All told, today felt like the first big win for Gawker so far in the civil trial of Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea’s lawsuit against them. The day started with cross examination of journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley, who began testifying yesterday. Gawker defense counsel Michael Sullivan had his best performance so far, brilliantly setting up Foley to get up exactly the answers he wanted, with Foley seemingly being none the wiser until very late in his testimony.
Sullivan completely neutering Foley’s “Cheerios Test” argument. The test is “Would this upset someone eating breakfast?” Foley hasn’t worked in a newsroom in decades, so he has no online journalism experience. Sullivan used that in his favor on his way to establishing that, besides only being an ethical guideline and not law, the Cheerios Test could vary based on readers’ expectations from a specific publication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn7dN2xkgbM
Later, he asked if Foley’s own St. Petersburg Times violated the Cheerios Test with various stories, including one about the famous Vanity Fair cover photo of a nude, pregnant Demi Moore. The end result was getting Foley to say he ran the cover photo in the paper because…people were talking about it. Which is, basically, Gawker’s defense against Bollea/Hogan. On redirect, Hogan’s lawyers tried to classify Sullivan’s line of questioning as equating things like Moore’s consensual photo shoot to Bubba Clem filming Hogan without his consent, but that’s not what they were doing.
In addition the Society of Professional Journalists were not happy with their code of ethics and the law being muddied. The SPJ ethics committee chairman, Andrew Seaman, told CNN that “The SPJ Code of Ethics is not relevant to whether an act is or is not legal. The words ‘ethical’ and ‘legal’ are not synonyms.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W0WI7_T5w
Most of the rest of the day consisted of playbacks of deposition testimony explaining Gawker’s business model and how traffic equals money. Things got a little more interesting when they played testimony from the deposition of Kevin Blatt, a sex tape broker. He had written an offer letter for the video of Hulk Hogan/Terry Bollea and Heather Cole that was solely designed to get publicity for his client, Sex.com. The testimony they played largely undermined a key part of Hogan’s case for a large award of damages, as Blatt explained that male celebrity sex videos aren’t nearly as valuable as those with female celebrities, though it could have value to an ad-supported pornographic website. The only really compelling aspect in favor of Hogan/Bollea was that it was made clear that he was, under no circumstances, interested in selling the video.
Meanwhile, an article by legal analyst Dan Abrams (you know him best as ABC’s legal correspondent on his website LawNewz.com got a bit of attention tonight when CNN’s Tom Kludt tweeted about it. Essentially, Abrams was fleshing out the theory behind a rumor he heard that Hogan has a benefactor of some kind funding his lawsuit to try to take down Gawker. Kludt, while not confirming the story, did say he heard the rumor himself:
These types of cases are always settled, and going to trial risked exposure/embarrassment for Hogan, which has already happened in a number of ways. Gawker must have offered some good settlements, and Hogan holding out for a a big payday, the justice of a jury decision, or both, is not a great idea.
It’s the type of case unlikely to be taken on a contingency basis (percentage instead of upfront or ongoing fees), and the post-divorce/Graziano family settlement version of Hogan/Bollea most likely does not have the financial liquidity to fund the case himself.
Is there anything to it, thought? That remains to be seen. The trial, meanwhile, continues in the morning before adjourning for the weekend.
If everything goes as planned, we’re only 20% of the way through the civil trial in the lawsuit filed by Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former editor Albert James “A.J.” Daulerio. Today, at least as far as the mainstream media was concerned, the playback of Daulerio’s videotaped deposition testimony was the top story. Why? Because he said something stupid.
Daulerio wrote the article accompanying the video on top of making various related editorial decisions. During the deposition, he was asked by Hogan’s lawyer about what would be out of bounds, and this happened:
Q. So it’s fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not that played no part in your decision about whether and what to publish?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your view that any celebrity sex tape is newsworthy?
A. No.
Q. What sort of celebrity sex tapes would not be newsworthy?
A. I couldn’t say specifically.
Q. Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
SETH BERLIN (Gawker Attorney): Objection, cails for speculation, but you can answer.
A. If they were a child.
Q. Under what age?
A. Four.
Q. No four-year-old sex tapes, okay…
[Pivots to a new question]
Newspapers from all over the world quickly jumped on this. From the video and in full context, it’s somewhat obvious that Daulerio, upset by the line of questioning after he answered it, is being flippant, but that’s not how most outlets covered it. That necessitated this statement from Gawker:
He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear.
Still, it definitely felt like Hogan’s side got what they wanted, making him look callous. He also came off especially badly when he said that he didn’t consider having the nudity/sexual contact pixelated in the “highlight” video Gawker made of the sex tape…because he knew he was labelling it NSFW (not safe for work). Overall, a win for Gawker, especially given his overall demeanor, which Anna Phillips of the Tampa Bay Times had the best tweet about:
This is like watching a recalcitrant child be questioned. Mumbling, monosyllabic responses. #hulkvsgawk
Denton also had his own deposition playback, coming off much better than Daulerio in the process. Still no good answer for the lack of pixelation or censor bars, but he said that he was not nearly as intrigued or excited about getting the video as others at Gawker, including Daulerio, were.
As live testimony went, David Houston, Hogan’s personal attorney, was the main event today, trying to emphasize how the video was shot without Bollea/Hogan’s consent, how embarrassing it was, how many sites complied with his cease and desist letter, and so on. It was clear that he had prepped heavily, if just because of how deliberate this moment came off:
Hulkster's lawyer was distraught when he saw the Hogan sex tape on SlutLoad dot com pic.twitter.com/vzeGAm2MBp
On cross examination, Gawker’s counsel did poke some holes in his testimony, though. It took some cajoling to get Houston to admit that he was joking about the video on on TMZ Live in March 2012. What happened there was that He and Bollea/Hogan yukked it up about how they were glad the video didn’t show a man. While not mentioned in court, it was perhaps extra bad judgment since one of their interviewers, Harvey Levin, is openly gay. Also, at first, Houston was insistent that he and Bollea/Hogan were only trying to get the video taken down, not the article accompanied. The problem? That’s not true, and the federal lawsuit that they filed at one point is all the proof you need:
It’s also more than a bit strange that, given the plaintiffs’ legal strategy of differentiating Hulk Hogan from Terry Bollea in very specific ways.
Journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley (no, not that one) closed out the day with live testimony. The Bollea defense team finished their direct examination to close the day and Gawker will question him on cross examination in the morning. So far, his testimony was mostly what you would expect, though all of his testimony relates to professional ethics as opposed to the law so far.
WWE Hall of Famer The Iron Sheik has penned an open letter to Hulk Hogan and Gawker regarding their ongoing trial over the unauthorized distribution of Hogan’s sex tape.
Sheik opens the letter by putting himself over as the legend who sold out Madison Square Garden and paved the way for the modern era of pro wrestling by dropping the WWE title to Hogan when he could have very well broken his leg instead. He says Hogan told him “I owe you one, Sheikie baby” but never delivered.
Despite taking some shots at his former rival (calling Hulk a “half and half Howdy Doody looking jabroni guitar player”), Hogan is still ‘one of the boys’ and he’s part of the old guard that still knows what respect means. He then ripped into Gawker Media, saying:
“THE GAWKER YOU DUMB NO GOOD SON OF A BITCH YOU GET THE CHEAP HEAT YOU DON’T RESPECT THE PRIVACY YOU HAVE NO CLASS YOU TRY TO BURY THE PEOPLE FROM THE CHEAP HEAT. YOU ARE NOT THE REAL YOU ARE THE JABRONI OF THE EARTH. NOT EVEN THE 100 MILLION MILLION DOLLAR SAVE YOU FROM MAKE THE WORLD A BAD PLACE. YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE THE PRIVACY AWAY. I CANT WAIT I SEE MR. GAWKER I SUPLEX YOU PUT YOU IN CAMEL CLUTCH BREAK YOUR HIS BACK I MAKE HIM HUMBLE. I AM THE LEGEND AND YOU WILL ALL SEE WHEN YOU WATCH MY MOVIE . EVERYBODY PUT ME OVER BIG TIME BECAUSE I AM NO JABRONI #sheikmovie”
You can read the full letter (yes, it’s ALL IN CAPS) at Esquire.com.
EDIT: Everything up to the lunch break is archived here while you can watch the live stream here.
We continue with Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea (and given the way he’s treating the two personas in his testimony, it’s probably best to keep calling him Bollea for now even if we’re used to calling him Hogan) on the stand being cross examined by Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan after they were interrupted by the end of the business day yesterday. Here’s a quick overview of what’s happened so far today and then we’ll get back into live coverage:
Bollea is continuing to go with the “That’s Hulk Hogan in-character” response to how he acted in interviews about the sex tape. In the TMZ interview with him, they called him Hulk, he was outside of his home, so he was Hulk Hogan. He compared the verbiage about his “rear end hanging out” to Ric Flair’s comedy spots where his trunks get pulled out. “I didn’t think having Hulk Hogan’s rear end hanging out was invasive of Terry Bollea’s privacy.” They admitted an email from Dixie Carter to Bollea where she was surprised by how jokey he was in his TMZ interview about the sex tape, saying it was “beneath him” and she was concerned that his personal lawyer, David Houston, was just trying to get face time on TV with him. She thought he should quell the story, but he didn’t listen, and upon Houston’s advice, he went on TV and kind of made it bigger in the process.
