digress.

I guess, I should title my part of this post “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the Kichaven!” Rim shot!

Okay, here’s the Ol’ Dog’s 2 cents on this appointment! First off, I think those who are currently trying to destroy the current leadership will love this appointment! After all Ms. Kichaven was part and parcel of the Pisano team. And not particularly a friend of Membership First and its agenda!

As for her spokesperson part in the last regime, no one can blame her for doing her job! My problem, and I think one that could cause some heat for the current leadership is Ms. Kichaven’s part in the Vulich lawsuit! A suit that most Membership First members acknowledge was bogus, and intended to intimidate and stifle the membership’s participation in the elective process.

Here’s is Ms. Kichaven’s voluntary declaration for the plaintiff in that litigation.

Now, lest you think this was a heartfelt, spontaneous declaration by Ms. Kichaven rather than a premeditated cookie cutter letter dictated by Pisano and his cohorts, let’s compare segments of Ms. Kichaven’s declaration with segments from another plaintiff declaration by SAG attorney Danielle Van Lier.

Ms. Kichaven states:

While on the same subject Ms. Van Lier says:

Later, describing her personal reaction and assessment of how the rest of staff felt, Ms. Kichaven proclaimed:

And, some might say that Ms. Van Lier’s recollection of the matter was, ah, shall we say, ah, similar!

And these, ah, similarities are all through both declarations.

Do we really want as our Hollywood Executive Director someone who fills in the blanks when directed to do soor do we want someone in this all-important position with independent thought? Someone who will give us honest feedback! Someone who is answerable to the membership,–even to the point of being fired. Hmmm, were is Lance Simmens when we need him?

Look, no one is saying that Ms. Kichaven should get the old heave ho, but rather that under the circumstances she might not be the right person for this job. In fact what’s the big hurry in getting a Hollywood Executive Director anyway?

Why not concentrate on getting a National Executive Director. Once that’s accomplished then work with him on getting the best possible person for the job. One hopefully with out so much baggage.

A.L. Miller SW Editor & Chief WOOF !

*formatting on Variety post is SW’s!



Crybaby Christie Cries Censorship!

April 19, 2005 (20:23) | 2005, SAG Politics | By: Arlin Miller

Share to Google Plus


First here’s the story from Backstage West, and then we’ve got that duly deleted story by Mr. Crybaby himself, 2nd VP Paul Christie!

SAG’s Christie Charges Censorship — Lester Denies It !!

December 07, 2005

By Roger Armbrust

The split between the Screen Actors Guild’s Hollywood and New York leaderships appeared to widen Tuesday night when SAG New York’s president, Paul Christie, accused SAG National President Alan Rosenberg’s administration of censorship.

WOOF !For a guy getting censored, he’s sure been getting a lot of press time lately.

Christie is also SAG’s 2nd national vice president. He and the other two SAG national vp’s regularly have letters to the membership in SAG’s national magazine, Screen Actor. Christie called Back Stage Tuesday night to say that Loren Lester, a Rosenberg appointee as chair of SAG’s communications committee, “unilaterally chose not to run my article” because it was critical of Rosenberg.

WOOF !Uh, how can a letter that doesn’t mention Rosenberg, be critical of him. Oh, wait I get it! It was critical of him, Christie just didn’t mention his name–but “Wink! Wink!”

Lester, who Back Stage reached Tuesday night, said that he chose not to run Christie’s letter because it “had a number of very serious allegations, and we asked him to prove what he was saying. He knows some of the things are absolutely false. We asked him to change them, and he said he wouldn’t.”

Lester said he called the communications committee together to write a rebuttal that could run along with Christie’s letter, “but the New York members and branch members of the committee wouldn’t show up to write the rebuttal. So, since things he was saying were not true, I decided we wouldn’t run the letter and do a disservice to the membership.”

WOOF !Gosh, does that mean we don’t get to have our membership dues money used to be called Craven and Misanthropes in our SAG Actor Magazine anymore?

Christie said his article criticized the Rosenberg administration and the earlier William Daniels administration for abusive treatment of SAG staff. Rosenberg and Daniels are both members of Membership First, Christie’s opponents who now control the majority on SAG’s national board of directors.

Lester said Christie’s letter listed SAG staff by name who had retired and Christie had “said we fired.” He also included “four people who are retiring this year after years of wonderful service. He’s saying the administration is forcing them out.” He added that Christie’s listing of staff by name could prove a legal liability for the guild, evidently meaning if the letter ran in a SAG publication.

WOOF !You see, Mr. Christie ain’t all that concerned about who was fired, but who fired them. If they were fired by Netflix Bob: No problemo! Oh, by the way during Pisano’s reign a whole bunch of good staff members where fired! Nary a whimper from Christie then! In fact from 2001 to 2004, the staff was depleted by a 125 workers. Mostly rank and file staff that directly served the members. This while senior staff making a hundred grand went up from SIX to TWENTY-EIGHT! And total staff salaries nearly DOUBLED from ELEVEN MILLION TO TWENTY ONE MILLION! Anyone remember, Paul, Baby, crying to the press about that?

When Rosenberg took office and his slate took control of the board at the end of September, they fired Greg Hessinger, SAG’s national executive director, along with three executives Hessinger recently had hired. Christie was highly critical of the firings in interviews with the press, and linked the dismissals with what he considers earlier abuses of SAG senior staff that have since left the guild.

At the time of Hessinger’s firing, Christie warned that Rosenberg’s and his followers’ actions could lead to a permanent split in the guild between the Hollywood branch and the New York and other branches nationwide.

WOOF !Actually the only split right now is Christie’s ever-widening BIG MOUTH! *

Christie on Tuesday night e-mailed a copy of his letter to Back Stage. In it he refers to the national board rather than the Rosenberg administration, and generally complains without specifically naming Rosenberg of “a constant and distressing stream of criticism directed at our staff, particularly our senior staff, and it always seems to be coming from the same direction and the same people.”

WOOF !The above paragraph tells you all you need to know about Christie and their group! They attack people without having the cajones to name them! They infer rather than come right out with what they mean! If indeed, Christie wanted to be critical of President Rosenberg why didn’t he do it without trying to be sneaky! Oh, yeah, I forgot he’s a USAN leader!

