A recently-filed Civil Rights case in Los Angeles federal court accuses the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of corruption in dismissing the prior sex-abuse lawsuit brought by aspiring writer – actor – producer, Rovier Carrington.
Judge Failla went so far as to issue an injunction prohibiting Carrington from ever filing these claims again. This, despite the Judge admitting that:
“The Court never had, and will never have, the opportunity to learn which, if any, of Carrington’s claims are meritorious.”
In the prior case, brought in the Southern District of New York, Carrington alleged a decade of sexual assault and harassment by a list of Hollywood moguls, including television executive Brian Graden, who is openly gay, has held executive positions at FOX, MTV, VH1, CMT, LGBT, and Logo Networks.
Carrington alleges that he was promised starring roles and lucrative production deals in exchange for sexual favors and being “passed around” among a network of entertainment power-brokers, including Harvey Weinstein (now incarcerated), the late Sumner Redstone (long time head of ViacomCBS), and the late Brad Grey (former head of Paramount Pictures), who died of cancer in 2017.
The way Carrington tells it, the Hollywood moguls have progressed from the age-old casting couch, into what can only be described as a full-blown sex and drug cult. There is a link below to the complaint. Parts of it are full of graphic detail and are extremely salacious. So be warned, or perhaps, titillated.
I don’t know if Carrington’s claims are true. I wasn’t there. After all, this is why we have trials. Everyone is supposed to be entitled to their day in court. What I do know is what happened in this New York Federal Courthouse, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, as Carrington tried to get his day in court. Whether or not Rovier Carrington was raped on the casting couch, I can say with absolute certainty that he was raped by the legal system.
Folks, when you learn what happened in Carrington’s New York case, you will be shocked. It absolutely meets the formal definition of an illegal “Show Trial”, where the outcome was pre-determined, and no due process was afforded.
To get your head around how they Railroaded and Stonewalled Carrington, it takes just a little understanding of the law, in particular, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Federal Rules specify how a lawsuit must proceed. First, the plaintiff files a complaint. Then, the Defendants have 21 days to respond, either by filing an Answer to the complaint, or a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. Those are called the pleadings. If the case survives the motion to dismiss, the defendant must then Answer the complaint, and the pleadings are said to be "settled". After the pleadings are settled, and only after the pleadings are settled, there is a mandatory Scheduling Conference, where the Judge is required to calendar all the crucial dates of the case.
Especially important here is that Discovery opens after the Scheduling Order. Discovery is the process where the two sides can request documents from each other, take depositions, and so forth.
In Carrington’s New York case, none of that happened, because Judge Failla did not operate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, Judge Failla insists that all litigation in her courtroom proceeds according to a completely different set of rules, a document titled the “Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases”. In my expert opinion, the Carrington case did not proceed in the U.S. District Court system. Rather, it took place in a completely different, foreign court system – alien and unknown to the Constitution.
21 days after the Defendants in the case failed to respond to the complaint, Carrington’s attorney normally would have requested an entry of default, which could then lead to a default judgment against the Defendants. That didn’t happen, which leads to look with a very skeptical eye towards Carrington’s attorney at the time – Kevin Landau. Why didn’t Mr. Landau, a very experienced civil litigator, enter a default?
Instead, what did happen was this: The Defendants in the case were permitted to conduct discovery against Carrington! At issue were a number of emails and texts that Carrington had brought, which he says show that he had made deals to produce and star in a gay-themed reality dating show, and that he subsequently was blacklisted and blackmailed, all while continuing to be passed around for sex. Defendants claimed that the emails were falsified.
Subpoenas were issued to Google and GoDaddy and other tech companies to produce copies of the emails and text messages in question. But then and over Carrington’s objections, the documents were not delivered to the Court, nor were they delivered to Carrington’s expert witness. As I understand it, the documents were delivered first to the Defendants attorneys, who then passed them along to their expert witness. Judge Failla found that Carrington had falsified or spoiled evidence, which ultimately led to Carrington’s case being dismissed with prejudice, and Carrington hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees and sanctions against him, payable to the defendants.
Carrington - who by this point in the case had to represent himself because attorney Kevin Landau had either quit or had been fired – attempted to demonstrate that it was Defendants who had falsified and spoiled the email evidence. But Carrington’s declaration and exhibits showing this were mysteriously deleted from Judge Failla’s docket.
What happened in these discovery proceedings is troubling enough unto themselves, but let’s back up a step and remember that none of what happened in the case was authorized under the Federal Rules. Defendants should not have been allowed to conduct Discovery, because Discovery never opened. Discovery never opened because there was never a Scheduling Conference. There was never a Scheduling Conference because the Pleadings never settled. The Pleadings never settled because there were no Pleadings to settle. There were no Pleadings to settle because Defendants were never made to file any sort of responsive pleading to the case.
Rovier Carrington’s lawsuit – alleging sex abuse and fraudulent business practices against Hollywood moguls – never even began. Meanwhile, the Defendants in the case, that is, the Hollywood moguls like Brian Graden and Brad Grey, were allowed to become Plaintiffs and to sue Carrington. And sue him they did, ultimately coming away with over a half million dollars in attorney fees awards. Not only was Carrington’s case dismissed with prejudice, Judge Failla issued an Injunction prohibiting Carrington from ever filing his lawsuit again.
There is precedent for an injunction against filing new lawsuits. It’s called a “Vexatious Litigant” injunction, and is proper where the party has had their day in Court, where the merits of the case were tried, and the person lost, fair and square. But never before in history, as far as I know, has there been a case where a judge issued a Vexatious Litigant Injunction on a case that did not reach the merits. Remember, Judge Failla, openly admits, that:
“The Court never had, and will never have, the opportunity to learn which, if any, of Carrington’s claims are meritorious.”
So Carrington is apparently defying the injunction, and has filed a new federal lawsuit in Los Angeles, alleging the sex-abuse claims, and this time adding Harvey Weinstein and Sumner Redstone, two names missing from the prior case because, according to Carrington, his prior attorney promised to include them, and then secretly left them out.
And, Carrington has now also sued Judge Failla herself for deliberately violating his constitutional right to petition. Carrington evidently is not seeking money damages against the Judge, only a declaration that his rights were violated.
Judges are normally protected by Judicial Immunity, but Carrington makes a strong argument in the new complaint that Judge Failla should not be immune, because she acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has stated that when a judge operates in a different court system than there are authorized to, this meets the standard of “complete absence of all jurisdiction”. In my opinion, Judge Failla created her own independent, foreign court system, and should not be immune.
We’re going to keep our eye on this one. The Supreme Court has long held that there is no duty to obey an injunction that is void. But because Carrington and his new attorney G. Scott Sobel dared to file the new case in L.A., they are now facing a Contempt of Court charge in New York, which could carry with it more sanctions, or jail time, or both.
This is a very important case. Whatever the truth is about Rovier Carrington's claims, he deserved his day in Court, and he did not get it. I tend to think that if there was nothing to his claims, then there would not have been such a need to Railroad, Stonewall and Gaslight him. If you don't think this affects you, then consider this: If Judge Failla is allowed to get away with this 21st Century Show Trial, why would we not expect all other judges to follow suit?
Please share this video with anybody concerned about what's happening to justice in this postmodern world. To stay up to date, please join the Post Modern Justice Media Project. It’s free. If you would like to help us publicize court corruption, please consider making a donation at pmjmp.org/donate.