1 Eric Hughes

2 [ADDRESS
3 DELETED]
4
5
6 Clerk of the Court
7 Central Civil West Courthouse
8 600 South Commonwealth Avenue
9 Los Angeles, CA 90005
10
11 Case No. BC377780
12
13 OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO INTERVENE
14
15 I am writing to object/intervene in the settlement agreement in Case No. BC377780 and to give
16 notice that I intend to appear at the Final Settlement Hearing.
17
18 I am a Performer, a member of SAG, and SAG has received Foreign Royalty Funds attributable
19 to me.
20
21 The proposed settlement provides no benefit for the members of SAG, those who are similarly
22 situated to Plaintiff Ken Osmond.
23
24 But there is great loss for many performers.
25
26 Rights that Ken Osmond and such SAG members as Elizabeth Taylor, William Shatner,
27
28 1
 1 Andy Griffith, Jerry Lewis, and Shirley Jones now have will be extinguished upon approval of
2 the settlement.
3
4 Members of the class received only the NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT .
5
6 The NOTICE is seven mostly sparse pages with scant information that both (1) conceals the true
7 nature of the Class Settlement Agreement and (2) the existence of the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN
8 LEVY AGREEMENT , the agreement at issue in this case.
9
10 SAG and the Plaintiff’s attorneys intend to conceal SAG’s position that the Oct.1.1992 Foreign
11 Levy Agreement between SAG, on the one hand, and the ALLIANCE OF MOTION PICTURE AND
12 TELEVISION PRODUCERS (the AMPTP), on the other hand, expressly authorizes SAG not to
13 distribute the foreign royalties collected but to use those monies as it chooses and to make it
14 appear that SAG has never acted on its belief and that, as of APR.30.2010, SAG had paid out the
15 $8,123,288.89 it claimed to be holding as of JUN .7.2007.
16
17 And there will be nothing in place to prevent SAG from doing as it believes well into the future.
18
19 SAG and the Plaintiff’s attorneys have been falsely claiming that there will be an audit of all
20 foreign royalties collected by SAG.
21
22 SAG has provided to the class and to the press for publication a sum amount of all foreign
23 royalties paid out by SAG which has been inflated into millions when, in fact, the sum amount,
24 according to SAG’s filings with the Department of Labor, is below a million.
25
26 They have tampered with the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT altering definitions of
27
28 2
 1 performers and collective bargaining agreements in order to extinguish the rights of audiovisual
2 performers under foreign laws to receive remuneration for audiovisual works produced before
3 1960 and to further enrich the Companies with monies designated by law for individual
4 performers.
5
6 And, in so doing, allowing the studios to continue to violate their obligations under SEC. 105 of
7 the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1998.
8
9 The SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT Was Filed With the MOTION FOR
10 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ; It Authorizes SAG To Keep
11 100% of What’s Allocated to Members; It Will Be Concealed From the Class Forever.
12
13 The description of the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT in the MOTION FOR
14 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT is as the three unions - the Writers
15 Guild, the Directors Guild and SAG - have represented the foreign levy agreements for nearly
16 two decades now:
17
18 “The Foreign Levy Agreement provided for the allocation of foreign levies among performers and
19 the Companies. The Foreign Levy Agreement specified that a certain percentage of the
20 ‘performers share’ of the levies collected on films and television programs would be distributed to
21 SAG, on behalf of the individual performers whom it represented.
22
23 All claims to the ‘performers’ share’ were to be filed, in the first instance, by the Companies on
24 their own behalf, and on behalf of SAG. If no claim was brought by the Companies within six
25 months of the date a claim was first permitted, SAG had the right to collect the ‘performers’
26 share’ in the foreign country, so long as it notified the Companies.”
27
28 3
 1 But the representation of the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT in the CLASS
2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is in conflict with its representation in the MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
3 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT :
4
5 “The Foreign Levy Agreement assigns a performer’s right to file claims for foreign levies to the
6 Companies in the first instance, provided such levies are subsequently shared with SAG, on
7 behalf of performers. In the event that the Companies do not or cannot file a claim for the levies,