But within the volatile politics of SAG Christie didn’t have to be specific for Rosenberg or his followers to know whom he was referring to, because the SAG/NY president has been consistently critical of them in the past.

WOOF !Like I said sneaky!

Christie said Tuesday night that he would file a challenge with the U.S. Department of Labor if his article were censored from the next issue of Screen Actor magazine.

WOOF !My God, the way Ol’ Paul is going they’re gonna have to give him his own office over there!

Federal labor law “says I have the right to communicate with our members,” Christie said. “Any union member has the right to communicate with other members.” He said he should know within the next 48 hours whether the article would be printed. Lester said that it would not see print; he added that the issue is “going to press this week.” Christie said that if it doesn’t go into Screen Actor, he will find other outlets for the letter.

WOOF !Boy, does this lad have a grasp of Labor Law! Ah, Paul, to be a tad more specific here’s what the Labor Disclosure Act of 1959 says as spelled out in Title I:

(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.– Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

WOOF !Nothing in there Paul about putting your truth-challenged rants in the SAG Actor Magazine! But here’s a thought! Paul do what the Ol’ Dog did!


Actually, he can put anything he wants up on the USAN Website! The irony here, folks, is that Christie hasn’t even, as of yet, posted anything about his, Freed and Henry’s Bonehead Election Challenge to the DOL on that website. Ah, maybe they think it wouldn’t look to good right next to another of their posts where they attack Membership First for going to the DOL!

Christie, along with former SAG/NY President Eileen Henry and SAG/NY vp Sam Freed, on Dec. 2 filed a challenge with the federal Department of Labor seeking to void Rosenberg’s election. That challenge is pending.

Back Stage attempted to reach Rosenberg by calling his home and leaving a message, and also e-mailed him, but didn’t receive a response by the time of this article’s posting. A phone message was also left for Anne Marie Johnson, SAG’s 1st national vice president and a Rosenberg supporter, but she hadn’t responded by press time.

Here’s the Christie Article. As usual, The Ol’ Dog point out a few of the, ah, minor inconsistencies in Mr. Christies Article.

“When is it you?”

That is the question I have been posing recently to members of our national board. When is it time to pull out the mirror and take a cold, hard look?

In my opinion, in the past five years that I have been serving as a national board member of this union, I have seen a constant and distressing stream of criticism directed at our staff, particularly our senior staff, and it always seems to be coming from the same direction and the same people. They proclaim that staff is never good enough, and then make these dedicated, hard working men and women the target of their vitriol. These staffers, many of whom have been honorably serving this great institution for 30 and 40 years, have done nothing less than protect us to pursue our careers. They are the same staff who helped formulate things like Class A, and the residual system and negotiated all our contracts for almost half-a-century. Then out of nowhere, many of these same devoted people are described, unbelievably, as “incompetent” or worse and then fired, or we are told, “choose to retire,” or “move on.” Along the way, though, they are too often subjected to unwarranted public criticism and humiliation sometimes outright lies by our national elected officials who seek their departures.

WOOF ! Actually, most of those veteran staff members Paul so eloquently speaks about were FIRED BY ‘HIS GUY’ BOB PISANO! In regards to public criticism, Paul, cannot point out one unwarranted public criticism or humiliation, or outright lie by any national elected official about the above mentioned folks. Actually, most of our hard working staff has stayed loyal to the members and stayed out of the political fray. It is mostly those Pisano sycophants beholding to their boss over the membership that have come under criticism by the membership! To be honest, I can’t remember seeing any criticism in the press by elected leadership of anyone other than Netflix Bob, and that was because he had a case of “Conflict Of Interest” in conjunction with his directorship in Netflix. As I pointed out earlier, all of the firing that has been done in the last four years was done Pisano, who Christie and his USAN/Restore Respect pals supported.

The list of those who have been targeted for this kind of treatment includes many of our most valued current and former executives: former national executive director Ken Orsatti , former Hollywood executive director Len Chassman, former New York executive director John Sucke, former executive assistant Clinta Dayton, former chief financial officer Gerald Wilson, former legal counsel Leo Geffner, former legal counsel David Alter, former national executive director Bob Pisano, former chief financial officer Francesca Hickson, former national executive director Greg Hessinger, and three former employees who never even got the chance to work a single day for us before being “fired”, Rebecca Rhine, John Russum, and Joanne Kessler.

WOOF ! Well, you can certainly see why this wasn’t published in our SAG Actor Magazine! Christie throws out a lot of names, but offers not one scintilla of proof to support his allegations. Without getting into the personal lives of all these folks to refute Christie’s bogus claims, disproving a few will make the point. Ken Orsatti retired due to a very serious illness. John Sucke announced his retirement in 2002 during the Restore Respect/USAN regime. If he was fired, it was by PISANO! Need I go on! This from Variety Jul. 23, 2001

“Leonard Chassman who retires next week, SAG’s former national exec director Ken Orsatti retired in January, and Gotham-based associate national exec director John McGuire has refused the post as he wants a less time-consuming job and did not want to move. McGuire will become a senior adviser with a three-year deal once a new CEO is named.”

WOOF ! Like I said, I have never seen any of these folks vilified by SAG leaders in the press or on official websites. Only, Pisano was criticized, and even then those criticisms were restricted to his policies and business relationships. He never suffered the kind of vitriol and name calling that has recently been directed toward President Rosenberg by the writer of this piece and his fellow USAN leaders–who have publicly described President Rosenberg as an obsequious shill who takes unethical, immoral and fascist actions!

Recently four more Hollis Batchelor, Susan Rose, Anne Talltree, and Carolyn Winnor, who have each served us for decades announced their intentions to retire at the end of the year.

WOOF ! So when staff members retire that’s someone’s fault! Paul, Baby, people retire! They get OLD! They want to move to Florida! My God, what’s next? Paul will be blaming his opponents when staff members DIE!