When stills of the video leaked in April 2012, after Bollea/Hogan figured out it was Bubba’s bedroom, Bubba told him Heather must have been responsible and Hogan believed him. Questioning now moving on to Howard Stern asking about how he could be embarrassed by the video given the way Heather talks about him on it. There were some technical difficulties and a break, then they returned. Bollea/Hogan on talking about the sex tape: “I was on an entertainment show and I had to be an entertainer, so I just kept going. […] I was joking about my penis, that’s what I was joking about,” But he went along with it. “The topic was sex and wrestling, I didn’t volunteer the sex topic, he did,”
Now, into live coverage…
10:42 a.m. ET They’re playing the earlier Howard Stern interview where Bollea as Hulk Hogan says that he would never sleep with Heather Cole/Heather Clem because of “man law” since Bubba Clem was his best friend. “On a character driven show, I didn’t want to talk about Terry Bollea and his sex life. […] There’s no reason to do that.”
10:44 a.m. ET “I had to talk to Howard about whatever he brought up.” Hulk Hogan can tell ridiculous lies, Terry Bollea is sitting there under oath. In that mode, is it OK to be dishonest? “In that mode, it’s entertainment.” Gawker clearly trying to establish that he’s a lawyer, Hogan clearly well-prepared. He was protecting his privacy as Terry Bollea. But Terry Bollea is never mentioned once, is he? Bollea/Hogan agrees, with Sullivan’s point being that Stern and others were not distinguishing between Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea. Hogan’s memory is even worse than you’d expect, as he has no idea that the Gawker article and “highlight reel” video of the sex tape were posted concurrently.
10:53 a.m. ET “I didn’t have a problem with [TheDirty.com] publishing stills [from the sex tape].” Did not ask any media interviewers not to ask about the sex tape. Thought that was his publicist’s job and he wasn’t gonna do their job for them. Odd.
10:59 a.m. ET They’re going over the TMZ interview after the Gawker article/video came out, which is when Hogan found out for sure Bubba was involved. He got sick after Mike Walters told him during the interview that the video (actually one of three videos as Gawker had all of them and it wasn’t on the one sent to Gawker) that Bubba says after he leaves that he could retire off the video.
11:03 a.m. ET Bollea/Hogan thought he was going to have a heart attack. “Man up with this Bubba thing and it is what it is. [Now] I knew who he was,” so he was able to rationalize the situation and call himself down. It hit him HARD.
11:08 a.m. ET Bubba’s betrayal was one of the hardest things he ever had to deal with. Did he ever see TMZ’s copy of the video with Bubba’s admission? No. Did he ever ask TMZ to show it to him? No. With litigation inevitable, why talk to the media about all of this in such detail? “It was OK to talk about it. We were getting barraged with the media and trying to make it go away.” Trying and failing to get Gawker to take it down fueled the fire.
11:11 a.m. ET Bollea/Hogan got calls from Vivid Video, and they thought it was all a stunt he was in on. Was he concerned everyone thought it was “another wrestling angle where Hulk Hogan was trying to con us,” he kind of says yes. He never had a problem with the article, he says, it’s just the video. “Whatever they put up, I don’t even know.” You never had a problem with the article? “Well, I wasn’t happy about it.” But you included the article in your initial complaint. Bollea’s lawyer objects, Judge Campbell sustains it for some reason and won’t allow Sullivan to argue the objection. Well then.
11:20 a.m. ET Somewhat circular conversation about how his guard was down when Heather propositioned him because he was at an all-time low. When did he get his guard back up? He never did. He’s still at an all-time low? No. He thinks he’d give in to other women who propositioned him? No. But he never got his groove back as Hulk Hogan, it seems like he’s saying. We move on to video of the press conference from when he filed the lawsuit.
11:23 a.m. ET Was he concerned he’d draw attention to the story? No, he had to do something to “stop Gawker from what they were doing to me. […] I don’t know how you could increase the attention more than Gawker did.” He testified at deposition that there weren’t as many reporters there as at the O.J. Simpson trial. Umm…OK? Did he expect his press conference would draw that level of attention? “I did not know what to expect.” Shifting focus to “the privacy of Hulk Hogan.”
11:27 a.m. ET Sullivan read a quote from Bollea/Hogan’s deposition explaining the distinction between the privacy of Terry Bollea and Hulk hogan, which ended with the word “brother.” Now Bollea/Hogan testifying that he’s concerned about Hulk Hogan’s privacy but it’s kind of been given away, anyway, because he’s lost his anonymity. People have taken pictures of him in the bathroom or showering after a match. But nobody invades his private business in his home or a friend’s home.
11:30 a.m. ET If fans ask him about his private life, he answers in character as Hulk Hogan, especially since they don’t address him as Terry Bollea. “I never go down to Terry Bollea,” he said in his deposition. Now: “Not outside the house.” Everyone expects him to answer as Hulk Hogan.
11:33 a.m. ET Never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for his emotional distress. Now hashing out pro wrestling being worked as far as how “predetermined” is more accurate than “fake” due to the physicality. Oh my God, it looks like they’re getting him to talk about how he wasn’t sure if Andre the Giant would let him win…and now he’s asking what a “work” is. This is going to be something. “It’s like dancing with someone.”
11:35 a.m. ET “When a work goes well, it goes quite smoothly, right?” Can two good workers working together look quite real? Yes. Can the term “work” be used outside the wrestling world? Yes, however you want. Oh boy, you can see where this is going. Now, does he consider himself a celebrity? Yes.
11;42 a.m. ET Was he concerned how the “Hogan Knows Best” storylines about trouble in his marriage to Linda would affect public interest in and perception of his marriage? No, not really.
11:48 a.m. ET Didn’t have a problem with a reality show scene where he his pants down and they played fart noises? Not really though he wasn’t crazy about it. Now onto his second book. He doesn’t seem to understand that he got an author credit for his ghostwritten memoir. Now onto what he wrote about his affair with Christiane Plante from his daughter’s record company.
11:51 a.m. ET Sullivan read this from Hogan’s book: “Next thing I know, the two of us started kissing. Not to sound perverted or anything, but it was fantastic. Here I am in my fifties now, and this was a really attractive thirty-four-year-old woman, with dark hair and a curvaceous body. . . . It was such an emotional and physical release. We didn’t have sex that night, but it opened the door.” Talk about how much the affair was covered. Now more about how personal the book was and how he was OK with that.
11:55 a.m. ET Now going over his first book. Extra layer of changes on top of him and the ghostwriter because it was a WWE book. And now we move on to Hogan’s appearance on Bubba the Love Sponge’s radio show via telephone on October 20, 2006. Did Bubba call him Hootie? Yes, it was a joke because that was the name of Bubba’s dog.
12:01 p.m. And now the topic is Hogan saying on Bubba’s show that if people bought his daughter’s record, he’d respond to the question “How big is your penis?” and then explaining all of that in relation to his ring and shoe size. This is actually happening. Now he’s saying he’s talking about how he was talking about Hulk Hogan and not Terry Bollea. “Seriously?” Yes. Oh my God. Now the Hulk Hogan vs. Terry Bollea thing again. This whole discussion has to be seen and heard to be believed.
Hogan: "I do not have a 10 inch penis….Terry Bollea's penis is not 10 inches." Draws snickers, including from the Gawker camp. #hulkvsgawk
12:05 p.m. ET Now talking about Howard Stern asking Brooke Hogan/Bollea, Terry/Hulk’s daughter, about her sex life. Bollea/Hogan saying it was uncomfortable since they were asking about Brooke Bollea even though they were there as the Hogans…which feels like it contradicts his thoughts about himself.
12:08 p.m. ET More of the same, then an objection & sidebar when Sullivan asks what he thought of Stern saying he wanted to take Brooke’s virginity and what he meant when he responded by saying “Howard, she’s the right height.
12:13 p.m. ET They’re still conferring with the judge.
12:19 p.m. ET Whatever they discussed, they broke for lunch when they were done. We’ll be back at 1:30 p.m. ET.
1:35 p.m. ET We’re back, but the jury isn’t…it appeared that Gawker’s lawyers were asking for guidance as to what was fair game with regards to the Brooke-related stuff.
1:41 p.m. ET Cross examination is done and now Hogan/Bollea’s lawyer is questioning him on re-direct to re-iterate the emotional toll of the video.
1:44 p.m. ET Hogan was mobbed by people asking about the sex tape leaving the courthouse yesterday. Physical and emotional toll of the video included trouble eating and sleeping. He was worried about talking to kids as Hulk Hogan because he felt like there was a cloud over everything.
1:48 p.m. ET Explains how going on Howard Stern opens up opportunities for other mainstream interviews, which can be tricky as a pro wrestler. Now back to the Howard Stern post-sex tape interview.
1:53 p.m. ET Did his book that discussed his affair include photos of the woman? No. Of Heather Clem? No. Naked photos? No. Him having sex? No. Now comparing his comedy semi-nude scene on Hogan Knows Best to a nude scene in a mainstream movie. Bollea/Hogan says he saw a movie with John Cena recently (“Trainwreck”) which had “John Cena on top of this comedian, Amy Schumacher, having sex with her in this movie.” Yes, “Amy Schumacher.”
1:55 p.m. ET Reiterating how TheDirty.com pulled the stills from the sex video after getting a cease and desist from him. How the mainstream interviews didn’t show anything.