8 that right is assigned to SAG, subject to the same sharing provisions with the Companies.”
9
10 The “Foreign Levy Agreement” does not assign a performer’s right to file claims for foreign
11 levies to the Companies nor does it assign that right to SAG, whether or not the Companies do
12 not or cannot file a claim for the levies – and because the Companies can not by law file a claim
13 for performers royalties there could never be a question of whether they did or did not file a
14 claim.
15
16 What the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT does essentially is divvy up monies that are
17 not the property of and not yet in the possession of either SAG or the AMPTP, the parties to the
18 agreement.
19
20 In divvying up those monies, the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT does not provide any
21 guarantee that the members of SAG, whose property those monies rightfully are, will receive
22 even one cent of our own foreign royalties.
23
24 Members of the class – the members of the Screen Actors Guild – have no knowledge of the
25 agreement and that SAG claims authority under the agreement not to distribute any of the
26 foreign royalties to the performers whose property the royalties rightfully are and can keep and
27
28 4
 1 use these monies for its own purposes.
2
3 By representing in the concealed CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT that in the SAG/AMPTP
4 FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT performers assign our right to collect foreign royalties to our
5 employers then by not opting-out of the settlement we, unknowingly, do exactly that – we
6 performers assign our right to collect these monies to the employer Companies.
7
8 And not just to the member companies of the AMPTP with which SAG negotiates the collective
9 bargaining agreement under which members of SAG are employed.
10
11 We will also be, unknowingly, assigning our right to collect these monies to the financial
12 services institutions here and in foreign countries – whose clients are film and television
13 producers and production companies - such as FINTAGE HOUSE, IFTA COLLECTIONS, and
14 COMPACT MEDIA GROUP – with which SAG has entered into foreign levy agreements which
15 deprive us of economic rights of which we are mostly unaware and which become lucrative
16 resources for those financial entities.
17
18 Most astonishingly, the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT is concealed in the NOTICE
19 OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT :
20
21 “American performers receive foreign royalties as a result of extensive efforts by Screen Actors
22 Guild, Inc. (“SAG ”), which obtained the agreement of motion picture and television production
23 companies that performers would receive a portion of royalties from the foreign collecting
24 societies.”
25
26 The use of agreement in that sentence clearly implies the primary definition of agreement – the
27
28 5
 1 act or fact of agreeing, as in obtaining an okay from the motion picture and television production
2 companies – and could not be reasonably understood to mean a contract duly executed and
3 legally binding.
4
5 The SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT has disappeared. Or, more accurately, the
6 AGREEMENT will never be disclosed to us but will continue in force.
7
8 The statement now being sent with payments of foreign royalties to SAG members contains the
9 following disinformation:
10
11 “Foreign Royalties are collected as a result of laws in other countries. Those law provide for
12 payments to artists in audiovisual works to compensate for private copying (home taping), cable
13 retransmissions, video rentals and other uses of such works. Screen Actors Guild has entered
14 into cooperation agreements with collecting societies in certain foreign countries who collect
15 these royalties. The societies allocate a portion of the royalties collected to those SAG
16 performers who appear in audiovisual productions that are subject to remuneration under the
17 local laws. The royalty payment attached results from the collections and distributions made
18 under those foreign laws and collecting society agreements.”
19
20 It is not true that the “royalty payment attached results from the collections and distributions
21 made under those foreign laws and collecting society agreements”.
22
23 The “royalty payment attached” is missing at least 50% of what is rightfully ours, which has
24 been taken away from us by the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT .
25
26 The SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT was filed with the court in the MOTION FOR
27
28 6
 1 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT .
2
3 The court can not approve a settlement in which an illegal agreement between a union and its