All together, this long list comprises over 450 years of experience, dedication, and most importantly “institutional memory”gonejust in the past five years. Four who have managed to hang on, fortunately for us, in my opinion, are: Senior Advisor John McGuire, Deputy National Executive Director for Contracts Sally Weaver, New York Executive Assistant Ruth Baptiste, and present General Counsel David White. But they have also been repeated targets.

WOOF ! Ruth Baptiste has been a target! Who the hell is Ruth Baptiste? Okay, the Ol’ Dog has taken on Sally Weaver for lying to me in a membership meeting about the non-union foreign “made-in played-in” commercial waiver–and General Counsel David White for not being upfront with the membership about SAG’s legal persecution of makeup man Vulich and presumptuous insertion of SAG into CEO Pisano’s Conflict Of Interest Lawsuit! Other than Hessinger and Pisano, I can’t remember seeing any of the above made targets in the media or websites by any leadership figures.

So again, I ask.when is it you? We continue down this road at our own collective peril. The elected change every year, but our staff cannot or we will be perpetuating instability and chaos. This should be an honor roll listed above, and we should, all of us, be forever grateful.

WOOF ! So, with a couple of exceptions, who say’s we ain’t. Christie is trying to play the staff against his opponents, as if, because they have issues with a few senior staff, they have issues with all of them. Divisive BS!

This of course is only my opinion an opinion based on 27 years as a member, and first hand experience with each of them. I myself give thanks for all they have done.

WOOF ! Mr. Christie seems to think he is the only one that admires the tireless work that most of our staff does for us. It’s only those that cast their allegiance with the CEO/NED over the membership–or those that think they know best, that most of us have a problem.

Oh, by the way, Ol’ Paul seems to have left out a senior staff member that was fired,

“Screen Actors Guild national executive director/CEO Bob Pisano fired director of governmental relations Lance Simmens on Monday!”

(Hollywood Reporter Feb 5, 2002)

Of course that firing didn’t bother Mr. Christie because Mr. Simmens was fired by Pisano for standing up for the membership. Acting upon the instructions of the National Board to further SAG’s support of FTAC, Mr. Simmens was informed by CEO Pisano that he didn’t work for the board, but for himthen he was fired.

And there my fellow SAG members is the crux of the difference between Mr. Christie and his USAN/Restore Respect cohorts and the REST OF US. They think SAG’s staff should work for the NED! We think that they should work for THE MEMBERSHIP!

Think about it.”

I’m sure everyone will, Paul! I’m sure they will.

Paul Christie, SAG New York President, SAG 2nd National Vice President

A.L. Miller SW Editor & Chief WOOF !



The Ol’ Watchdog has a copy of that Bonehead SAG Election Challenge filed with the DOL!

April 19, 2005 (20:23) | 2005, SAG Politics | By: Arlin Miller

Share to Google Plus


(Bonehead: Foolish or stupid!) In the headline, the Ol’ Dog described the following election challenge submitted to the DOL as a Bonehead Challenge. It is less a legitimate substantiated election challenge– and more a document whining about what happened AFTER the election.

Those who authored it have not limited themselves to frivolous filings, however, they have also indulged in the usage of various appellations such as immoral, unethical and fascists in regards to President Rosenberg and Membership First!


November 30, 2005

: To the Department of Labor:

We file this challenge to a recent election for national officers of the Screen Actors Guild (“SAG”). The election ended September 23, 2005. The complaint is properly before the Department of Labor (“DOL”). The SAG Constitution requires that challenges be filed within 14 days of the election. At that point the Election Committee was required to hold a hearing within 45 days of the election, which in this case would have been November 7, 2005.

We each filed a timely protest to the conduct of this election with the Guild Election Committee (see Exhibit A: a copy of SAG’s Constitution relating to the National Election Challenge process; Exhibits B, C and D, which are the challenges we filed; and Exhibits E, F and G , which are e-mails from SAG staff member Michelle Bennett, dated November 18, which confirm the receipt of our timely challenges).

A hearing was scheduled for November 2, 2005 (see Exhibit H, an e-mail dated October 26, 2005, notifying challengers and candidates of the hearing date and rules of procedure. Exhibit I is the rules for the hearing and the handling of evidence).

Sam Freed, one of the challengers, appeared first at the scheduled hearing, only to find that there was no quorum present and the hearing was canceled. The hearing was not rescheduled and thus was not held before the constitutionally imposed deadline of November 7, 2005. Although our preference at the time was to have a hearing before a properly constituted Election Committee, on November 17, 2005, we were advised by staff member Michelle Bennett that there were no plans to reschedule the internal hearing.

WOOF ! So, “The hearing was CANCLED.” Therefore they received NO FINAL DECISION! Ah, remember this, boys and girls! It could be important later! As to The reason that there was no quorum, it was because the New York USAN committee member Maureen Donnelly, who was present, refused to participate. It was a setup. They didn’t want a hearing! These are disruptive sore losers who will do anything to try and discredit President Rosenberg and the new SAG leadership. Unfortunately, they’re being aided by some members of SAG senior staff, loyal to the previous regime, who seem intent on doing everything they can to disrupt the new leadership. Why these people are allowed to remain in the employ of SAG is a question that must be addressed on a priority basis.

As the Election Committee, which had exclusive jurisdiction over election challenges, did not address our challenges on a timely basis, and as there is no provision in the Constitution for redress of these concerns, we have no alternative but to turn to the DOL and ask that you take up the investigation of these issues. In order to preserve our rights with the Department of Labor, this complaint is filed within 30 days of the cancellation of the hearing.

WOOF ! “No provision in the Constitution for redress of these concerns? ” Huh? “Bonehead alert! Bonehead alert!” Not only are BH’s bastions of misinformation, they are just plain lazy. If they had taken only a few more seconds and bothered to read a little farther into the SAG Constitution, Section 8, (C) they’d know that if the election committee failed to address their concerns–and thus violated a provision of the constitution“such member may request a hearing by the Board of Directors.” They failed to do this. This bonehead move alone is enough to get their bogus charges dropped, since they failed to exhaust all remedies through the union before rushing off precipitously whining to the press and the DOL. We’ll have a look at the components of their complaint, but first a gander at the labor law.