1:57 p.m. ET Reiterates not consenting to the video or anything Gawker did. Re-direct is over, do the jurors have any questions? They do, and submit them in writing. I didn’t realize that was a thing?
2:00 p.m. ET Juror asked for the timeline of the still photos vs. the video. TheDirty.com posted the stills in April 2012, while Gawker’s edited video was posted in October 2012, but the judge answered that. And Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea has been excused.
Wrestling legend Hulk Hogan is in court this week testifying in his civil trial against Gawker Media. The WWE Hall of Famer is seeking $100 million in damages after Gawker published clips of a sex tape involving him and Heather Clem, ex-wife of Bubba The Love Sponge.
With opening arguments completed, it’s time for what may get more attention than anything else in the trial of the civil lawsuit that Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) filed against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former Gawker editor/founder A.J. Daulerio. Hogan will be the first witness in his case starting today at 1:00 p.m. ET, and we’ll be bringing you live coverage of his testimony right here since it’s likely the biggest “event” of the trial, at least that we can predict. The whole trial is being streamed live by both WTSP (the CBS affiliate station in Tampa, Florida) and Wild About Trial, a court buffs’ website.
One would expect that this will take a while, possibly lasting until the end of business today. In his opening argument, Hogan attorney Shane Vogt made a point of saying that Hogan will completely own up to his infidelities and whatnot, arguing that it has no bearing on whether or not clips of a video of him having sex that was shot without his consent should be put online for the whole world to see.
Keep refreshing starting at 1:00 p.m. ET to follow along.
1:09 p.m. ET Hogan’s lawyers are actually starting by playing the deposition testimony of Heather Cole, the woman in the video with Hogan. She’s not going to be appearing as a witness, so this is how the Hogan side is opening their case. Will include some notes here while checking if it’s know how long this will run.
1:25 p.m. ET Bubba Clem comes off terribly here, with Heather saying he could be “intimidating” and that he was “”loud… aggressive in the way that he would talk to someone… until you did what he wanted.” She sounds like she’s choosing her words carefully. This is pretty brutal, though, especially in the context of the case: “He would continuously berate you until you did what he wanted. Whether it was in the privacy of your own home, or publicly.” She said that she doesn’t recall Bubba told her he was recording the encounters with Hogan, though there’s video proof that he did tell her.
(Hogan is definitely up next, by the way)
1:28 p.m. ET Terry Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan, takes the stand. There appear to be some internet connection issues at the courthouse as he starts and gives basic background information about his life.
1:38 p.m. ET: It’s back, though we’re still mostly on Hogan’s upbringing and early life. Hogan is reaching for words, as he somehow starts talking about seeing wrestling at the “Armenia” only for his lawyer to correct him with “armory.”
1:40 p.m. ET Yes, we get the story about Hiro Matsuda breaking his leg, but only after Hogan’s lawyer feeds him a question to answer with the word “kayfabe” and explain what it means. Is wrestling hard on his body? Talks about his injuries.
1:49 p.m. ET Now we’re going through Hogan’s early career. He said that Jerry Jarrett gave him a $800 per week guarantee and bought him a car. I’m…not sure I believe that. Now we’re up to him going to the WWF. They’re trying to humanize him with all of this background.
1:53 p.m ET Rocky III now. Hogan is going through his usual stories, which aren’t necessarily true, though Jarrett apparently DID by him a car. But anyway, even though he just testified to it under oath, he was not fired by Vince McMahon Sr. for wanting to shoot Rocky III as far as anyone else knows. Now we’re up to his 1983 WWF return.
1:58 p.m. ET: “That’s when it really took off. When we quit trying to insult the public’s intelligence. It’s just to entertain.” The Hulk Hogan character is described as a loud, all-American good guy. And now the judge wants a comfort break that will also allow them to fix some technology issues (presumably the streaming hiccups and Hogan’s microphone).
2:12 p.m. ET: We’re back. Hogan’s mic works now. Talking about his celebrity. Nobody outside of his home ever really calls him Terry anymore. Talks about how he’s usually accommodating when fans ask for autographs. Talks about one time he said no: Guy aggressively approached his family in a restaurant and got his cigarette ashes in Hogan’s wife’s food. Has a doctor friend who he can be Terry Bollea around, plus a few other local friends as well as his family.
2:14 p.m. ET So why IS he wearing a bandana in court? His wife would berate him about his baldness during arguments and talk about wanting to be with someone younger. It’s a self-confidence thing. Also:”I have an exceptionally large head.” Explains that even though the bandana is part of the the signature Hulk Hogan “look,” he wears it for different reasons as Terry Bollea.
2:18 p.m. ET Now claiming he wrestled 400-450 times a year. No. Seriously, no. Said that he had a lot less friends than he thought he did when he was wrestling. Had at most three close friends. Finds it harder to trust people than he used to. Who were his close friends? Jimmy Hart, Ed “Brutus Beefcake” Leslie (but they grew apart when Leslie got remarried to someone who Hogan doesn’t get along with), and formerly Todd/Bubba Clem.
2:23 p.m. ET Hogan outlining how he and Bubba became friends. Bubba was with Hogan in the hospital room when his father died. Bubba held Hogan’s father in his arms as he died. Line of questioning moves to Hogan’s marriage to Linda. Didn’t really have any arguments until 1986. Bad problems started from around 2004-2006 when “Hogan Knows Best” got going and peaked around 2006-2007.
2:29 p.m. ET Explaining how “Hogan Knows Best” was, basically, a work (“soft scripted” is the term for that type of “reality” show). They were told what to say most of the time but “were hoping for magic” in terms of some kind of spontaneous moment.
2:31 p.m. ET Hogan explains how the bloom came off the rose when they realized how much work “Hogan Knows Best” was. Third season was…difficult. On-camera, Linda was “very professional,” but off-camera Linda was distancing herself from Terry and talking about wanting to finally move back home to California.
2:37 p.m. ET Marriage was basically done when Linda moved out. Now we pivot to Bubba and Heather offering for Heather to have sex with him. Started with half-joking sounding propositions like “Heather wants to see you naked!” Hogan “didn’t know Heather very well at all” even though she was his best friend’s wife. They continued hounding him about him sleeping with Heather to the point he asked them to stop.
2:40 p.m. ET “I thought those people cared about me.” Said he “let [his] guard down” one time at Bubba’s house (the only place he “felt safe” during his divorce) and that led to a sexual encounter with Heather, than two or three more (Bubba filmed three). Bubba rarely invited him over; Hogan had only been there a few times before. He got there, they had a group hug, Heather led him to the bedroom, Bubba handed him a condom, and told him he’d be in his office while they had sex. But first: Hogan asked Bubba if he was filming the encounter. Bubba snapped back with a “How could you even ask me that? I’m your best friend!” type of rant.
2:43 p.m. ET “I was on a publicity tour for Total Non-Stop Action, a very small company…”
2:47 p.m. ET “Could you explain to the jury what TNA is or was? Are they even still in business?” They’re still going over how he found out about Gawker’s article/video, etc.
2:51 p.m. ET They’re playing Hogan’s “Showbiz Tonight” appearance during that media tour about TNA that ended up becoming about the video. At the time he said that the whole sex tape thing (both in general and Bubba’s betrayal) “Hurts worse than any back surgery… worse than my son going to jail…”
2:57 p.m. ET How did he feel when he found out about the Gawker post/video? From the description it sounds like he had a panic attack, pretty much, though he didn’t describe it that way. His lawyer, David Houston had to talk him down. At that point, he considered Houston his only real friend.
3:03 p.m. ET Hogan looks like a complete shell of himself listening to the Howard Stern interview from right after the video went up. Playback over, back to questioning.
3:15 p.m. ET Last 10+ minutes mostly Hogan talking about how embarrassed he was. Was even embarrassed for his Hulk Hogan character, not just as Terry Bollea. Direct examination done, break then cross examination by Gawker’s counsel.
3:48 p.m. ET Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan cross examining Hogan, laying groundwork about the Bubba friendship. Does he miss Bubba? He misses the Bubba he THOUGHT he knew. He was on Bubba’s radio show 50-100 times. They had heated arguments when he asked Bubba if he was involved in the sex video materializing when Hogan asked him after screen grabs showed up online. Moving on to the Gawker post now.
3:52 p.m. ET Sullivan comes off much better than Berry did, with a comforting voice. Sounds more like a guy just doing his job, while Berry sounded flippant. Talking about how good a liar Bubba is to convince Hogan he knew nothing about the video. Hogan testifying now he didn’t know he was being recorded. Bubba and Heather never said only like “You can only have sex with Heather if we can record it.” Sure sounds like Gawker is laying groundwork for something here.
3:58 p.m. ET Hogan doesn’t remember Bubba telling him anything about security camera installation in his bedroom. They’re about to play a clip of him on Sirus/XM’s “Busted Open.”
Hulk Hogan on the defensive as Gawker atty tries to show inconsistencies btw depositions and his testimony today. pic.twitter.com/Vt1thZnXU6
4:03 p.m. ET Clips now of Hogan saying Bubba “I know you have cameras, are there cameras in there?” Hogan thinks what he said to Bubba was “You’re not filming this, are you?” The situation felt too weird. Why’d his mind go straight to am I being filmed? Just a weird gut feeling.