4 members’ employers, diverting monies which are rightfully the members’ property to both the
5 union and the employers, will be, both in the same instance, approved by and concealed forever
6 from those members.
7
8 SAG and Plaintiff’s Attorneys Issued a Press Release and Made Statements Which Were
9 Material Misrepresentations of the Litigation and Settlement Which Were Reported As
10 Fact Around the World.
11
12 On MAY .9.2007, Johnson wrote SAG, advising that Osmond believed he was due foreign levy
13 monies that had been collected by SAG.
14
15 In SAG’s response on JUN .7.2007, Crabtree-Ireland wrote Johnson that the membership of SAG
16 authorizes the Guild to claim foreign royalties “and further authorizes the Guild to retain the net
17 proceeds of such claims”.
18
19 In filings in state and federal courts this authority is stated up front in a separate paragraph.
20
21 It is only to us, the membership, that SAG has never referenced such authority.
22
23 In the JUN .7.2007 letter, Crabtree-Ireland further writes: “That authority notwithstanding, as it
24 has become clear over subsequent years that it will be possible to attribute amounts collected to
25 specific projects, and consequently also to performers, the Guild has worked to identify, allocate,
26 and distribute the funds received. We expect that course of action to continue.”
27
28 7
 1 But there is no statement nor suggestion that these monies have, since day one of receipt some
2 fifteen years before, been held in a trust account.
3
4 From the NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(B) FILED OCT .30.2007:
5
6 “SAG presently distributes collected foreign levy monies to its members, despite its authority to
7 retain such monies.”
8
9 The use of presently does suggest that previously there was another course of action.
10
11 And, again, no statement nor suggestion regarding a foreign levies trust account.
12
13 In the ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Ken Osmond vs. Screen Actors
14 Guild, Inc. back to Los Angeles Superior Court, United States District Judge Margaret M.
15 Morrow writes that:
16
17 “SAG contends that the Agreement at issue in this case expressly authorizes it not to distribute
18 the monies collected but to use them to defray administrative operating costs. The DGA/WGA
19 Agreement in Webb did not contain such a provision.”
20
21 “As SAG frames it, the heart of the parties’ dispute concerns whether SAG is authorized to retain
22 all of the foreign levy monies or whether it is required to pay Osmond his portion of those
23 levies.”
24
25 “SAG argues that paragraph 6 gives it the right to retain all of the monies, since it provides that
26 it may ‘use some or all of the sums payable pursuant to Paragraph 2 above for any institutional
27
28 8
 1 or ‘social’ purpose’.”
2
3 “SAG argues that by seeking to compel it to pay monies collected under the Foreign Levy
4 Agreement, Osmond seeks relief under the contract itself.”
5
6 It is reasonable to believe that SAG did indeed exercise this authority and not distribute but use
7 the foreign royalties monies it has been receiving.
8
9 But it appears that SAG and Plaintiff ’s counsel do not want us to know this but to believe that
10 we were paid these monies.
11
12 From the press release issued on SEPT .14.2010 by SAG and Plaintiff’s counsel:
13
14 “Under the terms of the agreement settling the lawsuit, SAG has agreed to conduct an
15 independent audit of its foreign royalties program and has agreed to make this audit public.”
16
17 And then a press blitz:
18
19
20
SEPT .14.2010 “The guild says it has already distributed $8.5 million to 70,000
21
members. The settlement calls for an audit of these funds as well as payment of the outstanding
22
amount.”
23
24
25
ANTHONY MCCARTNEY / SEPT .13.2010
26
“The settlement requires an independent audit of payments that have already been made.”
27
28 9
 1
2
3 LAURA STRACHAN / SEPT .15.2010
4 “The settlement documents require an independent audit of all Screen Actors Guild European
5 royalties since the 1980s.”
6
7
8 SEPT .14.2010
9 “The settlement requires an independent audit of payments that have already been made and sets
10 out disclosure guidelines for how SAG handles the royalties.”
11
12
But concealed from the class and the press is Section V(C) of the CLASS SETTLEMENT
13
AGREEMENT :
14
15
Interim Information On Status of SAG’s Foreign Levies Program:
16
17 “Within 60 days of execution of this agreement by SAG, counsel for SAG will provide to counsel
18 for plaintiff the following information, in unaudited form, which counsel for plaintiff may
19 include in a declaration in support of a motion for final approval of the settlement: (a) The
20 amount of Foreign Levy Funds collected by SAG from the inception of SAG’s foreign levies

