Comments on: Bert Fields Defends Brad Grey Against Garry Shandling's Pellicano Testimony

By: BenFranklin

BenFranklin — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:01:53 +0000

Watch for some rapid deal-making and another round of arrests with special guest stars from the karmic world of wiretapping and intimidation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:29:45 +0000

I’m just a layman, but couldn’t he have just broken the law with regard to trying to influence a jury and other potential witnesses? He is, after all, on the witness list. Maybe, some of you good attorneys could chime in here. Just sayin’…

By: Ernie Fields

Ernie Fields — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:40:37 +0000

It’s funy that a scumbag like Bert Fields can spend a lifetime screwing people and now lecture Garry about Karma. Obviously karma kept you rich Bert.

By: Newtzapoop

Newtzapoop — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:35:32 +0000

“Brad Grey is one of the straightest shooters I’ve encountered in many years of involvement with the film business. In every one of his dealings that I have observed over the years, he’s been scrupulously honest and fair.” — Bert Fields

“Anything worth having is worth cheating for.” — W.C. Fields

Which Fields has this case pegged? No contest. I wonder. I wonder. Ahhhhh yes, yes indeed.

By: David C.

David C. — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:16:51 +0000

Usually attorneys council silence during a litigation. But apparently Lawyer Fields can’t keep his mouth shut when the ego rules the mind over matters. Grey isn’t even on trial. Yet Lawyer Fields felt compelled to speak. Why? Lawyer Fields doth protest too much. Obviously Garry Shandling’s testimony is accurate. He has spoken too close to the truth so when you can’t kill the story, you assassinate the storyteller’s character instead.

Stranger is Fields’ lifting lines from old movies in defense of Grey. “Brad Grey is one of the straightest shooters I’ve encountered in many years of involvement with the film business. In every one of his dealings that I have observed over the years, he’s been scrupulously honest and fair.” It immediately brings to mind “The Manchurian Candidate’ — “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonder human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

So, Mr. Fields, why don’t you pass the time and play a little solitaire. If you’re gonna make like Berle and lift lines to spout for your clients, you should credit your sources– and join the WGA.

By: nutjob

nutjob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:56:58 +0000

Simply put Garry stated his stuff under oath, when will Brad state these items under oath. In addition nothing Bert stated was in significant dispute with the major facts: (Grey -> Fields -> Pellicano) = Sleazy

By: P. Lee

P. Lee — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:43:33 +0000

Bert,

You willing to swear on oath to that? What was the Pelican’s role in your ops? How about contracts? Forget karma, are you willing to be cross-examined?

I think not.

By: Unindicted Co-conspirator

Unindicted Co-conspirator — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:20:59 +0000

Fields is so petty that he even misspelled Garry’s name in his release.
A shanda fur die goyim!

By: Perry Mason

Perry Mason — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:41:02 +0000

Fields is completely wrong — Shandling was not giving a bitter, self-serving and grossly inaccurate rant. He was giving sworn testimony in court. It might be interesting to hear Mr. Fields’ sworn testimony about whether or not he knew that his private investigator was using wiretaps.

By: Paulie Sheldon

Paulie Sheldon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:33:42 +0000

All you’re spinning is yourself, Bert. No one is buying what you’re selling anymore.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:02:21 +0000

Bert just violated the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement which means Shandling can now sue Bertram for additional damages for divulging the amount that was paid. Good going Bert! You are now going to have to pay Shandling another $4 million for boasting about how little he settled for from Grey. Why would you do such a thing? My guess is because $4 million is not the right amount. I think Grey had to pay Shandling a lot more probably closer to $15 million. If $4 million was the actual amount you are in clear violation of the confidentiality terms. That means Garry can absolutely sue you for announcing the amount in public.

By: Duke Theodore

Duke Theodore — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:58:50 +0000

This man is a total creep.

By: alsoanonymous

alsoanonymous — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:17:17 +0000

Also interesting that Fields doesn’t dispute Shandling’s testimony that “with Bert you get Pellicano” and “if Bert’s on the other side your phones are probably being tapped”. As close as an admission as we’ll ever get from Bert “I’ve never lost a case” Fields.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:59:44 +0000

this is rich. is a character reference from Bert Fields on behalf of a client worth the paper it’s printed on? what a hypocrite. THIS is the guy hiring pellicano to dig dirt ILLEGALLY in the first place!