4:07 p.m. ET Hogan knew there were security cameras, but they were never pointed out and he didn’t know there was one in the bedroom, much less facing the bed. He didn’t read the commentary alongside the video on Gawker at the time, and it appears he didn’t until his deposition, which he doesn’t remember. They’re jogging his memory with the transcript. Hogan has a notoriously bad memory.
4:14 p.m. ET Berry catching Hogan in lies about watching the Gawker video. Testified in deposition that he didn’t watch the edited Gawker video. Said on multiple TV shows that he watched anywhere from a minute of the video to the entire 1 minute, 40 second video. Says he lied on the TV shows because he was “on autopilot.” Definitely strange, though. Why not say “I just couldn’t look at it, I know what my lawyers told me” or something similar?
4:20 p.m. ET Hogan said he was kind of in the Hulk Hogan character when he made those media appearances even though the topic was something that happened to Terry Bollea. Something leads to a bench conference with the judge and lawyers. Which just ended…
4:29 p.m. ET It was “a constant badgering” of Bubba and Heather propositioning the whole situation for close to two years. Bubba had bragged about being a swinger, even on the radio. Laying further groundwork about Hogan’s friendship with Bubba and how well he did or didn’t know Heather. Hogan moved into their house for a short period after his wife filed for divorce, which was after he had sex with Heather. Was uncomfortable being there, concerned they’d egg him to resume the affair. But Heather never made advances while he lived there and Bubba didn’t push the issue, either.
4:32 p.m. ET We get a bench conference when Hogan’s lawyers object to questions about if Bubba ever told him about videos of Heather with other men. And then we adjourn for the day. Michael Sullivan will continue his cross examination of Hulk Hogan tomorrow morning.
The lawyers are discussing some scheduling issues after the jury was sent away for the day. Guessing nothing of note happens here, but if there are any real developments, we’ll keep you updated.
That’s it for today. Things are getting…interesting.
The trial in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, which starts Monday in St. Petersburg, Florida, took a surprising turn yesterday during a motions hearing. During arguments, it was revealed that Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (formerly Todd Clem, he changed his legal name when he ran for office), who shot the video of his then-wife Heather Cole having sex with Hogan without Hogan’s consent, will not be testifying at trial. Well, he’s being called to testify, but he has retained a criminal defense attorney and will be asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The information came out on Twitter during the hearing yesterday afternoon, but the most complete account so far is probably this Tampa Bay Times article by Anna Phillips.
This development is especially noteworthy since it came out this past week that Clem’s settlement with Hogan required him to cooperate with him in the lawsuit in not help Gawker. Mark O’Brien, the lawyer retained by Clem, refused to discuss Clem’s reasoning for pleading the fifth. Michael Berry, one of the attorneys on Gawker’s legal team, said yesterday that “It appears Mr. Clem may have perjured himself,” with Hogan lawyer Kenneth Turkel responding by saying that “I would disagree that Bubba thinks he perjured himself. I have no idea what he thinks.”
At the very least, Clem can’t be pleading the fifth about the filming of the sex tapes without Hogan’s consent, as the statute of limitations expired on that crime before the Gawker post with clips of the video ever went up. Gawker’s hunch about Clem committing perjury is, specifically, that Clem lied when he testified in his deposition. For a while now, they’ve been banging the drum that he might have perjured himself because he changed his story: Originally, Clem went on his radio show grandstanding about how Hogan knew he was on camera before changing his story and apologizing after they settled and he was removed from the lawsuit. Here’s what he said under penalty of perjury about if he was telling the truth when went on that rant on his radio show:
I’m spewing venom at this point. I’m the fake. I’m the fraud at this point; he’s not. I’m projecting. I’m guilty. I’m busted. And I’m just spewing out anything that comes off the top of my mind to keep people’s eyes off the truth and the ball. A. And I had the luxury of being on this bully pulpit and him not being able to respond back. It’s – it’s totally irresponsible and not fair.
Meanwhile, also addressed during the hearing yesterday was the issue of if Hogan’s lawyers can compare him to TV sports reporter and personality Erin Andrews, who’s currently in the middle of her own, somewhat similar civil trial. Judge Pamela Campbell ruled that Andrews could not be referenced during the trial, citing potential “confusion on the legal issues.” Andrews is suing both the man that shot videos of her changing clothes (through a manipulated hotel door peephole) as well as the hotel chain that made it possible for him to get rooms next to her’s.
The Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker trial starts Monday morning with opening arguments and should last about three weeks. Multiple news outlets are planning to stream the whole thing and we’ll have full coverage here at SEScoops.
The biggest mainstream pro wrestling story of 2016 (at least that we know about so far) mports getting underway, and there’s a lot to unpack. However, as far as what you need to know the follow the case, it may be more simple than you think. Here’s our primer:
Who exactly are the parties involved?
Officially, the name of the case is Terry Gene Bollea (professionally known as Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, LLC (A.KA Gawker Media), Nick Denton, and A.J. Daulerio. Gawker Media owns its namesake Gawker.com (sort of a tabloid gossip outlet turned political website) as well as other sites ranging from Deadspin.com for sports coverage to Gizmodo.com for gadgets, Kotaku.com for video games, and Jezebel.com for women’s issues. Denton is the founder and principle owner of Gawker, with Daulerio being the Editor in Chief of both Gawker.com and Gawker Media when Hogan sued back in October 2012. Daulerio also wrote the article about the Hogan sex tape that’s at the center of the case.
Wait, Hogan made a sex tape? On purpose?
No, not on purpose. When his marriage to his first wife Linda was on the rocks in 2007, Hogan’s then-best friend, radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (his legal name) and his then-wife, Heather Cole, suggested that Heather would be interested in some no strings attached sex with him. Hogan knew that their house was wired with security cameras, and asked Bubba before (at least) the first encounter if he was being filmed. Bubba said no, but he was lying, although Heather knew that she and Hogan were on-camera. Three videos were made (it’s unclear if there was more encounters than just those that were taped), all without Hogan’s knowledge or permission.
But I saw the video, and it looked like Hogan was aware of the camera.
Heather later told Tampa police that she positioned Hogan for the camera at Bubba’s request, as “[he] could be very controlling.”
So Bubba and Heather published it?
No. When they got divorced in late 2011-early 2012, Bubba moved some items out of the house and into his office drawer at the radio station, including the DVDs of her with Hogan and a few other men. Someone (believed by the police to beBubba employee Matt “Spiceboy” Loyd) stole the DVDs and started shopping them around, with TMZ’s Mike Walters putting him touch with a “sex tape broker,” Los Angeles-based lawyer Keith Davidson. Davidson didn’t find the interest they were hoping for, even after leaking screenshots to TheDirty.com, though TMZ did pay $8,000 to get possession of copies of the DVDs.
Several months later, in October 2012, after the story had seemingly long since died off, Gawker.com posted an article by Daulerio titled “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway.” It was accompanied by a heavily edited version of one of the DVDs, which Gawker had been sent anonymously, while A.J. Daulerio’s article itself mused about both how “unsexy” the video was and the nature of celebrity sex tapes in general. When Hogan sued, he was able to quickly get the video taken down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmuqSN59vQ
Wait, so this Spiceboy guy sent it to Gawker? Or was it Bubba…or Heather?
Most likely none of the above. Loyd’s alleged accomplices told police that when they tried to make a deal to sell the tape to Hogan, they were advised by Davidson, the sex tape broker, to tell him that they were the Gawker source. In actuality, they had no idea who was responsible for sending the DVD to Gawker. Davidson was concerned that if Hogan thought the Gawker source was still out there and not part of the deal, he’d call off negotiations. The negotiation turned out to be an act on Hogan’s part, but…well, more on that in a bit. Regardless, reading the police report for the investigation into the theft of the DVDs, the only possible inference is that Spiceboy and company (who weren’t prosecuted, to Bubba’s frustration) weren’t who sent the DVD to Gawker.
Still, shouldn’t Hogan have sued Bubba and Heather?
He did. They eventually settled and were dropped from the lawsuit, with Bubba only paying $5,000 (yes, five thousand) and pledging to help Hogan (and not help Gawker) in the lawsuit.
So back to Gawker. What exactly is Hogan suing over and how much is he asking for in damages?
Hogan’s complaint includes counts of invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, violation of Florida’s “right of publicity” law, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. He’s asking for $100 million in damages, and will try use the potential retail value of the video as a way to make that amount seem credible, as odd as it sounds.
$100 million? Wow. So how much money did Gawker make off the video?
Directly? $0. Gawker has a policy of not running advertisements on “NSFW” (Not Safe For Work) articles, so with the article/video getting millions of hits (Hogan’s side claims 7 million people watched it), any ad revenue would be indirect, either from the article leading readers to other things on the site that had ads or from an increase in Gawker’s brand awareness.
Why didn’t Gawker just settle, anyway? Isn’t this kind of an open and shut case? That sounds like something you just can’t do.
This is where it gets tricky.
Gawker clearly ran everything by their lawyers before publishing everything. The video they ran, which is the main concern (Hogan had tried to get the article pulled, too, and the judge agreed before being quickly reversed on appeal), was edited so that it contained only eight seconds of sexual contact, which could be theoretically justified as verifying the authenticity of the video and illustrate the story. The article put it in a larger context. It’s obvious that they didn’t take this lightly.