(29 U.S.C. 482)
SEC. 402. (a) A member of a labor organization-

(1) who has exhausted the remedies available under the constitution and bylaws of such organization and of any parent body, or

(2) who has invoked such available remedies without obtaining a final decision within three calendar months after their invocation, may file a complaint with the Secretary within one calendar month thereafter alleging the violation of any provision of section 401 (including violation of the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization pertaining to the election and removal of officers).

WOOF ! Okay, let’s see. Their election challenge states that there was no quorum! Thus there was no meeting! And thus, they haven’t as yet received a final decision from the elections committee! But, wait, buckaroos, Section 402, says they must wait three calendar months for a final decision before they can file a complaint! That would mean they would have to wait until at least December 23 before interjecting a complaint with the labor board! Yikes! In regards to this matter the Ol’ Dog thinks these folks have suffered a bad case of Premature Interjection.

Now let’s have a look-see at what they claim are the two components of their challenge.

The first is that the political slate within SAG that won the key officer positions maintained a membership list including over 17,000 e-mail addresses which was derived from union sources and was not made available to other slates.

WOOF ! Where’s the beef? More like baloney! They offer no proof of their mythical 17,000 email addresses’ allegations! No exhibits with this one, folks! More importantly you’ll notice that nowhere in their bonehead challenge is there any evidence proffered that this mythical email list WAS EVER USED to send emails. Look, you could have a list of all 120,000 of our members including everything from their spending to sexual habits, and it would not be a Labor Violation, no matter how it was obtained or what it contained, as long as it was not used. The labor board would not be interested! However should anyone out there have such a list the Ol’ Dog wouldn’t mind taking a peek at it.

The fact is, this letter from Sam Freed, Eileen Henry, and Paul Christie ain’t a challenge! It’s more like childish, disgruntled rambling! For God sakes, who is advising these people?

Indeed, the information is confidential and other slates which desired to do mass mailings or electronic messaging had to at a cost go through designated third parties who maintained the confidentiality of the lists.

WOOF ! What information is confidential? Oh, yeah, right, those mythical email lists derived from union sources! Hey, the Ol’ Dog has at one time or another had hundreds of emails derived from union sources. They were obtained from other UNION members and their email lists. Now if you’re wondering how that’s done, let’s check out the Queen of Mass Mailing, former Chicago SAG Branch president and avid USAN supporter, Lisa Lewis. Here’s some excerpts from what Dear Lisa had to say in an email dated Aug. 24, 2001 on how a certain group obtained emails, “Their email lists were probably compiled by merging supporters’ personal lists and by co-opting the lists of those same folks!” But Lisa how could that happen? ” it only takes one random and even well-intentioned email (with all the addresses in plain sight) addressed to both you and a member of this group to allow them to have pilfered it. ” But, but, Lisa would acquiring an email list by this method be illegal? “.while certainly questionable in terms of ‘Netiquette, is not illegal.”

There is evidence that a member of the winning political faction had membership lists with social security numbers and that same member was involved in a conspiracy to transferee member e-mail addresses to a third party to develop an external list serve of SAG members. That latter activity is the subject of a lawsuit currently pending in the California federal courts.

WOOF !: Ah, ha! So there is evidence! Now we’re getting somewhere! Ah, ah, but wait I don’t see anything about an exhibit here! They must have misplaced that one! Yeah, right. This is what’s called tap-dancing folks. Has nothing to do with their challenge. And as a matter of fact, the DOL knows about that a previous SAG challenge on the mentioned matter, instigated by these very same members and their cohorts, was denied by the NLRB!.

It has also been established that there was an electronic breach of the SAG membership records as to which we are told there is an ongoing investigation.

WOOF ! They were “told?” Hey with evidence like this they don’t need no stinkin’ exhibits!

The second is that the current leadership is attempting to obstruct and cover-up these serious violations of internal union rules and federal law.

WOOF ! What serious violations of internal union rules? What federal law? Oh, I know they were “told” they were serious violations.

Most recently they have aborted the Election Committee hearing process in the manner we describe below.

WOOF ! Now let’s get this straight. Those filing charges refuse to participate in a quorum– and then they accuse their opponents of aborting the hearing. Ahhh, okay! Of course, all of this is after the fact, and has nothing to do with their challenge that there was a violation DURING the election.

More importantly, it appears that they are taking steps to withdraw the lawsuit (referred to above) brought by SAG under the prior administration relating to the development of the very list at issue and the use of employer resources to create the list.

WOOF ! You remember! The list they “heard” about! The one that came from SAG sources! No but wait! Now they are saying employer resources created the list. Hmmm, if someone got the list from SAG as they charge then why would that person need an employer to create it? And, ta-da, if they got it from an employer why would they need to get it from SAG sources. Anyone get this?

At issue is not only the taint of the recent election, but the future threat to the democratic process within the union if the current leadership is permitted to retain the advantage of confidential member information for political use.

WOOF ! Hmmm, I wonder if they’re talking about all the confidential member information that the previous leadership obtained with their phone surveys in order to have an advantage in forwarding their political agendas?

Background. It is no secret that the Screen Actors Guild is politically polarized. We have had a history of contentious elections and referenda votes, and the sitting National Election Committee was well aware of this history. They were charged with making sure that each candidate adhered to the rules of procedure, and with adjudicating concerns as they arose, through out the election period. The committee was composed of four representatives from Los Angeles (the committee chair chose not to fill the seat for an alternate); two representatives and one alternate from New York, and one representative and one alternate from the Branches. The Committee met many times, to my knowledge; I am sure that SAG staff member Michelle Bennett can provide the exact number of members, and which voting members were present. As with all SAG committees, the quorum requirement is at least one member from each of the three divisions be present for the meeting (See Exhibit F, SAG Constitution on quorums for committee meetings).

WOOF ! You notice the trend here! They’ve got plenty of exhibits. Except when it comes to substantiating their bogus charge of misconduct during the election.

The winning candidate in this election, Alan Rosenberg, attempted to manipulate the outcome of the election challenge process by appointing, at the last minute, a political ally to cast a vote in the hearings. He did this despite full committee agreement as to the hearing date, and despite a record of committee meetings being held with whatever committee members were available, so long as a quorum was met. In protest, the New York members of the Committee refused to participate in the hearings with any but the original committee members.