21 program through at least April 30, 2010; (b) The amount of Foreign Levy Funds distributed to
Performers from the inception of SAG’s foreign levies program through at least April 30, 2010;
22
(c) Administrative fees charged on the distribution of the Foreign Levy Funds from the inception
23
of SAG’s foreign levies program through at least April 30, 2010; and (d) The amount of Foreign
24
Levy Funds currently held by SAG (which sum shall include funds received by SAG for which it
25
is has not received corresponding Distribution Information necessary to distribute the funds).”
26
27
28 10
 1 No audit. Just SAG’s word that they have paid out.
2
3 Absent from the pieces of unaudited information is a fifth piece, the amount of interest earned on

4 the foreign royalties. But, of course, for there to have been interest earned the foreign royalties
would have to have been held in trust and not have been used by SAG.
5
6
The SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT which authorizes SAG to not distribute the
7
foreign royalties will continue to be concealed from us as it remains in play, unknowingly ratified
8
by us through the settlement agreement.
9
10 The definition of a “Performer” in the settlement agreement is not the definition of a
11 “Performer” in the Constitution of the Screen Actors Guild.
12
13 SAG’s Constitution ARTICLE III, Membership, Section 1. (C.) :

14
“The term ‘performer’, as used in this Section, includes actors, actresses, singers, stuntplayers,
15
specialty performers, commercials performers, airplane pilots and all other categories of
16
performers covered by the collective bargaining contracts between the Guild and motion picture
17
producers as the same now are or may hereafter be established.”
18
19 A definition of “Performer ” as it relates to Osmond and members of SAG can not be in conflict
20 with the definition in our Constitution.
21
22 Foreign royalties are collected for all audiovisual works dating back to silent films.

23
One of the many things about these royalties that SAG has concealed is that they are collected for
24
performers in pre1960 motion pictures and television.
25
26
Not only for those who are still very much alive but for the heirs of actors such as Frank Sinatra,
27
28 11
 1 Judy Garland, Henry Fonda, and Janet Leigh for their performances in pre1960 films.
2
3 By defining “Performer” as an individual who is entitled to residuals under the applicable SAG

4 collective bargaining agreements this definition of a SAG “Performer” extinguishes the right of
performers to remuneration for secondary uses of audiovisual works which were produced before
5
JAN .31.1960.
6
7
The definition of “Performer” from the settlement agreement:
8
9 “The term ‘Performer’ shall include (except as limited by international treaties, European
10 directives, laws or regulations in the source country or by the source collecting society) any
11 individual who satisfies the criteria of either Paragraphs II(E)(1) or II(E)(2) below:
12
13 1. An individual who is entitled to residuals under the applicable SAG collective bargaining

14 agreements for a given work, and whose type of performance (a) generally is included in such
works as distributed in the source country, and (b) for which Foreign Levy Funds are collected
15
and paid by collecting societies in such source country; or
16
17
2. An individual who is entitled to residuals under the applicable SAG collective bargaining
18
agreements for a given work, and claims entitlement to Foreign Levy Funds.
19
20 The term ‘Performer’ shall expressly include, without limitation, any Performer’s heirs,
21 successors, beneficiaries, trustees, and assigns, including, without limitation, any entity to which

22 a Performer has assigned his/her right to receive Foreign Levy Funds (to the extent

23 assignable).”

24
The foreign levy agreement between SAG and the AMPTP was negotiated by “the Screen Actors
25
Guild (hereafter ‘the Guild’), on behalf of the individuals it represents as Collective Bargaining
26
Representative”.
27
28 12
 1 And “it is agreed” by SAG and the AMPTP in Paragraph 1. Definitions: (b) that “ ‘Covered
2 Performers’ shall mean any performer covered by any of said Collective Bargaining
3 Agreement(s)”.

4
And “it is agreed” by SAG and the AMPTP in Paragraph 1. Definitions: (a) that “ ‘Collective
5
Bargaining Agreement(s)’ means and includes the Producer -Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic
6
Agreement of 2001 and the Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement of 2001, and any
7
predecessor or successor agreement(s) thereto”.
8
9 Which would include, of course, SAG collective bargaining agreements under which entitlement
10 to residuals is not applicable.
11
12 SAG does not have the authority to bargain away performers’ rights under foreign law.

13
14 The foreign levy agreement between SAG and the AMPTP is an agreement between a union and
the employers of its members.
15
16
Because the Supreme Court rejected the notion that §301 of the Labor Relations Management
17
Act (“LMRA”) limits federal jurisdiction to “collective bargaining contracts” that address
18
“wages, hours, and conditions of employment concluded in direct negotiations between
19 employers and unions” the SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT is a §301 contract.
20
21 But a §301 agreement can’t be used to illegally bargain subjects that fall outside of the collective

22 bargaining relationship.