Their defense is that publishing the edited video (at the top of the article that contextualized it) was in the public interest. Why?
Not only had Hogan publicly denied having sex with Heather Cole after he already had, but he had increasingly made his sexuality and his sex life part of his public persona. In the years preceding all of this, Hogan’s appearances on both Bubba Clem and Howard Stern’s radio shows had included a lot of graphic sexual discussion about his relationship with both of his wife. Gawker even cited a photo shoot he did for men’s magazine “Oui” (a censored version from the National Examiner tabloid can be seen on Kevin Eck’s blog) to promote Rocky III where two topless women were grinding against him.
It does kind of sound ridiculous, but every legal expert who’s weighed in on the case thinks Gawker will prevail in the end, even if it means filing an appeal. Even if you think it’s morally wrong, it may not be legally wrong.
What about criminal charges?
Those would be for Bubba Clem, not Gawker, and the statute of limitations in Florida expired before Hogan even knew that he’d been filmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AtbuCwl3nA
If Gawker will win in the end, what are all of these stories about the case putting Gawker out of business talking about?
To appeal a jury award in Florida (and the jury finding for Hogan is far from out of the question), you need to post a bond for the award plus two years’ worth of interest. So with a $100 million award or anything close, it could be problematic for Gawker.
What’s the actual real-world significance of the case?
Depending on how far it goes in terms of appeals, it could end up being a very important case in setting a precedent for what’s considered newsworthy and what’s private. As Seth Berlin, the lead counsel of Gawker’s team, put it to the New York Times: “Gawker is defending its First Amendment right to join an ongoing conversation about a celebrity when others are talking about it and the celebrity is talking about it.” Hogan’s lawyer, David Houston, countered by telling the Times that “There’s a world of difference between discussing something and showing a pornographic video, something that goes online and can be seen forever.”
At one point, the judge presiding over the case, Judge Pamela Campbell, actually ordered Gawker to pull not just the video, but also the article. Ordering Gawker to take down the article along with the tape shocked and concerned the news media, as it was borderline unprecedented. Gawker refused to pull the article, and had Campbell’s ruling overturned on appeal (Gawker never put the video back up, though). And this was all years before they went to trial, so you can see what kind of stakes there are and why this case is a big deal: It’s at an intersection of celebrity gossip, freedom of the press, the legal world, etc.
Also: This is the first time any kind of “celebrity sex tape” lawsuit has gone to trial. All past cases were settled or otherwise dismissed.
Wait, why do I feel like I might have heard of a Pamela Campbell in Florida before?
Judge Pamela Campbell was the lawyer for the Schindlers, Terri Schiavo’s parents, in their legal battle with her husband, Michael Schiavo. Just read the Wikipedia entry because there’s too much to rehash here. Campbell was appointed to the bench by former Florida governor turned recently failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush about 18 months after the end of the Schiavo case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRpnLCvRhkw
How do those racist comments Hogan made fit into this?
They came from one of the two videos that Gawker didn’t get. When the people who stole them were shopping them around, they produced a “summary transcript” of the video that included some of Hogan’s comments, and it was turned over to Gawker during the discovery process. Gawker also got some related items from the FBI.
…what?
Hogan went to the FBI, alleging that Sex Tape Broker Keith Davidson tried to to extort him. Gawker eventually had to sue the FBI to get the records of the investigation, which won’t be admitted into evidence at trial. The investigation resulted in a sting operation and they amassed some compelling evidence, but nobody was charged (even after a grand jury was convened) and the reasoning for that has not been made public. The speculation is that it was because Hogan was concerned about the racist comments getting out, but there’s no way to be sure.
So Gawker leaked the racist stuff?
They say they didn’t and the reporter who broke the story says they didn’t, but Hogan thinks they did. On one hand, it getting out helped sway some potential jurors against Hogan. On the other hand, everything Gawker got containing the relevant information was sealed by the judge, and if they were found to be responsible, Hogan would get the equivalent of a default judgment in his favor. So it would have been incredibly risky.
How long will this trial last?
About three weeks.
I want to know more, so where should I look?
The page for our “Gawker” tag should include all of our past coverage.
The jury selection process in the trial of Terry Bollea (professionally known as Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media et al is finally complete after four strange days. Wednesday was completely bananas and Tuesday somewhat less so before things finally wound down today and the jury was picked. The demographic makeup of the jury, as reported by the Tampa Bay Times among others, is four women and two men, with another two women and one man as alternates. All said they had little to no knowledge of the case, and they had a wide range of views on the role of the press. One of the women who was picked said that “If I find something of interest or concern to me, I tend to look it up. I tend to do a lot of investigating,” seemingly indicating a willingness to hear out both sides.
It’s interesting that the jury’s ratio of women to men is two to one. Comparisons of what happened to Hogan (sex tape made without his consent and eventually sent to a gossip website that published a small portion of it) to “revenge porn” have been fairly common with in legal arguments themselves as well as the media. You’d think that women (or at least younger women), might be more inclined to be more put off by Gawker as a result, though there could also be a distaste for Hogan for his infidelities. It all comes down to how well the lawyers questioned the jurors and if the jurors answered honestly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AtbuCwl3nA
Meanwhile, Wild About Trial has a piece focusing on Hogan’s potential “hometown advantage,” since the trial takes place at home in Pinellas County, Florida. “Almost all of the people” that they spoke to mentioned things like Hogan’s charity/fundraising work, that he’s always friendly and amenable to fans who want his autograph and/or a photo, and so on. One reporter told them that “everyone around here either went to high school with Terry, will lie and tell you they did, or knows someone who did.”
Also, the New York Times and HLN have good articles about why exactly this case is important. Both are well worth reading, and we’ll also have our own case primer up shortly to explain why the case is important and what you need to know to follow along.
As far as the jury selection process itself, here are today’s highlights:
When Michael Sullivan, one of Gawker’s lawyers, was asking the prospective jurors what they thought about First Amendment rights, one member of the panel, a pastor’s wife, said they were “abused” too much. “Accuracy on the Internet is not guaranteed. That is something that has to be addressed.” She had concerns about the video being posted without Hogan’s consent, especially since a less than flattering photo of her had been posted on Facebook. ”I like the idea of ‘do no harm.'”
Male potential juror on if he would be able to “follow the law” if he didn’t agree with the content that was published: “Probably not.”
One woman who was dismissed: “I have an issue with ‘public concern.’ I’m not sure how a sex tape is any of my concern. I just don’t understand how that’s freedom of speech.”
Gawker lawyer citing the rape allegations against Bill Cosby: “Should the celebrities have the power in our society to decide what is and is not publishable?” None of the potential jurors said yes. Later: “There’s no place in the jury box for sympathy.”
The trial proper should last about three weeks and begins with opening arguments this Monday, March 7th. There will be a “pool” camera feed for media use and it’s expected to be streamed online in some form. We will have full coverage throughout.
With a hearing scheduled for tomorrow to address some disagreements about what deposition testimony can be used during the trial, there were hopes that jury selection in the trial of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker would end today. It didn’t, as they didn’t have a jury as of 5:00 p.m. local time, so it looks like tomorrow’s going to be a marathon day for Hogan and his lawyers. As for the jury selection process, it wasn’t quite as ridiculous as it was yesterday, but still had many strangely entertaining moments.
As noted by ABC Chief Legal Correspondent Dan Abrams in the above video from Good Morning American, jury selection in this case is tricky because both sides more or less agree on the facts of the case. As a result, this jury is going to be interpreting the law: Hulk Hogan needs jurors who are outraged, while Gawker needs jurors who are vociferous defenders of First Amendment rights, especially since Abrams feels their argument is better suited for an Appeals Court than a jury.
The jury selection here, as in most televised trials (the trial proper be streamed online when it starts this Monday, March 7th) is not televised, so what you’re reading here is mostly sourced from the Twitter feeds of CNN’s Tom Kludt. Here are some of today’s highlights:
Gawker issued this statement as the jury selection started for the day: “We are defending the First Amendment against Hulk Hogan’s effort to create a world where celebrities can promote themselves around any topic, in this case sex, and then veto how the media covers their lives. This tape shows Hulk Hogan having sex with his best friend’s wife, and in fact the tape was made by his best friend Bubba who also appears in the video. Hulk Hogan bragged about his sex life for years, denied this particular sexual encounter, and now thinks his own choices are worth $100 million somehow.”
Actual quote from one of Hogan’s lawyers: “Show of hands, how many of you watch ‘SVU’?”
Kludt described Kenneth Turkel, a member of Hulk Hogan’s legal team, as “really yucking it up with the potential jurors”
One female juror had never really heard of Hogan before this week’s process started. She wouldn’t have recognized him out in public and “just knew he was a fighter of some sort,” but not if he was a boxer or a wrestler.
When the prospective jurors in the room were asked if they had any negative biases against Hogan coming into this process, nobody raised their hand.
One lawyer (I believe for Hogan) asked, half-jokingly, if any potential jurors were upset by Hulk Hogan body slamming Andre the Giant or turning heel to join the NWO and become Hollywood Hogan.
A male potential juror felt that Hogan was “not serious enough” about his son Nick’s car wreck (which caused severe brain damage to passenger John Graziano), but still felt he could be impartial.
Only five of the 91 potential jurors there had heard of Gawker.