WOOF ! Contrary to what our BH trio says, the appointed committee member was appointed by the Committee Chairperson to replace an absent member out of country: Something, by the way that is often necessary and that the rules provide for. Ah, so it boils down to this, matters did not proceed in the manner our challengers and their cohorts wanted, so in protest, they refused to participate in the hearings. Sort of like that group that walked out of the last plenary because they didn’t get their way. Oh, wait a minute! They’re not sort of like the same group. THEY ARE THE SAME GROUP!

We were always concerned as to how the Election Committee was performing its duty in an unbiased way both during the election and appeals process. That is the basis of the charges filed by Paul Christie and Eileen Henry. The issues that constitute this election challenge were the very issues that were brought before the Committee during the election, but then as now the Committee had no response.

WOOF ! Or to be DOL correct, the committee offered NO FINAL DECISION..

We were also always concerned as to how the Election Committee could properly hear charges, and render a decision concerning charges of its own misconduct.

WOOF ! Is this getting a tad confusing, folks? The charges, if I remember correctly concerned a 17,000 email list. Are they saying the Elections Committee furnished this list. Yikes! And I thought the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories were confusing. Ah, could it be on the subject of misconduct, they’re talking about Committee member Maureen Donnelly’s refusal to participate purely for political reasons. Or their own misconduct for requesting a meeting, then affectively wasting the time of attending- committee-members by boycotting it! The bottom line is, if they felt that the committee committed a violation in regards to its duties then why didn’t they take their concerns to the SAG board as provided in the constitution. Unless, of course, this whole thing is simply a rouse to publicly spread more of their propaganda! You think?

In the September 2005 elections, there were three slates: Membership First, headed by Alan Rosenberg; Campaign for Unity, headed by Morgan Fairchild, and an independent party, headed by Robert Conrad. The SAG election process is lengthy and our membership is spread across the country. A primary means of campaigning is through e-mail and mail. Candidates can request member contact information from the Guild but that information is never directly provided to them. Instead, to preserve member confidentiality and privacy, the Guild sends candidates messages through an authorized third party vendor at a cost to the candidate (see exhibit G, the rules of procedure for the 2005 national campaign).

WOOF ! Ah, another evidentiary-challenged exhibit! What do any of their exhibits have to do with their bogus election challenge? Look, Bunko, you put in enough exhibits and maybe they’ll overlook the fact that you have absolutely no proof. I’m surprised they didn’t include photos of the candidates as an exhibit– and an exhibit of an email. Hey, and how about an exhibit of that third party.

The winners of the election, the Membership First slate, got approximately 40% of the vote. During the campaign, this slate sent numerous e-mails to the membership using their own substantial list serve and an unauthorized vendor. There is substantial physical and anecdotal evidence that the contents of the Membership First list serve was largely collected from member records. The Campaign for Unity candidate came in second with approximately 35% of the vote and because of the substantial costs of using the Guild authorized list sent fewer e-mails to the membership.

WOOF ! You’d think they might include at least a teenie weenie bit of that substantial physical evidence in an exhibit wouldn’t you? But then if they had, it just wouldn’t have been a good Ol’ Bonehead Challenge!

Following the 2003 referendum election on whether to consolidate SAG with its sister union, AFTRA, it came to light that unauthorized campaign e-mails were being sent from an untraceable source. A lawsuit against an Internet service provider resulted in evidence sufficient to bring suit against a third party, a nonmember employer, who admitted complicity in the use of a list of member information to send unlawful e-mails which would inappropriately influence another Guild vote.

WOOF ! Once again more bonehead wordplay. The makeup man recklessly charged in this matter only admitted to forwarding legitimate emails. There was no acknowledgement, nor indeed any proof, that they were unlawful. But be that as it may, this is just more irrelevant rambling since it has nothing to do with the challenge at hand.

This individual was known to be a friend of several members of Membership First. Subsequently, Mark Carlton, a leader of Membership First, admitted to assisting this nonmember by providing the mailing list for use in sending these illegal e-mails. He has, to our knowledge, refused to give that list to Guild attorneys. Mr. Carlton is also known to be in the possession of a substantial list of member information, which includes social security numbers, a fact that can be verified by several SAG staff.

WOOF ! Ah, ha! Those senior staff members loyal to USAN and the previous administration! Okay, so here’s the big question: What senior staff members? And, ah, how did this information that “can be verified” by SAG Staff get into the hands of Sam Freed, Eileen Henry, and Paul Christie? You think that maybe this whole challenge is their doing? You think?

It should be noted that there was no legal way for Mr. Carlton to have collected this sensitive information on members. The Guild does not make this information publicly available. Even when candidates go through proper channels to “rent” the member mailing list, names and addresses are provided directly to an authorized mailing house, and never to the candidates themselves.

WOOF ! I hate to break it to our BH Three, but the DOL does not give a rats ass if the information is sensitive or not. Their only concern is if it was unfairly derived through guild resources and then USED giving a candidate, or candidates, an unfair advantage over other candidates in an election. And, unless, that can be proved, you are wasting your time, our time and the DOL’s time.

Also at issue in the suit against the nonmember/employer is the sending of a disguised e-mail to SAG staff designed to intimidate and demoralize. In order to send that offending e-mail the sender had to have unauthorized access or have hacked into proprietary Guild information. There are footprints that link the offending e-mail to the mass e-mails sent to the membership by the nonmember/employer.

WOOF ! Yikes! This SAG staff revelation is the most damaging of all. He who intimidates the SAG staff into voting for them wins the election. The Ol’ Dog gives Four Bones up on that one!

Protecting the integrity of our election should not be a political issue. However, with the recent election there have been many abrupt changes and common procedures are not being followed. The newly elected administration has hired new counsel and given them the directive of reviewing current litigation including the suit mentioned above which involves the misuse of member information. It has already been suggested by members of Membership First that this suit be dropped. Now that they have won the election, we have every reason to believe that they will attempt to do just that, and that evidence crucial to protecting our elections will be lost.


