TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Warner Bros. To Charlie Sheen: Stop Lying About 'Men'

4/14/2011 3:53 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Warner Bros. has just fired off a letter to Charlie Sheen's lawyer, saying Charlie is lying that he's "in discussions" over returning to "Two and a Half Men" -- this according to a letter obtained by TMZ.

0414_sheen_wb_doc_ex_4

In the letter, the Warner Bros. lawyer says, "Those statements are false.  As you know, there have been no discussions, there are no discussions and there will be no discussions, regarding his returning to or having any involvement with the series."

Charlie said on radio this week ... discussions had been taking place and there was an 85% chance he'd return to the series.

0414_charlie_small_audio2Contrary to what Charlie has been saying, TMZ has been reporting there is no chance of Charlie returning. 

The WB letter makes it clear ... the door on Charlie has been slammed shut.


223 COMMENTS

No Avatar
121.

captainobvious    

ksis asked: Did WB released the contract as part of their termination letter?

No. No they didn't. Because in a court of law if it was leaked to the public it could be (in legal theory) not submissible.

This is also the case of a lot things that have occurred just before the lawsuit and happening now. The moment do***ents are leaked, it means it is harder to uphold in a court of law.

There are privacy issues that entail from both sides. This is why I'm theorizing that the actual contractual agreement is not leaked to the public. It behooves both parties involved when it comes down to the legalize of it all.

Either way. It's all fascinating at least for me on the legal side of this. The Public Opinion of finagling on both sides is better reading of late than a episode of Judge Judy.

1257 days ago
122.

ksis    

Oh that was a rhetorical question. But thanks. LOL

1257 days ago
123.

Holly    

Charlie can not sue on another persons behalf.
A Warner Bros. spokesman said that no one from the show's crew has filed a lawsuit or is a party to Mr. Sheen's suit.

1257 days ago
124.

Minxster    

@ Raymond

But you most certainly should asap, Dr.Dr.jur. Doughnut.

Is the name-calling really necessary? Just curious...

1257 days ago
125.

captainobvious    

ksis wrote: The lawsuit is written in a way it should be, by the lawyer who has handled successfully cases of that kind for number of celebrities.

Very true. Mr. Sheen's lawyer is one of the best in Hollywood. So are the lawyers on Warner Brothers and Chuck Lorre's end too.

Actors and writers dream to have these lawyers on both sides when they get bitten by never receiving reel for work or credit for writing.

What this all boils down to, as always: It is about talent. It boils down to "Who has the better lawyer"

I think I need a hug. My Captain Obvious just sort of depressed me a little. :)

1257 days ago
126.

Autumn_in_Michigan    

Holly about a minute ago
Charlie can not sue on another persons behalf.
A Warner Bros. spokesman said that no one from the show's crew has filed a lawsuit or is a party to Mr. Sheen's suit.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Exactly. Which demonstrates the actual legal quality of the lawsuit -which is full of that sort of fluff and stuff. No worries, it all gets pared away in court. AND, it will piss the judge off if s/he has to spend too much time dealing with that sort of BS padding. Doesn't incline a judge in your favor if you piss them off - which doesn't bode well for the Sheenius.

1257 days ago
127.

Autumn_in_Michigan    


Minxster about a minute ago
@ Raymond

But you most certainly should asap, Dr.Dr.jur. Doughnut.

Is the name-calling really necessary? Just curious...

~~~~~~~~~

No worries - that's what the new report function is for :-).

1257 days ago
128.

Nancy    

@ksis

"LOL. Oh, ok. Why am I not surprised, Nancy? ;)
The lawsuit is written in a way it should be, by the lawyer who has handled successfully cases of that kind for number of celebrities. Sorry, but I kinda trust his judgement here."

****************************

The 'lawsuit' (which isn't technically a lawsuit until the end of arbitration) was written by a lawyer paid by Sheen to pull out all the stops in any allegation which might lead a court of law to award (especially with a jury trial) even a fraction of the "damages" claimed. This is good legal practice when one knows that one hasn't got a leg to stand on legally. Been there, squashed that before. The 'lawsuit' is nothing more than a way to claim that Sheen was 'damaged' by WB's actions, but does not lay out any specifics per the contractual language. It is an attempt to obfuscate the legal terms with innuendo.

The letter of termination includes many responses to the so-called 'lawsuit' and outlines quite clearly why each and every allegation in the 'lawsuit' is invalid per the contractual agreement signed by Sheen, using the contractual language itself as its basis for WB's actions.

1257 days ago
129.

Nancy    

@Raymond

"But you most certainly should asap, Dr.Dr.jur. Doughnut. Please try and find that small window of time your tight schedule permits. Specifically your opinion is of particular importance to this most urgent matter.


MWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaha."

**************************

Yet another puerile attempt to smear a commenter without offering a single cogent comment of one's own.

1257 days ago
130.

ksis    

@captainobvious

Yes, they all have good lawyers. We shall see.
You probably don't want a hug from me, but what the hell--->HUG
LOL!!

1257 days ago
131.

Autumn_in_Michigan    

captainobvious 4 minutes ag

What this all boils down to, as always: It is about talent. It boils down to "Who has the better lawyer"

~~~~~~~~~

If so, then the outcome is obvious. Singer is good. WB's lawyers are better. Not my opinion. The opinion of those folks you were saying like to hire these lawyers.

1257 days ago
132.

Autumn_in_Michigan    

Nancy about a minute ago
@Raymond

"But you most certainly should asap, Dr.Dr.jur. Doughnut. Please try and find that small window of time your tight schedule permits. Specifically your opinion is of particular importance to this most urgent matter.


MWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaha."

**************************

Yet another puerile attempt to smear a commenter without offering a single cogent comment of one's own.

~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI - we can hit the "report" function as often as we need to.

1257 days ago
133.

rich    

Really, earlier this week I had to turn off a re-run of 2-1/2 Men because I couldn't stand the sight of that wanker on my tv! Our best hope for a resolution to all this is that he truly hits the skids and gets a 9mm retirement trying to bully his way through some ghetto crack house!

1257 days ago
134.

Nancy    

@Raymond

"Sorry, Dr.Dr.jur. Doughnut ... just to be sure ... is this a legal statement?

MMMMMMMMWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAhhahahahaaaaaa."

********************************************

Cogent to the discussion at hand, Raymond. That means, do your comments have any bearing on what is being discussed, or are you simply trying to be silly?

1257 days ago
135.

Minxster    

Reported...

1257 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web