Ashley Judd not interested in Weinstein settlement, says she plans to see him in court |

Ashley Judd not interested in Weinstein settlement, says she plans to see him in court

Harvey Weinstein leaves State Supreme Court in New York for a lunch break, Friday, April 26, 2019. A judge decided Friday to hold a pretrial hearing in Weinstein’s sexual assault case in secret, saying the former movie mogul’s right to a fair trial outweighed news organizations’ arguments for keeping the courtroom open. Both the prosecution and defense asked that the hearing be held behind closed doors because it focuses on sensitive matters. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

NEW YORK — The tentative $44 million settlement involving Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct allegations won’t drop the curtain on all lawsuits filed against the movie mogul, some of his accusers said Friday.

Ashley Judd, the first A-list actress to speak publicly about Weinstein’s alleged pattern of predatory behavior, said in a Twitter post she’s still full-steam ahead with her defamation claim against the disgraced producer.

“My lawsuit is ongoing and I intend to take #harveyweinstein to trial,” she tweeted.

Judd opened the floodgates for scores of accusers when she revealed that Weinstein lured her to a suite of the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel under the guise of a business meeting in the late 1990s and accosted her.

She said Weinstein stripped naked without warning, proposed they engage in massage and asked her to watch him shower — advances she rebuffed.

Judd claims Weinstein later defamed her to “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson as retaliation. She says the trash-talking hurt her career because Jackson was considering her for a major role in the “Rings” franchise but removed her from consideration because Weinstein unfairly branded her a “nightmare.”

Jackson revealed in a December 2017 interview that he dropped Judd “as a direct result” of “false information” he received from Miramax, the company Weinstein was running at the time.

Attorneys for yet another Weinstein accuser also stepped forward to say their client was not a party to the proposed $44 million deal, expected to be paid by insurance companies.

“There is no deal to resolve all of the Harvey Weinstein rape and sexual assault cases. Our client has steadfastly rejected the proposed deal,” lawyers Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer said on behalf of their client Wedil David, an actress who alleges Weinstein raped her in 2016.

They argued the proposed deal would “allow Harvey Weinstein and the men who enabled him, including his brother, Robert Weinstein, to escape liability and accountability without, apparently, contributing a dime of their own money,” they said.

“Our client does not begrudge any victim who accepts a settlement that she finds acceptable. But she will not participate in a process that is fundamentally flawed and unfair,” they said.

Categories: AandE | Movies TV | News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.