23
SAG does not have the authority to bargain away performers’ rights under foreign law.
24
25
The SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN LEVY AGREEMENT may be an illegal agreement but that does not
26
allow counsel for the Defendant and Counsel for the Plaintiff to tamper with it.
27
28 13
 1 The COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by
2 20 years.
3
4 Under this ACT , audiovisual works made in 1923 or afterward that were still protected by
copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward depending on the date
5
the audiovisual work was produced.
6
7
The MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ’s Jack Valenti had lobbied, as always, skillfully
8
for the studios.
9
10 Actors, writers and directors receive residuals for film and television which commenced
11 production after JAN .31.1960.
12
13 The unions also had lobbied Congress, to require the studios to negotiate with the unions for

14 residuals for pre1960 audiovisual works.

15
Screenwriter Julius J. Epstein, one of the authors of the motion picture CASABLANCA
16
appeared before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property “on behalf of a group of
17
creators left out of the act, creators of movies and television programs made before 1960. A
18
group that does not receive compensation for their work, even though their movies are shown
19 over and over. A group who will not benefit under the proposed legislation because the
20 legislation gives the copyright owner, and not the actual creator, the additional 20 years of
21 copyright protection. Copyright owners will reap a windfall from the extension even though none
22 of them had any involvement whatsoever with the actual production of the movies”.

23
Representative William D. Delahunt directed the following to Fritz Attaway who represented the
24
studios before the Subcommittee: “I think you are hearing today an expression of concern about
25
those who have not received their fair and equitable share; and I, as one Member, would like to
26
see that addressed.”
27
28 14
 1
2 On JUN .23.1997, Jack Valenti wrote to Representative Howard Coble, the Chairman of the
3 Subcommittee:

4
“The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has informed the Actors, Writers and
5
Directors Guilds that participants in pre1960 films (for which there are presently nonresidual
6
obligations) will share in any additional revenues for those films in their 20-year extended term
7
of copyright. That is, participants in pre1960 films will receive a negotiated form of
8
compensation earned in the extended additional 20-years.
9
10 AMPTP is ready to collectively bargain with each individual Guild to determine the precise
11 amount of that compensation within the extended 20-year period.
12
13 The MPAA member companies—The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, 20th Century Fox, Sony

14 Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer—urge the Congress to

move swiftly to bring the term of copyright protection in the U.S. up to the levels already
15
provided by the European Union and many other countries.”
16
17
SEC. 105 of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF1998 is titled VOLUNTARY NEGOTIATION
18
REGARDING DIVISION OF ROYALTIES:
19
20 “It is the sense of the Congress that copyright owners of audiovisual works for which the term of
21 copyright protection is extended… and the screenwriters, directors, and performers of those

22 audiovisual works, should negotiate in good faith…for the amount of remuneration…for the

23 exploitation of those audiovisual works.”

24
It is now twelve years later and that negotiation has never taken place. In fact, very few are even
25
aware of it.
26
27
28 15
 1 The copyright term extension bill retained a very low profile.
2
3 The proponents of extension knew about the House hearings and testified in favor.

4
The opponents did not even know the hearings took place until several months later.
5
6
Robert Hadl who has always had a global vision of the problems he believes need to be solved
7
and has always remained passionately attached to the interests he has always defended, has acted
8
here in the Ken Osmond vs. Screen Actors Guild, Inc. settlement to resolve for the AMPTP the
9 lingering problem of SEC. 105 of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF1998 .
10
11 As has Joel M. Grossman, who at the time of the copyright extension was Executive Vice
12 President of Sony Pictures Entertainment, one of the six studios Valenti cites in his letter to

13 Chairman Coble.

14
Grossman has always had the knowledge that he would likely be a material witness if this
15
proceeded to trial as he was a principal in the negotiation of the initial SAG/AMPTP FOREIGN
16
LEVY AGREEMENT in 1992.
17
18
Grossman should never have served as the mediator in any of these lawsuits and should have
19 immediately recused himself when William Richert objected to his participation as such instead
20 of refusing to do so.
21
22 With the proposed settlement Grossman has served the interests of his former employer by

