The email exchange between Mark Cuban and SEC attorney Jeffrey Norris has given renewed attention to the 9-11 conspiracy film “Loose Change“   While he goes off on some bizarre tangents, the gist of the email exchange beginning in March 2007 was Norris accusing Mark of being “unpatriotic” in that Cuban’s Magnolia Pictures was considering picking up the film for distribution. (They ultimately chose not to distribute the film)    What is “Loose Change”?

Loose Change is a video that examines the attacks of September 11.  There are now several revised versions presented in documentary form.  All three versions can be found all over YouTube.  The basic premise of the 3 versions is that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and conducted within the United States Government.  In trying to make that point, the film focuses on anomalies and discrepancies in film footage, interviews etc etc.

What was Mark’s involvement with Loose Change?  Mark has a stake in a media distribution company called Magnolia Pictures. In early 2007 it was publicized that Magnolia was considering obtaining the distribution rights for Loose Change. That is when the media backlash began.  I am not going to try to summarize Mark’s reasoning in considering distribution or in deciding not to. There is content with regards to his views and public sentiment all over the internet.   Here is an interview with Bill “O’Reilly who made the basically the same accusations against Mark with regards to the movie Redacted

Where do I stand?  I have never seen Loose Change.  I have no desire to.  To me the entire premise is ludicrous. How can I pass judgment on a movie I have never seen?  How many people reading this passed judgment on “Redacted” and Mark Cuban based on Bill O”Reilly’s “Talking Points” but never saw the movie. That is how consumer movie viewing decisions are made. They are made by word of mouth.  Enough said there.  Unless people are agreeing to rob a bank or get rid of someone’s spouse for the insurance money, I am skeptical in the extreme of conspiracy theories.  While I am not saying they never happens re Watergate, I believe that in general, government conspiracies theories are coping tools for those looking for explanations of all that is wrong with the human condition.  When all worldly logical explanations fail, blame the government.   I have also never seen Redacted.  I found the plot of U.S. soldiers raping and pillaging in Iraq distasteful while the conflict was ongoing.  I certainly did not feel that way when I watched Brian Depalma’s similar and much more successful movie, Casualties Of War.  Casualties, starring Michael J. Fox,  dramatized the true story of a group of American soldiers kidnapping and raping a Vietnamese girl while on patrol. Why didn’t we all scream about that? (Some Vietnam Vets may have)  I believe it is because when our only context for an event is historical, it breeds indifference, not emotion.

I support any artist’s right to make such films. I supports any distributor’s right to distribute such films without limitation unless it would violate the law to do so(child pornography).  I support my right and your right to be offended, boycott and encourage others to boycott content we disagree with.  I support the First Amendment.  My views can best be characterized by the following exchange I had with one of my Facebook friends.   I have redacted his name to protect his privacy.

Brian’s Facbook Friend is disgusted by the SEC’s ridiculous waste of time and money trying to unjustly get Mark Cuban. I don’t agree with Mark’s 9-11 movie, but this is power abuse. 10:15am

- 9 Comments

Brian Cuban at 10:16am November 22
It was not Mark’s 9-11 movie, Magnolia was simply considering distributing it. He had nothing to do with its production… )

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 12:26pm November 22
Brian, I dont agree with the distribution of that absolute “bull—-” movie. No one in America should agree to the distribution of that trash. I still however agree with alot of Mark’s positions on various matters and admire his drive. The Movie distribution thing is a HUGE MISTAKE though. That does not change my total defense on Mark on this SEC deal. He is not guilty of Insider Trading and will be vindicated in my estimation.

Brian Cuban at 12:51pm November 22
I am right there with you on your right to voice your disapproval, boycott and encourage others to disapprove and boycott film, books, art and all media content that you disagree with or find personally offensive. I am right there with Mark, other distributors, and artists of all disciplines to create and distribute content without fear of censorship. Content that may be unpopular or even offensive to segments of the public. I love this country! )