We ask that the DOL take jurisdiction immediately and take all appropriate steps to investigate and determine misuse of member information. We know you can get information from the Guild that we have been unable to obtain. It has gotten so bad that those of us who are officers on the National Board cannot get complete information from our own attorneys.

WOOF ! Obviously! If they had gotten complete information from a good attorney, they wouldn’t have filed this Bonehead Challenge!

Our hope is that the DOL can return our institution to the democratic level playing field that traditionally had characterized the political debate and prevent a spiraling disintegration that almost always accompanies cover up and misconduct.

WOOF ! Now that’s funny! Coming from the folks who consistently voted against a Minority Report, had several election violations of their own, refused to go on record on most of their boardroom votes, and hid so much from the members that SAG was being referred to as the Secret Actors Guild!

Please contact Sam Freed as to what the next steps should be.

WOOF ! “Dear Sam, after reading your bonehead challenge here is what your next steps should be! Put your left foot in, Your left foot out, Your left foot in, And shake it all about. You do the hokey pokey, And turn yourself–and the get the hell out of here!”

Sincerely; Sam Freed, Eileen Henry Paul Christie

A.L. Miller SW Editor & Chief WOOF !

Because the DOL keeps filings confidential until they have been decided upon, the Ol’ Dog was not able to verify if the BH Three actually even filed this challenge! But assuming it will be denied, I have been assured that if it has been filed, once there is a decision, usually within 30/60 days, I will have access to it through the Freedom of Information Act. And of course, when the Ol’ Dog has access, you have access “And that’s what it’s all about!”



New York SAG Branch President, Paul Christie, Saber Rattling with talk of a union split!

April 19, 2005 (20:23) | 2005, SAG Politics | By: Arlin Miller

Share to Google Plus


The following is a story that is going ALL OVER THE WORLD by means of Associated Press. As usual, the Ol’d Dog has interjected a few pertinent comments.

Actors union could split

Turmoil may further divide feuding SAG

Gary Gentile: Associated Press

Dec. 5, 2005 12:00 AM

LOS ANGELES – The largest union representing actors has promised a new, tougher stance in contract talks with powerful media conglomerates. However, the Screen Actors Guild may self-destruct before it ever gets the chance.

WOOF !Right! A few employer compliant whiners start sending out press releases and once again SAG is ready to self-destruct!

The labor union’s long-running infighting has escalated into what could become a mutiny since the election in September of SAG President Alan Rosenberg.

Rosenberg and his allies gained a majority on the national board by pledging to squeeze more money from the studios from the sale of DVDs and new technologies, including downloading of films and TV shows. He also pledged to unite SAG’s feuding factions.

Instead, Rosenberg, 55, divided the union even more by firing Greg Hessinger, the popular SAG national executive director. He had been hired by the previous leadership, which Rosenberg accused of surrendering too easily on key economic issues.

WOOF !Although President Rosenberg was at the forefront, he did not fire Hessinger! The SAG board did. It has the final authority in such matters! As to Greg Hessinger being popular. Ah, the Ol’ Dog must have missed that poll! Actually, there was a poll of sorts. Ah, it was called the SAG election. And the guy and party publicly identified as not being all that fond of NED Hessinger won.

Many union members see the firing as an arrogant display of power that finally could split the union into two groups: One that represents film and TV actors, primarily based in Hollywood, and another mostly comprising members in New York and Chicago who do commercials and voiceovers.

WOOF !And many more members see the firing as the first move in regaining the control of our union from senior staff and returning it to the members elected leadership! .Actually SAG Hollywood represents all facets of the acting community! Mr. Christie and his group of disgruntled dissidents however are made up of primarily voiceover and commercial actors.

Paul Christie, president of SAG’s New York branch, said that talk of a split has heated up since the election of Rosenberg, who was a regular on the TV series Chicago Hope and is married to CSI star Marg Helgenberger.

WOOF !Mr. Christie and his trouble making pals better be careful of what they wish for or they may get it. Many in Hollywood have had it with their lies, badmouthing of Hollywood actors and general selfish “Us First” mentality. If members in New York and the branches continue to listen and adhere to their divisive rhetoric, we could end up with SAG West and SAG East. A situation that could certainly lighten the financial burden of Hollywood’s membership, which generates 65 percent of SAG’s revenue. Let NY and the branches shovel out the millions of dollars that will be necessary to sustain their very expensive New York digs and all those AFTRA branch offices gobbling up SAG money!

“I think he’s capable of better things,” Christie said.

WOOF !This from a guy who characterized our new president as unethical and immoral!

With 120,000 members, SAG always has been a fragmented labor union, representing both multimillionaire superstars and rank-and-file membership with an unemployment rate of more than 80 percent.

WOOF !Although SAG has always represented superstars and rank-and-file members it has never been fragmented in its over 70 year history of solidarity! This is but another myth that our employers and their compliant followers would like to perpetuate.

Membership in SAG is all but required to work in films, television and commercials. Many SAG members also belong to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which has jurisdiction over the prime-time schedule of major networks, among other areas!

WOOF !Yikes! I don’t watch much primetime! Has primetime gone ALL REALITY! Not! Although, if the current leadership in AFTRA had their way they would have jurisdiction over primetime–no matter how much money their lame contracts would screw actors out of money.

Rosenberg’s agenda mirrors that of the new president of the Writers Guild of America, West. Patric Verrone also ran on a promise to get tougher with studios and fired his executive director soon after taking office.

Both men justified the firings by saying they needed staff who would push their agendas of increasing membership, fighting the rise of reality TV shows and gaining more economic concessions from studios.

WOOF !There were other reasons for Hessinger’s firing: His defiance of the SAG President and leadership by ignoring their admonition to stop hiring his pals to multi-year multi-dollar contracts without their approval. His response! “If you don’t like it fire me!” They did! The press continues to perpetuate the myth that this was the only reason for the firing. Mr. Rosenberg needs to clarify this, or he will continue to take a beating in the press and on websites that the only reason for the firing was to push his agenda.

Rosenberg’s action deepened the geographic rift that existed in the union.