When asked about the limits of media, Potential Juror #4 said that ”the New York Times gets away with a lot of stuff politically that they aren’t held accountable for.” Then they talked about Howard Stern.
The lawyers conferred at the bench and the sound in the media room was turned off when a female potential juror said that she felt uneasy serving on a jury in a case about a sex tape due to “personal experiences.”
One woman said that it would be impossible for her to be impartial because “It goes against my personal beliefs, and my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Another female potential juror on the sex tape: “Do I want to look at it? No. Am I willing to, as a citizen? Yes.”
One male potential juror cracked a joke: “Unfortunately I had no excuse to not be here.”
One of Hogan’s attorneys (I believe Kenneth Turkel) asked THIS: “NSFW. How many of you are familiar with that acronym?”
No potential jurors were familiar with Gawker founder Nick Denton or former editor (as well as writer of the Hogan article) A.J. Daulerio. They’re co-defendants with Gawker as a company. Gawker’s lawyer joked that they need to talk to their public relations staff.
When asked about Gawker’s other websites, one man said he reads Jezebel, their women’s issues site. None of them read Kotaku, Gawker’s video game site.
36 potential jurors were dismissed at 5:00 p.m., with 70 returning tomorrow for the final jury selection. Nine of the 70 will be picked.
We’ll have more tomorrow, and in-depth coverage starts with opening arguments this Monday, March 7th. We’ll also have a guide to everything that’s going on in the case by the end of the weekend.
After the potential juror pool was narrowed down yesterday with the initial questionnaire, people getting hardship exemptions, and so on, things got a lot more interesting today when it comes to jury selection the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker (officially Bollea vs. Gawker) civil trial. Today was the first day of voir dire, the session where lawyers from both sides question jurors to look for potential biases that could help or hurt their cases. There were 106 potential jurors yesterday when the dust cleared, and today, the attorneys for both sides started to question them. The result was an utterly bizarre spectacle that unfortunately wasn’t broadcast due to restrictions by the judges (the trial proper will be streamed online starting Monday/March 7th) and resulted in some amazing Twitter content.
Probably the most worrisome panelist was Potential Juror #13, a woman who said that she didn’t hold any bias against Hogan for his use of the N-word. “I don’t know how it made me feel. I may have thought, ‘Oh how sad.'” That isn’t inherently a problem. This quote, however, is: “Frankly, if I could talk about that word for a minute, it’s a double edge sword. A certain race can say it, but a certain race cannot. It’s just not right that that happens.” Somehow, she wasn’t excused, and will return tomorrow for further questioning. The other potential jurors mentioned were, while clearly less potentially malevolent, as entertaining if not much more.
On top of that, Judge Pamela Campbell, after imploring the jury pool to avoid news coverage of the case, went off on a tangent about the quality of online journalism…well, or her perceived lack thereof. “There used to be investigative journalists,” she said. To some, it sounded like a “dog whistle” rant about Gawker and it came off as wildly inappropriate.
Here are some of the highlights from 35 potential jurors being questioned:
Way less people than you’d expect had heard of Gawker.
Potential Juror #5 had information about her posted online without her consent: Her weight. Potential Juror #6 also had an ex-girlfriend smear her in some way on MySpace. Yes, MySpace.
Potential Juror #8 was the first male questioned. “I don’t follow a lot of mainstream media. I’m not a mainstream media kind of person. […] I’ve heard the word Gawker..But I don’t really know anything about Gawker.” He had, however, heard of Gizmodo, Gawker’s gadget site, as well as Jalopnik, their car site, but didn’t appear to know it was part of Gawker Media.
Potential Juror #10, a local bar employee who said that “[Hogan] seems to enjoy the circus atmosphere that follows him. Sex with a friend’s wife, although consensual, seems a bit slimy,” before adding that “I’m very opinionated.” She was excused, of course
Potential Juror #11 saw parts of the Hulk Hogan/Heather Cole sex video at the center of the case…on Gakwer…right? “No, on porn sites.” He’s a “former wrestling fan” (to quote Kludt, not the juror) who listens to Bubba the Love Sponge sometimes and said that what he’s learned about Hogan’s private life “lessen[ed]” his opinion of theHulkster. “Seems to me like a rather inappropriate arrangement. One man’s wife is one man’s wife and…should remain that way.” He also had negative feelings about Gawker, though: “The idea that [the video] was received in good faith does not seem possible to me.” He was the second to be dismissed/excused.
More jurors than you’d expect only knew Hogan from local news stories about his divorce and his son’s car wreck.
A female potential juror had “party” photos posted of her on Facebook without her consent and the offending party refused to take them down. “That makes me feel kind of victimized.”
Potential Juror #19, a self-identified “devout Christian,” singled Hogan out as a “sinner” for his infidelities.
A male who saw the edited sex tape (presumably the Gawker post) on where he found it: “I couldn’t tell you the website. Someone was like check this out.”
Potential Juror #22 was dismissed for sharing mutual friends with Bubba Clem and Heather Cole. On serving on this case’s jury: ”Probably not a good idea.”
This happened:
Attorney: Do you follow wrestling? Juror: “Yeah, when it was real back in the day." #hulkvsgawk
The day started at 9:00 a.m. local time. They didn’t find anyone who was offended by Hogan’s racist comments until Potential Juror #46 at around 3:38 p.m. “I know the plaintiff has used a word that I find abhorrent.” Also: ”I find the amount [$100 million] that’s been requested in this case to be…very excessive.” Guess what happened.
On Gawker: “It’s a fairly well known phenomenon.” On the nature of the affair, paraphrased by Anna Phillips:
Juror says the fact that the sex was extramarital bothers her. What if the husband approved? That's even worse, she says. #hulkvsgawk
One man wrote “I’m on Terry Bollea’s side” and “I like Hulk Hogan” on his questionnaire.
As paraphrased by Tom Kludt: Potential Juror #80 said that Pat Robertson’s 700 Club evangelical Christian television show was “one of his primary news sources.” A few minutes later, presumably from the same man: “I don’t know anything about Gawker. Never seen it. The name to me would imply a site that shows pornographic material.”
The day ended with a guy wearing sandals who wasn’t sure if he could be impartial because “I have a very pleasant memory of Hulk Hogan.”
That’s it for today. We’ll have more tomorrow, and remember that full coverage of the trial proper starts Monday.
On Monday, Gawker filed a motion to exclude deposition testimony of a corporate representative of MindGeek during the trial in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against them, which starts this coming Monday, March 7th. MindGeek is the company behind a ton of different pornographic websites, including many of the “YouTube of porn” types of websites. The reason this all came up is because Hogan, is trying to determine the damages that he should be awarded if he prevails over Gawker at trial, is arguing that for each person who viewed Gawker’s “highlight reel” of the video of him and Heather Cole, he should get the “standard price to access and view” a celebrity sex video. To determine this amount, Hogan will be calling Shanti Shunn, an e-commerce expert, as a witness who will testify that the video was viewed 4.46 million times and that the views should be multiplied by the $4.95 fee to view Vivid Video’s celebrity sex website.
In a deposition, Shunn conceded that he had no experience with the pornography business and the he wasn’t aware that Vivid puts its celebrity videos on PornHub (one of MindGeek’s free sites) for free viewing. Part of Shunn’s expert report was that to see Vivid’s celebrity videos, they HAD to pay at least $4.95, so Gawker deposed MindGeek via corporate designee Brett Goldenberg just 13 days ago on February 18th. Goldenberg’s role was to establish that an explicit five minute video of Kim Kardashian and Ray J, which is owned by Vivid, had been legally streamed 105,771,119 times via the official “Vivid Celebs” PornHub channel as of March 18, 2015. The inference, of course, is that Shunn’s method of calculating damages for Hogan isn’t valid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uvEhrmhIzI
In the same deposition of Goldberg, Hogan’s lawyers tried to get information about what type of revenue is generated by videos being viewed at PornHub, though the MindGeek lawyer shut down a lot of that questioning. They also tried to get Goldenberg to answer questions about the PornHub terms of use, user-uploaded videos requiring the consent of everyone appearing in them, etc. to try to bolster the privacy claims at the center of their case.
Hogan’s side is trying to get the deposition thrown out, but Gawker argues that they were granted approval to take the deposition by the judge, that they stayed within the agreed parameters, and that there’s no reason for Hogan’s motion to be granted. The conclusion of Gawker’s pleading reads as follows:
Plaintiff has failed to offer any meaningful basis for the Court to revisit its July 2015 ruling that Defendants could secure testimony from MindGeek that celebrity sex tapes can be viewed for free at PomHub in light of the expert testimony proffered by Plaintiffs expert that a person would need to pay at least $4.95 to watch those tapes. Moreover, nothing about Mr. Goldenberg’s deposition presents the compelling circumstances to warrant the drastic remedy of excluding his testimony.
We’ll have more later going over ridiculousness of today’s jury selection process.
LawNewz, the website founded by ABC Chief Legal Correspondent Dan Abrams, broke an interesting story today when it comes to the whole Hulk Hogan sex tape mess. Originally, when Hogan filed his lawsuit against Gawker, both Bubba the Love Sponge Clem and his ex-wife, Heather Cole were both co-defendants along with Gawker, Gawker founder Nick Denton, and then-Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio, who wrote the article about the sex tape of Hogan and Cole. Clem (who recorded the counter on a hidden security camera feeding into a DVR/DVD burner system) and Cole (who was aware she and Hogan was on camera and later told Tampa police that positioned the Hulkster for “better” shots) were dropped from the suit after Clem settled with Hogan. The terms of the settlement were sealed, and little was known…until today.
