MTV released a statement on May 5th 2010 regarding the Golzar Amirmotazedi v. Bunim-Murray/MTV Networks/Viacom lawsuit stating the case was “without merit.”
I believe MTV has made a monumental error in leaving a critical piece of evidence against themselves in the lawsuit. I assume the following clip will be taken off the Internet within the next few hours.
The evidence in the entire lawsuit is within the first 30 seconds of the following clip taken from MTV’s “Real World Dailies” web site. The clip is taken from when cast members and plaintiff Golzar Amirmotazedi arrive back from a bar at the Real World D.C. house. The clip is titled “Too Much Andrew,” under the Bad Behavior section.
Emily Schromm: “Are you drunk right now?”
Golzar Amirmotazedi: “Yes.”
Emily Schromm: “Yeah I can tell, what did you drink?”
Golzar Amirmotazedi: “What did I drink? (pointing to Andrew), like everything that they offered to me”
Andrew Woods: “Yeah like, Vodka Redbulls, Jagar Bombs, Tequila”
The lawsuit filed by Amirmotazedi hinges on whether Real World show producers knew that she was in fact intoxicated at the time she signed the official waiver release form to be on the show.
Amirmotazedi’s admission of intoxication when being asked by Emily Schromm, coupled with Andrew Woods confirmation and listing of alcoholic beverages she consumed that night proves that show producers indeed knew of Amirmotazedi’s intoxication.
The lawsuit surrounds the issue of whether it is legal to have someone sign a legal document (waiver) while they are intoxicated (judgement impaired) and the other party being aware and knowing they are intoxicated.
Intoxication can void a legal document if an intoxicated person could not understand the terms of the agreement and the other party was aware or should have been aware of that fact.
A waiver is not valid if any party is in a state of diminished mental capacity (intoxication).
Undue influence is a type of improper persuasion that causes a person to enter an unfair transaction. Undue influence is often defined as unfair persuasion by a person who is justifiably assumed by the victim to be one who will not act in a manner that is inconsistent with the victims welfare.
One of the elements of a legal document is the intent to enter a binding agreement. A legal document while signed intoxicated may be void if the party lacked the requisite mental faculties to form the intent necessary to enter a legal agreement, especially so where the other party knew or should have known the person is intoxicated.
If Real World show producers presented Amirmotazedi with a waiver knowing she was too drunk to give consent, they become liable.
“Are you serious? As Real World Alumni ‘Real World: Brooklyn’ it takes like 20 minutes just to get in the house because you have to sign all kinds of papers and present a valid license for identity. Everything is copied and filled out to the T.”
According to Scott Herman, that is the standard MTV Real World paperwork and waiver procedure upon entering the Real World house. In accordance with the video clip (filmed while inside the house), it is belief that Amirmotazedi signed the waiver after the bar, while intoxicated, and outside the house upon entering. Therefore the producers had to have known that she was intoxicated and that she was intoxicated at the time she signed the waiver.
With the evidence of the video clip, how could show producers ever deny knowledge of Amirmotazedi’s intoxication at the time she signed the waiver?
A copy of the standard Real World release waiver has the location on it.
I highly doubt while intoxicated that Amirmotazedi could read all the fine print of the waiver and make a sound clear judgement about what she was signing before she signed it.
I think the Amirmotazedi case represents a larger and more serious issue in America. People can not get young girls intoxicated and while knowing they are intoxicated, take advantage of them by having them sign legal documents waiving their rights. If that were the case we would have a lot more rape and sexual assault cases in our country.
According to the lawsuit show producers supplied and served her numerous alcoholic beverages and then had her sign a waiver while intoxicated. Which is all proven in the video clip. She then was depicted in a “false light” and humiliated on national television.
“The District of Columbia recognizes the tort of “false light.” Plaintiffs can sue for false light when a false and offensive statement is made about them to the public and causes them distress.
I felt like the verdict had already been deemed in the public court of opinion that Amirmotazedi was wrong in the lawsuit because of her falsely depicted image, manipulation of story, name, and rocker appearance. There was a clear injustice done to a young girl who seemed to be blinded by the “bright lights” of MTV.
To destroy another human beings life over television ratings is a sad issue our society faces today. Sometimes we tend to be inhumane to others for the wrong reasons, like ratings.
The MTV executives and producers carry on as if they do not have kids of their own, if they do, then why do they continue to exploit other people’s children for television ratings?
And MTV stated the case was “without merit.”