WOOF !Actually, it isn’t President Rosenberg’s action that is deepening the geographic rift in our union but rather the divisive USAN leadership with their lies and distortions of facts that deepens it.

Actors outside Hollywood are not as reliant on residuals from DVDs and other technology and are less inclined to endure a lengthy, costly strike over the issue.

WOOF !And this is the primary reason that no percentage increases were gained in DVDs. The Restore Respect minority in Hollywood was able to use those outside of Hollywood to kill any chance of a fair increase in DVD revenue!

Those actors also fear Los Angeles-based members, who control the guild because of their numbers, will abuse their power and push through an agenda that ignores the needs of actors in other regions.

WOOF !And these are exactly the fears that the USAN dissidents are playing on to accomplish their “go-along to get-along agenda.”

Rosenberg acknowledges that bridging differences is his most pressing challenge.

WOOF !Unfortunately, the USAN leadership, by every action they have taken since Mr. Rosenberg’s election, have proven they have no interest in bridging differences, but rather burning them in a campaign designed to damage his credibility and that of the Membership First leadership. It’s the Old Dog’s humble opinion that President Rosenberg and the Membership First leadership needs to fight fire with fire. He needs to counter all the lies that are being circulated in the press and on newly formed websites. The new leadership has the bully pulpit! If they don’t use it! They will lose it!

“You have people living in all different areas of the country who feel like they’re muzzled and don’t have a voice or are afraid they’re going to be muzzled,” he said.

WOOF !Once again, as someone who gets all the news reports concerning SAG, it seems to me to be the other way around, that he and our new leadership has been muzzled! Thanks to all the USAN propaganda being circulated by a willing press, they are being portrayed as they bad guys who threaten the industry. Unfortunately, Mr. Rosenberg seems to believe that if all of the rhetoric and lies are ignored they will just go away. Big mistake! political history has proven that!

He has visited the New York and Miami, Fla., branches in recent weeks and plans to visit other locals in the hope of creating a more unified front for contract talks.

“It doesn’t serve us well at all for our employers to know that our union is basically split down the middle,” Rosenberg said. “That gives them a lot of leverage.”

WOOF !Giving away leverage has been the Restore Respect/USAN agenda for the last four years. If SAG is compromised then it is in no position to standup to our employers. If we don’t stand up to our employers there is no chance of a strike! (Of course, there’s no chance of getting good contracts either) And thus the “go-along-to-get-alongs” have no interruption in their comfortable lifestyle. These members seem to have no connection to the past, or concern for the future of our guild. They are all about settling for whatever employers deign to give them now! Forget the past and screw the future.

Uniting the union will be critical for Rosenberg, who faces his first big test next year when SAG’s contract with advertising agencies expires. The guild’s pact with studios expires two years later.

“If we don’t strengthen the core of our union, we’re going to be fighting a losing battle,” said Kathy Christopherson, an actress and producer.

WOOF !Core? I’m not exactly sure what Kathy means. Actually, when I hear from an actor/producer, the Ol’ Dog is a tad suspicious of which part of them is speaking the actor or the producer. But giving Ms. Christopherson the benefit of the doubt, lets assume by core she means the spirit of “we’re all in this together, and collectively we can all sustain the greatest actors guild in the world for the benefit of both present and future members alike.” That I can get behind!

In the latest sign of dissension, three SAG members last week asked the U.S. Department of Labor to void Rosenberg’s election, alleging illegal campaign tactics by Rosenberg’s Membership First party.

WOOF !I’ve read a copy the Christie, Freed, and Henry Bonehead Challenge to the labor board and will be posting it shortly!

Media companies have created contingency plans that include stockpiling scripts and productions in anticipation of a strike. That move could lead to a “de facto” strike.

WOOF !This flouting of the threat of a “de facto” strike always amuses me. So they stockpile work now that they perhaps planned on doing! Great! A bird in the hand and all that! As long as they are spending the same amount of money! Hell, the Ol’ Dog would just as soon have it now. The best counter to “de facto” is *money “savings account.”

Rosenberg’s election underscored dissatisfaction with last year’s contract talks, which won higher wages but failed to budge the studios on paying a bigger share of the lucrative DVD market.

WOOF !Those touted “higher wages” amounted to the worst increase in minimums in SAG history!

“I think we just walked away too soon and too easily without fighting,” Rosenberg said. “We sent a message of weakness.”

WOOF !A message that Mr. Christie and his USAN/Restore Respect pals have been sending for the last four years.

Now, studios are experimenting with new sources of revenue, offering TV shows on demand over the Web, without explaining how they intend to pay actors and writers.

Rosenberg’s views, especially on the challenges of new technology, aren’t that different from those of Christie or others in the union. But guild members differ over whether they should strike to win concessions.

“It’s not going to be the toughest guy at the table, it’s going to be the smartest guy at the table,” Christie said.

WOOF ! Excuse me, Mr. Christie, but the smartest guys don’t go to the bargaining table without their most potent weapon– the threat of a strike. In any collective bargaining negotiations if you don’t go in with the appearance of toughness, you ain’t smart. And for the last four years, Mr. Christie and his gang have proved that they ain’t smart.

Fighting over DVD revenue may be a waste of time, Christie said, as the industry looks at new ways to distribute content, including sending movies and TV shows to cell phones, iPods and other devices.
“We’re having a fist fight over something that’s going to be a memory in a very short period of time,” he said. “What are the next three of four things beyond DVD? That’s what I want to deal with.”

WOOF !Yeah, right! More rhetoric justifying caving into producers. Christie and his go-along-to-get-along” will always adjourn gains now to avoid conflict.” With them it’s the “Annie” syndrome. “Tomorrow, tomorrow!” Come to think of it. Do any of them have pupils?

Christie pledged to work with Rosenberg and expressed his support during a testy meeting between Rosenberg and members of the New York branch.

WOOF ! In the meantime, he badmouths him in the press and files a bogus election challenge to get him ousted as SAG president.

Rosenberg’s actions in the next year will have a major impact on the future of the guild.