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:07pm November 22
Brian, I love this country too. However, the film in question rose to the level of of absolute untruth. Distribution of a film denying the holocaust would be an example of another item that content should not be distributed by any reputable firm. Distributing content that is designed to promote an absolutely untrue portrayal of events does not merit distribution from a credible source. There are definitely limits to what a credible firm should distribute if they want to have any kind of reputation of respect. Otherwise, the firm will be a joke and bring discredit to the firm and decision makers connected to the firm which in this case is Mark. I lend great latitude to distributors and artists to creative concepts. This however is not an issue of creative, unpopular or simply offensive. It is PROPAGANDA (TOTAL LIES) meant to confuse very simple facts. Sometimes mistakes are made, this one is a huge mistake for any reputable firm to distribute this production

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:10pm November 22
Brian, with that said I totally defend Mark on the SEC charges. Additionally you guys have done a great job promoting Dallas, advocating rationale business practices and challenging the community in many ways that I salute. I am with you guys 100 percent on your fight for transparency in publicly traded companies and the energy Mark puts into everything he does. On this one movie distribution we will have to agree to disagree on though.

Brian Cuban at 1:19pm November 22
My response is so what. People have the right in this country to make and distribute crappy films, propaganda, confuse facts, distort facts etc  as long to do so does not violate applicable laws. We as consumers can choose not to see crappy propaganda films that are untrue. I doubt a film trying to legitimize holocaust denial would get distribution but if it did, I would not see it, I might even show up with a sign boycotting it. I however would not stomp on the Constitution by arguing they did not have a right to make it or get distribution for it. Holocaust denial as offensive as I find it, is not illegal in this country. And there are limits on what can be distributed. Those limits are outlined in Supreme Court cases such as child pornography.  Ironically it’s people wanting to censor and stomp on the 1st amendment that give these films more attention than they would otherwise get.

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:25pm November 22
Brian, right to distribution is not my point. My point is legitimate reputation. If a firm wants to earn reputation, then judgment has to be demonstrated. That is my only point.

Brian Cuban at 1:29pm November 22
I agree-that’s a business decision. It may be why Magnolia decided not to distribute it. You can see you hit one of my “hot buttons” Its not about Mark or the movie, I have never even seen Loose Change or Redacted. why? Because I found Redacted offensive and the premise of Loose Change was just plain stupid.

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:31pm November 22
That is good to hear then. Good judgment dictated rejection.

If you want to limit the First Amendment, start filing lawsuits to stop distribution of every movie that offends your your sensibilities. You have that right.  See how far that gets you.  Just ask the attorneys for  Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. They will set you straight.  If you want to argue for suppression of free speech you can also give  Jeffrey Norris a call.  Just know you will get  an earful on any other topic you don’t care about.

LOOSE CHANGE

Over the last two days the media and blogosphere has formed opinions, speculated, crucified, harrangued and harrassed Mark Cuban on the basis of one sided Securities And Exchange Commission(SEC) spin.  During that time,  Jeffrey Norris, the SEC attorney, who had the contentious “Loose Change” email exchange with Mark while his employer investigated allegations of insider trading has been able to hide under his desk. He has been able to slink home every night relatively free from any type of media exposure.  That is all over. The emails between SEC attorney Jeffrey Norris and Mark Cuban have been made public.  It is time to enter the email “no spin zone”.   It is time for Jeff’s integrity, ethics and propriety of actions to be put under the same microsope.  Here is the pdf link to the full text of the email exchanges between Jeffery Norris and Mark Cuban.  The emails speak for themselves. Come to your own conclusions about the integrity of Mr. Norris and his office in general.

Former United States Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean have been re-sentenced after  partially successful appeals of their convictions.  Ironically both received substantially the same sentences received after being convicted two years ago in the non-fatal shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, an admitted, and now convicted, drug smuggler.  Ramos will  spend 11 years and 1 day in federal prison.  His former partner, Compean was re-sentenced to his  original 12-year sentence, 10 years on a charge of using a weapon in the commission of a felony and another two for assault and other charges.  There has been a national outcry at their convictions and the harsh federal inflexibility of their sentences.  Prior to their arrests and convictions, both former agents worked the dangerous and desolate Mexican drug corridor. How did these two soldiers in the battle against Mexican drug lords and illegal immigration make the journey from defending our borders to defending and subsequently losing their freedom?