It had already come out via past filings that Clem transferred the copyright of the video (Bubba didn’t register it; all works are automatically copyrighted under United States law going back to early 1989) and had to make a public apology, which he did on his radio show. What weren’t known were the financial terms of the settlement. Today, after digging through various transcripts of hearings from Hogan’s case against Gawker, found one of Gawker’s lawyers discussing the settlement, including the financial terms and some of the other promises Clem made:
Mr. Clem got out of this case with a promise to testify to cooperate, to not disparage Mr. Bollea, and to not help us, and paid what they called the substantial sum of $5,000.
Yes, just $5,000, when Hogan is suing Gawker for $100 million. Gawker was trying to get the settlement admitted as evidence in the trial, and they felt the settlement amount was an important detail. Why? The case against Clem was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning Hogan could re-file the case against Clem. Here’s the note about the settlement terms in context:
Then there is this dismissal without prejudice. Mr. Clem got out of this case with promise to testify to cooperate, to not disparage Mr. Bollea, and to not help us, and paid what they called the substantial sum of $5,000. But at that point, if Mr. Clem testified differently in his deposition, if he comes into court come March 7th and testifies differently in this courtroom, Mr. Bollea can restart a hundred million dollar lawsuit against him. That is the problem.
You can read that as, more or less, that Gawker is concerned by a former co-defendant and key witness changing his story after settling might have changed his story because the settlement terms were so forgiving. Especially since Hogan could just sue him again after he gets favorable testimony in the trial. The low settlement figure also makes you wonder if, by that point, Hogan was aware of the racist comments he made on one of the three videos Clem and Cole made of him (not the one Gawker had) and was willing to give Bubba a sweetheart deal to make sure Bubba wouldn’t do anything that would lead to those comments surfacing.
After months of delays and drama, Pinellas County Court in Florida was the site of the beginning of the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker civil trial. Hogan sued the new media company in October 2012, just days after their flagship nd namesake blog posted an article accompanied by a “highlight reel” of a video that included Hogan having a sexual encounter with Heather Cole, then known as Heather Clem, wife of radio show host Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Hogan has always sworn that he had no idea he was being filmed.
The short video included about eight seconds total of actual sexual contact, which Gawker claims was solely to authenticate that this was the actual rumored sex tape (and posting any video authenticating that the video cited in the article was real). The article mused about how “unsexy” the video was while musing about the public’s interest in celebrity sex tapes in general. The video was quickly pulled and Hogan almost got the article pulled, but the latter was kept on the site after Gawker appealed. Gawker’s defense is that the Hogan, largely via appearances on both Clem and Howard Stern’s radio shows, had made his sex life a matter of public interest.
The trial proper starts next Monday, with jury selection beginning today, with Hogan tweeting about it early this morning:
Time for the real main event!"I AM" going to slam another Giant! Hogan vrs Gawker! Watcha Gonna Do Gawker? Only Justice Brother HH
Some of the potential jurors seemed excited by the proposition of this being the trial they might serve on if they didn’t get out of jury duty.
There were 250 potential jurors in each session, with one morning session and one afternoon session. The 14 page juror questionnaire included, on top of standard questions about potential conflicts of interest via work and family, included queries such as “Do you follow celebrity news?” and “Have you ever had private information posted online without your consent?“
CNN Money included another question from the 12 page questionnaire: “This case involves images depicting sex and nudity, and the use of profanity. Would receiving and viewing this type of content affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?“
By the end of the day, they were whittled down to 106 potential jurors who will return tomorrow, with most of the pool running for the hills when they found out that the the trial would most likely last about three weeks.
Several jurors “scoffed audibly” when it was explained that Gawker’s defense is that the video was “a matter of public concern.”
There will be a hearing in the case on Friday, which will mostly deal with what portions of different deposition testimony can be admitted. Legal experts don’t expect Hogan to prevail in the end, with Stephen MacNamara of Florida State University’s College of Communication and Information telling the Courtroom View Network last week that the video being recorded in someone else’s home reducing the expectation of privacy on top of giving credence to Gawker’s first amendment arguments. According to McNamara, a Hogan win being upheld on appeal “would change the face of a whole lot of things.”
– Hulk Hogan is getting trolled on Twitter once again. It’s no secret that Hogan will retweet virtually anything, regardless of whether or not the person asking for the re-tweet is clowning him in. On Friday morning, Hogan re-tweeted a message from a guy asking, “Can a n—– get a RETWEET? Thanks Hulk!” Hogan obliged. You can see the tweet here.
– Another social media fail – Stephanie McMahon’s Instagram account was hacked on Thursday.
Hi, it appears my @instagram account has been hacked. We are working on fixing this problem; I'll send an update when it's up and running!
– The WWE Network is adding a new “Daniel Bryan Collection” later today.
– Despite reporting record earnings on Thursday, WWE stock took a major hit, dropping nearly 5%. As of this writing on Friday morning, the stock is down another 3% to around $14.50.
– JBL climbed another mountain on Thursday, spending 9 hours to reach the top of Quandary Peak in Colorado. Here are some photos from his journey:
There’s now even more legal drama surrounding the Hogan family. Hulk Hogan’s daughter Brooke has been named in a lawsuit for “cyber defamation,” which means slander conducted through the internet. The lawsuit alleges that Brooke Hogan went on Instagram and accused the plaintiff of being involved in dog fighting.
On Tuesday, South Florida law firm Sackrin & Tolchinsky issued a press release detailing their lawsuit against Brooke Hogan. According to the press release, the lawsuit is in reference to “social media posts Brooke published to her public Twitter and Instagram accounts in April, 2015, falsely accusing Alexis “Lexi” Williams of involvement in dog fighting.”
Ms. Williams, a medical lab employee and veteran of the United States Army who has owned and loved animals all her life, has never met Brooke, yet as a result of Brooke’s malicious actions she has been continuously subjected to death threats, both in person and over the internet, as well as ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish, and a loss in her capacity to earn a living.
While the Complaint in this case was filed on September 11, 2015, service of process has not yet been perfected on Brooke due to Brooke’s intentional efforts to evade service.
“We attempted to arrange service in private with Brooke’s agent and manager. Brooke responded by deleting the posts in question, and hiding in Jack’s house when a process server came to the door,” said attorney Adam Sackrin, of the ongoing efforts to serve Brooke.
Ms. Williams is seeking compensatory damages and plans to ask for punitive damages.
Brooke has appeared on both WWE and TNA television alongside her father. Hulk is still involved in a huge legal case with Gawker over his sex tape.
As first reported yesterday by Capital New York, Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker took a curious turn yesterday during a brief hearing in Pinellas County Court. With most of the lawyers appearing via phone conference, the stated goal of the hearing was for Judge Pamela Campbell to deliver her outstanding rulings on matters not decided during last week’s marathon-length hearing. After ruling in favor of Gawker on one motion, she suggested the two sides re-enter mediation to try to come to a settlement. The perception of Campbell from those following the case is that her rulings have been heavily slanted towards Hogan (but not necessarily to the point of improprieties or anything like that), so what happened yesterday came as a bit of a shock.
The motion granted was filed on December 22nd, Gawker had filed requested “access to corrected and unredacted DVDs produced by the FBI” stemming from their lawsuit against the federal law enforcement agency. Back in 2012, the FBI had investigated Hogan’s allegations that he was being extorted by whoever had stolen security camera videos of him having sex with Heather Cole at the home she shared wth then husband Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. That led to a sting operation where the FBI seized the three DVDs of Hogan and Cole, and the video of the sting itself took up two DVDs, so the FBI ended up producing five DVDs to Gawker in their lawsuit to get the records of the investigation. Gawker had issues early on with the DVDs having glitches and edits that shouldn’t be there, but it was eventually rectified. Only the lawyers for each side can see the videos, which they were not sent copies of, and Gawker wanted to see them again.
Judge Campbell watched all five DVDs over the weekend, and it seems as if she noticed something that she thinks the lawyers for both sides missed. “I know that at our hearing on all of the motions in limine, which I believe was last July 1st, there were motions — there was a motion in limine from the plaintiff on the issue of racial slurs, and that part of it we need to revisit. I think after you all have had an opportunity to review the DVDs, you will see that.” It’s difficult to know exactly what they discussed or even what was being argued other than that it involved Hogan’s use of racial slurs, but she also added that “after the attorneys have an opportunity to look at those DVDs, I’m going to suggest that the attorneys or that you go back to mediation. I’m not going to require it, but I think you’ll see why.” She also made a point of saying that the lawyers should re-listen to the audio CDs of the sting operation before they get the opportunity to watch the DVDs.
With so much of the relevant information being sealed/confidential, understanding why she thinks they should try to settle is going to be incredibly difficult. There had been two previous attempts at mediation and obviously neither went well. Hogan attorney Charles Harder told Capital New York that the results of the next mediation session “depends on what Gawker’s side has to say. If they are going to say what they’ve said in the past, I don’t see any chance of settlement.” Harder also made news yesterday for representing another plaintiff in a new, otherwise unrelated lawsuit against Gawker.