“The more difficult choice is to be his own man and do what he can to finally put a stop to this,” Christie said. “If he doesn’t do that, you run the risk of possibly splitting the organization irreparably.”

WOOF !A certain irony here, folks. Paul Christie inferring that President Rosenberg isn’t his own man. Especially, since for the last four years he has been Pisano’s man. And of course Pisano was, is, and will always be the studio’s man. And the studio’s love compliant members like Christie and his USAN counterparts.

A.L. miller SW Editor & Chief WOOF !

* Lew Wasserman “A compliant union is a good union.



Disgruntled, dissident USAN members go to Labor Board to challenge the recent SAG election

April 19, 2005 (20:23) | 2005, SAG Politics | By: Arlin Miller

Share to Google Plus


Before you read this story in Variety, you should keep in mind that the very USAN members challenging the election in which THEY LOST power, currently have this charge against Membership First on their USAN website!

“In the last few years this faction has filed numerous costly and pointless election challenges, including a frivolous and 11th hour injunction that attempted (and failed) to halt the Consolidation vote. Whenever the democratic process does not go their way, they sue, or threaten to sue.”

Posted: Thurs., Dec. 1, 2005, 10:00pm PT

Feds dragged into SAG fight

Complaint alleges Membership First misused e-mails


In a move underscoring the bitterness at the Screen Actors Guild, three SAG members have asked the U.S. Dept. of Labor to set aside Alan Rosenberg’s election as president.

The complaint, filed Wednesday by SAG VPs Sam Freed and Paul Christie and former VP Eileen Henry, alleges that Rosenberg’s winning Membership First faction inappropriately used 17,000 e-mail addresses in the campaign.

The trio also asserts that Rosenberg — who defeated Morgan Fairchild and Robert Conrad in September following a contentious campaign — and his allies are attempting to cover up the violations.

“At issue is not only the taint of the recent election but the future threat to the democratic process within the union if the current leadership is permitted to retain the advantage of confidential member information for political use,” the trio alleged in a missive to the feds.

The move by Freed, Henry and Christie — organized under the United Screen Actors Nationwide banner –came after the trio had exhausted their remedies within SAG. No hearings were ever held by SAG’s election committee due to lack of a quorum because their USAN allies boycotted the hearings, alleging that Rosenberg had attempted to manipulate the outcome by appointing a political ally to the panel.

If the DOL agrees with the allegations, Rosenberg’s victory could be voided and a new election called. Rosenberg’s election marked the transfer of boardroom power from moderates headed by former prexy Melissa Gilbert to the more confrontational faction, leading to October’s firing of CEO Greg Hessinger.

Rosenberg has defended sacking Hessinger, asserting a month ago that SAG needed a “fresh start” with a national exec director committed to the priorities of the new elected leaders, particularly the tougher approach to collective bargaining. His opponents are having none of it.

“Contrary to Alan Rosenberg’s statements, the goal of all this isn’t unity or transparency,” Freed said. “It’s a Membership First power grab.

The use of the 17,000 email addresses has been the source of internal feuding since 2003, when emails were sent out to those members by a non-SAG member urging a vote against a proposed SAG-AFTRA merger.

SAG spent more than $2 million campaigning for the combo, which was narrowly defeated.

SAG then filed a federal lawsuit last year against makeup artist John Vulich, alleging fraud, libel and seven other causes of action, after the DOL declined to take action on the complaint. Membership First said at the time that the email campaign wasn’t illegal and had been of negligible influence in causing the referendum to go down to defeat.

The new complaint notes that SAG’s election rules allow for e-mailing the membership via payment to an independent third party that has secure access to members’ personal information, including e-mail addresses. And it alleges that Membership First rep Mark Carlton — who holds a seat on the Hollywood board — possesses a substantial list of member information, including Social Security numbers that have been collected illegally.

In response, Carlton denied the allegations, saying, “As usual their complaint is full of accusations and no proof.”

Carlton also said he had been ready to testify at the election committee hearing and present his list, which, he said, dates from 1977 and has no SAG members or email addresses. **

The anti-Rosenberg forces had been threatening for several weeks to go the DOL. SAG spokesman Seth Oster noted Thursday, “The filing of election challenges in this environment is not unusual. The Guild has just received notification of this one and has not yet fully reviewed it.”

In early 2002, SAG’s election committee overturned Gilbert’s victory over Valerie Harper amid allegations of violations of rules by SAG staff and Sequoia Voting Systems regarding the ballot signature line and deadlines for turning in ballots.

Gilbert ally Mike Farrell and four other members then took the matter to the Dept. of Labor, alleging that the elections committee was improperly constituted but the feds turned down their appeal.
Gilbert also won the re-run election and defeated Kent McCord in 2003 but decided not to run this year.

Read the full article at:

Like this article? Variety.com has over 150,000 articles, 40,000 reviews and 10,000 pages of charts. Subscribe today!
or call (866) MY-VARIETY

So, the very folks that complain about Membership First challenging an election are now doing it themselves. Beyond the fact that they have their USAN website which is FULL OF NAME CALLING AND LIES, they are also proving one thing. THEY ARE INCONSISTANT!

Hmmm, they boycott an elections hearing and then claim they have exhausted all remedies through SAG before going to the labor board. Ain’t that sort of like the kid that kills his folks and then ask for mercy because he’s an orphan.

Also, another thing to keep in mind. Although Restore Respect/USAN made this same bogus charge in their lawsuit, they were only able to come up with THREE MEMBERS who had allegedly received the legal emails–and they were all Restore Respect/USAN leaders.

A.L. Miller SW Editor & Chief WOOF !

*Formatting on Variety Story is SW’s.

Although it is clarified earlier in Mr. McNary’s article, I would remind folks that this phrase

“The use of the 17,000 email addresses has been the source of internal feuding since 2003, when emails were sent out to those members by a non-SAG member urging a vote against a proposed SAG-AFTRA merger.”

should be read as “the alleged use of the 17,000 emails”

** This statement attributed to Mr. Carlton is logically inconsistent! I will check at a reasonable hour with both Mr. McNary and Mr. Carlton for a clarification. In the meantime, I’ll have a martini and then reread it.