23 mediating a settlement which will enrich Sony Pictures Entertainment by allowing it to freely
feed on the monies flowing from the performers rights belonging to the estates of William
24
Holden and Alec Guinness for THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, to Eva Marie Saint
25
who has received nothing more than the salary she was paid in 1954 for ON THE
26
WATERFRONT, Kim Novak for PICNIC, PAL JOEY, and BELL, BOOK, AND
27
28 16
 1 CANDLE, the estate of Frank Sinatra for PAL JOEY and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY,
2 and the estate of Jack Lemmon for the films he made at Columbia Pictures with Ms. Novak.
3
4 Although Ken Osmond is entitled to residuals under the 1960 SAG collective bargaining
agreement for episodes of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER produced between 1960 and 1963,
5
attorneys Neville L. Johnson and Paul R. Kiesel have defrauded their client by negotiating a
6
settlement with SAG which conceals and thus extinguishes Ken Osmond’s rights to foreign
7
royalties for episodes of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER produced between 1957 and 1960 since
8
residuals did not exist under the applicable SAG collective bargaining agreements in force during
9
those years.
10
11 Similarly, the settlement agreement extinguishes James Garner’s performer’s right to foreign
12 royalties for episodes of MAVERICK produced between 1957 and 1960 for which he is not
13 owed residuals as he is for episodes produced after JAN.31.1960.

14
The settlement agreement intends to extinguish the performer’s right of Olivia deHavilland to
15
royalties for GONE WITH THE WIND and THE HEIRESS, Debbie Reynolds for SINGING
16
IN THE RAIN, Kim Novak for VERTIGO, Robert Wagner for BROKEN LANCE and A
17
KISS BEFORE DYING, Shirley MacLaine for AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY
18
DAYS, Elizabeth Taylor for GIANT and A PLACE IN THE SUN, Ernest Borgnine for
19
MARTY and THE VIKINGS, and Sidney Poitier for THE DEFIANT ONES.
20
21 The settlement agreement intends to extinguish the performer’s right inherited by the heirs of
22 Charlton Heston to royalties for BEN-HUR and THE BIG COUNTRY and the heirs of Alan
23 Ladd to royalties for SHANE and THIS GUN FOR HIRE.

24
25 SAG Has Provided A Sum Amount of All Foreign Royalties Paid Out Which Is Inflated
Into Millions; In Fact, the Amount, According to SAG’s Filings With the DOL, Is Below A
26
Million.
27
28 17
 1 On MAY .9.2007, Johnson wrote SAG, advising that Osmond believed he was due foreign levy
2 monies that had been collected by SAG.
3
4 In the response on JUN .7.2007, Crabtree-Ireland wrote Johnson that “Thus far, a small portion of
the funds (approximately $250,000) have been distributed to performers”.
5
6
And that SAG, as of FEB.28.2007, “has received a total of $8,123,288.89 in payments under
7
agreements with collecting societies relating to performers’ share of levies”.
8
9 Crabtree-Ireland further wrote that “Distributions of the remaining sums can be made only after
10 the implementation of the Guild’s system. We presently anticipate beginning distributions using
11 the system in October 2007”.
12
13 Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, SAG is required to file an annual

14 financial report, a Form LM-2, with the Office of Labor-Management Standards of the United
States Department of Labor that discloses SAG’s financial condition for the preceding year.
15
16
These annual financial reports, which are due 90 days after April 30, the end of SAG’s fiscal
17
year, contain information concerning SAG’s assets, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements.
18
19 According to SAG’s LM-2s, for which there are criminal penalties for knowingly making a false
20 statement or representation of a material fact, or knowingly failing to disclose a material fact, or
21 willfully making a false entry, the so-called Foreign Royalties Program did not get out of the gate

22 until DEC.17.2008 with a payout of $7,722.00

23
That was two months after VARIETY reported on Sunday SEPT .14.2008, that “settlement talks
24
will start this week over the suit by Ken Osmond, alleging SAG mishandled those funds and lacks
25
the authority to oversee them in the first place”.
26
27
28 18
 1 But any further movement on a SAG settlement was dependant upon William Richert, the
2 plaintiff in the Writers Guild foreign levies lawsuit agreeing to settle William Richert vs. Writers
3 Guild of America, West, Inc.

4
When that was finally imminent, SAG began hand picking a settlement class with 19 payouts of
5
foreign royalties between JUN .2.2009 and APR.30.2010 totaling $292,808.00.
6
7
On SEPT .11.2010, I emailed Johnson that SAG’s statement that “since the program began”
8
SAG “has paid out $7.12 million” is not truthful.
9
10 I gave Johnson the total amount as reported by SAG on its LM-2s.
11
12 Nonetheless, three days later, he and Kiesel filed the MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

13 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT and issued the SEPT .14.2010 press release with SAG.

14
________________________________
15
16
Eric Hughes
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 19