Yesterday, we told you about the reports that Gawker was seeking to bring on outside investors for the first time as a way of making sure that legal fees for defending Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit don’t bleed them dry. Today, it’s official: The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are reporting that Columbus Nova Technology Partners, a Silicon Valley investment firm, is buying a minority stake in the company. In addition to helping to pay legal bills, the new cash infusion will help fund growth initiatives.
Jason Epstein, managing director of Columbus Nova, will get a seat on Gawker’s board. He told the Times that “We have been attracted to the company because of the authenticity with which they approach all storytelling. I will have no input on the editorial, or the editorial mix. Any changes will be driven one way or another by Nick and the team.” Gawker refused to comment on the specifics of the deal itself, but company founder Nick Denton did speak to the Times about the site in broader terms.
It’s not a secret that Gawker’s future is at stake in their legal battle with Hulk Hogan. Hogan is suing for $100 million in light of Gawker publishing excerpts of a sex video that was shot without his knowledge, and a judgment of anywhere close to that size could mean the end of the company or bringing on outside financing. Even though legal experts believe that Gawker would win on appeal if they lost at trial, Florida law requires posting a bond amounting to the award plus interest if you’re appealing the figure.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that International Business Times reported today that Gawker is calling for an “extraordinary general meeting” this Thursday to approve a new class of shares in the company that would be sold to raise money. Citing their editorial independence, founder Nick Denton had never sought any outside funding before, but the game has changed thanks to the lawsuit.
With the Hulk Hogan trial beginning in early March, Gawker Media is fortifying its finances to ensure full resources are in place for the continued cost of litigation. Gawker Media is the most heavily trafficked digital media company that has not raised institutional funding and continues to grow at double-digit rates, with significant untapped opportunity across its seven core brands. Until now, Gawker Media has been funding the Hulk Hogan legal expenses from general revenues and given the expenses of continuing to defend our First Amendment rights, the management of Gawker Media has concluded that additional financing should be locked in before the trial begins.
Gawker refused to provide further comment, but the Wall Street Journal is reporting that “person familiar with the situation” told them that “the process of securing outside funds has reached an advanced stage.”
In light of recent speculation that WWE might be desperate enough to bring him back for WrestleMania 32, fans have been asking Hulk Hogan about a potential WWE return. This morning, he replied to several tweets to shut that down, not only saying that he wasn’t in talks with WWE, but that he hadn’t spoken to anyone there since he was fired in July:
@marvin_massey sorry Marvin but I don't work for@WWE anymore and I have not had a conversation with anyone about WM,I'll be there inSpiritHH
Hogan was released back in July when The National Enquirer release transcripts of racist comments that he made while secretly being filmed in 2007 sexual encounter. Hogan has alleged that Gawker, who he sued for publishing excerpts from another sex video, leaked the comments, but Gawker claims they didn’t have access to everything that the Enquirer published. This past week, Gawker unsuccessfully tried to get the case dismissed on the grounds that Hogan had defrauded the court various things, including that his emotional distress was over the potential release of the racist comments and not video of him having sex.
On Thursday’s episode of Wrestling Observer Live, Dave Meltzer reported that there’s speculation within WWE that the company may bring back Hulk Hogan for WrestleMania 32. With injuries plaguing their roster and WWE wanting to load up the event with star power to sell out the 100,000+ seat AT&A Stadium, the controversial Hall of Famer may be an option for them. Meltzer also mentioned that the potential backlash of bringing back Hogan is something WWE takes very seriously.
WWE cut ties with Hogan as their ambassador and removed him from their website and programming after a sex tape revealed Hogan using racist language. Meltzer reported that if any of WWE’s big sponsors had an issue with bringing The Hulkster back, it would put an end to the idea right away.
WrestleMania 32 takes place on April 3, 2016, at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. We’ll have live results of the event right here on SEScoops.com, and backstage news all week leading up to April 3rd.
Hulk Hogan secured another victory in Pinellas County Court today in the latest hearing in his lawsuit against Gawker. As you may know, back in October 2012, Gawker was anonymously sent a copy of a sex video (shot on a security camera without Hogan’s knowledge) showing Hogan and Heather Cole having sex in the bedroom she shared with then-husband Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Gawker edited the video into a “highlight reel” mixing sex and banter, released it accompanied by an article about the video and celebrity sex tapes in general, and promptly got sued by Hogan.
Today, they were in court for a hearing where the judge would rule on a number of motions, most importantly Gawker’s latest motion to dismiss the case outright. As I covered in both the December 28th and January 4th issues of Figure Four Weekly for F4WOnline.com subscribers, the motion to dismiss was filed under seal because it was confidential according to the terms set by the judge. All we really knew was that the motion was arguing that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of fraud by Hogan and his attorneys. This is what Gawker’s motion to determine the confidentiality of the court record said:
Concurrent with this motion, Gawker is filing its Motion to Dismiss, and the Exhibits attached thereto. The Motion to Dismiss argues that plaintiff Terry Bollea has engaged in a systematic fraud on the Court to conceal the existence of additional sex tapes depicting him having sex with Heather Clem, including one that shows him making racist statements. As explained in the Motion to Dismiss, the effect of plaintiffs fraud was to cover up key evidence on many core issues relating to liability, credibility, and damages. In particular, plaintiffs year long fraud suppressed evidence of the existence of an alternative and intervening cause for Bollea’s alleged distress following Gawker’s publication of brief, grainy excerpts from one tape, and an alternative explanation for why the tapes depicting him and Ms. Clem had value and what that value actually is. The full extent of plaintiffs fraud only became clear on November 30 and December 2, 2015, when the FBI produced hundreds of unredacted records to Gawker’s counsel.
It seemed like they were alleging that Hogan and his lawyers had lied about a number of things. Today, in court, Gawker’s lawyers got deeper into this, though a lot of it was not in open court due to the restrictions. Among the misrepresentations that Gawker’s counsel listed were Hogan’s lawyers saying that:
Gawker was the target of the FBI’s investigation into the sex videos (They weren’t; it was an alleged extortionist).
The FBI investigation was still ongoing in 2014 (It wasn’t; the investigation had been closed in 2014).
There was only one sex video long after they had learned there were three, with there being two that Gawker didn’t have and one of those two having Hogan’s racist comments.
Nobody had tried to sell the sex videos back to him. (Allegedly, “sex tape broker” Keith Davidson had on behalf of his clients)
There was no way of knowing if there was actually an additional video containing racist comments and that even if it did exist, the audio could have been manipulated by the extortionist hiring a Hogan impersonator.
Gawker’s lawyer stressed that the judge had made rulings based on these misrepresentations. Hogan’s lawyer was very bombastic when he responded, but mostly said that the misrepresentations (both sides were barred from using the word “lie”) were just disagreements and that they applied to damages, not issues central to the case. Gawker then cited caselaw showing that fraud with regards to damages can be grounds for dismissal.
Judge Pamela Campbell denied the motion to dismiss, started to explain why, and then decided to announce it was time for a lunch break. It wasn’t clear what she was about to say or why she stopped.
More later, as the hearing is still ongoing with regards to other motions.
The Rock, Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan will be appearing in the upcoming Expendables 4 movie, according to a report at ChristianToday.com. The news has yet to be confirmed by any reputable movie news publications, so take this as a rumor for now.
The WWE legends will be joining Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham and franchise newcomer Pierce Brosnan.
Production begins next year the film is slated for a 2017 release.
Hogan is expected to be playing the main villain in the movie. In a previous interview, Hogan said,
“We’re trying to figure out a way to maybe turn me into the most evil man in the world. You know, Stallone gave me my first break. He’s been a great friend for all these years. We had a great conversation, talking about the possibilities. Can I still run, can I still jump? Well, not as fast or not as high, but I think Hollywood could find a good stunt man to help me out.”
During his time away from the spotlight, Hulk Hogan is still keeping tabs on the WWE product and gave a strong endorsement to Alberto Del Rio after seeing him face John Cena last night on RAW. Early Tuesday morning, Hogan took to Twitter to praise Del Rio as a deserving main event player, stating that the wrestling industry needs more guys like the United States champion.
@VivaDelRio hard work really pays off,his incredible shape that he is in is very impressive,his work rate,timing,instinct,is main event
Kurt Angle recently spoke with the folks at WrestleTalk TV about the impact Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff had on TNA — both negative and positive — when they had their run in the promotion. Below are some of the highlights from the interview, which you can watch above.
On Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff costing TNA money:
“I love Hogan, I love Bischoff. Never had problems with either of them. Terry, we’ve always been close. I believe they did good for the company, TNA. I believe it was very expensive. They probably came up with the idea of TNA traveling town to town every week. It’s a great idea, but where are you going to get the money?”
On TNA going on the road nearly causing the company to go out of business:
“I think it really put the company in a position where it almost went under again. I know it went under at the very beginning, but it looked like it was about to go under again. TNA is a great company, but it’s not a WWE. We don’t have the extra funds to take chances, to waste a few million today and tomorrow will be fine. Every penny counts.”
On Hogan and Bischoff ultimately being good for TNA despite making decisions that cost the company a lot of money:
“Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan were very good for our company. Did they spend a lot of money? Yes. I’m sure it cost a lot of money to get them in there, and I’m sure they had ideas that cost us a lot of money. It was a good thing and somewhat of a bad thing, but I love the guys.”