Approximately 2 1/2 years ago Compean and Ramos were on patrol  in the barren Texas tundra southeast of El Paso.  They shot at an illegal alien as he was fleeing back to the Mexican border.  Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, a Mexican national was  in the process of smuggling approximately a million dollars worth of marijuana into the U.S.  Testimony showed that the agents fired 15 bullets at a the unarmed Davila who was fleeing on foot toward the border. He was hit once in the buttocks and survived. Compean and Ramos were convicted by a jury of violating the civil rights of Davila when they shot him and then tampering with evidence by picking up shell casings from the shooting. The ex-agents stated that deadly force was justified because Davila had a gun.  No gun was ever found. In exchange for his testimony against the former agents, Davila was granted immunity from prosecution by the U.S. government with regards to his attempt to smuggle nearly 750 pounds of marijuana into the United States on the day he was shot

There is no dispute that Davila is a drug dealing scumbag.  He was later convicted of drug smuggling in an unrelated prosecution.  There is no dispute that he was smuggling drugs when shot. He was offered immunity on those charges in exchange for his testimony against the agents.  Should Davila’s status as a drug smuggler and illegal alien have any bearing on the propriety of the agent’s actions?

I dispute that doing a dangerous public job and even being in a position of having to make tough split second decisions with less than perfect information puts law enforcement above the laws they are sworn to uphold. They are well trained in when they can and can not use deadly force.  Our body of laws puts the general population at a higher standard when dealing with law enforcement.  We in return get the expectation of safe discourse of mind and body when we interact with a law enforcement officer even in the commission of a crime.  Part of that is the expectation that we will not be shot at simply because we flee, unarmed in fear of apprehension in committing a non-violent offense.  This is not about drug smuggling, illegal immigration, or the patriotism of these agents.  It is about their attempt to seriously injure/kill a person who did not present a deadly threat.  Even more importantly, apart from any sympathy we have for two men doing a dangerous thankless job, it is about the attempt to cover-up their actions. Should these officers be pardoned by the outgoing President Bush or the incoming President Elect Obama?  Nearly 400,000 people have signed a petition demanding a presidential pardon for the agents. There are several bills to pardon them pending in Congress.  One lawmaker stated:

“The federal government was on the wrong side in this case. This drug dealer was not just bringing in a little bit of marijuana,” Poe said. “Our federal government goes to Mexico, finds this drug dealer, gives him immunity … they’re [Ramos and Compean] being punished basically, for doing what they’re supposed to do.”

I do not believe they should be pardoned.  They lied to federal investigators. No free-passes for law enforcement cover-ups.  End of story.  This is worse than the crime itself.  It impugns all of law enforcement and the justice system.  Nothing that is said can ever be trusted.  To pardon them would send the message that our law enforcement officers have carte-blanche to lie, cheat and steal to achieve a desired judicial result.

Should their sentences be commuted?  The proper thing to do would be for either President Bush or President-elect Obama(when he gets in office) to communte the sentences to what they would get for the cover-up of the offense, and a concurrent time served sentence for the other convictions.   That would leave them as convicted felons no longer able to hold any type of law enforcement positions.  The cover-up mandates that they never again be allowed to wear a badge in furtherance of the public trust.  That is the price of the high standard to which we hold those who wear badges and carry guns to protect us. There is a price for mistakes in the face of accountability , it sucks but unless you are two years old, it is the world we live in.

This is the only time I will address the ignorant and hateful mail I have received.  The allegations against my brother are just that, allegations.  The only version of events the public gets to see is the SEC version in their complaint. They are going to spin facts in the light most favorable to their case.  As an attorney I am aware that this is the nature and reality of litigation.  Mark will get his say in court. I have no doubt that the true chain of events will play out in his favor.  It is also important to keep in mind that this is a civil proceeding. The blogosphere seems to be poorly educated on this point.  The only remedy the SEC is  for the most part seeking is monetary. (They are also asking for equitable relief)

There are only two people in this world that have known Mark longer than I have.  Everyone else has an opinion and gets their blog stats up by voicing it and speculating. I don’t have a problem with this. It is what makes the blogosphere one of the most fascinating ever expanding frontiers on earth. I however, have 47 years of facts. Mark is an ethical person of the highest level of integrity in every aspect of his life.  I urge people to not pass judgment on SEC self -serving P.R. Let the facts play out where they should, in a court of law.