Guy Depicted In ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ Objects To His Portrayal As Whoremonger: The Hollyweird Legal Round Up

Wake up, little Susies!

Finch here, with some dumb people doing dumb sh*t news. Onward:

1. “People don’t hate me enough; time to call my lawyer.” If you know me, and you most assuredly do not, then you’re aware that Wolf of Wall Street was my favorite movie of 2013, in spite of the facts that 1) almost none of it took place on Wall Street and 2) they didn’t get Taylor Lautner (good kid; not a client) to play the eponymous wolf. Also 3) nobody in the movie hired a lawyer good enough to keep them out of jail, which, considering they’re rich, is a goddamn travesty.

But I am perfectly happy to admit that almost everybody depicted in the movie is a disgusting waste of space.

And at least one of the participants would hate for you to forget that:

“The lawsuit against Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures and other producers centers on the portrayal of Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, played by actor P.J. Byrne — one of the executives who worked at the featured corrupt brokerage house of Stratton Oakmont . . . Now, in a New York federal court, Andrew Greene has come forward to claim a likeness to his own self.”

So let’s review. Andrew Greene is peeved about the way the toupee-ensconced a$$face based on him is portrayed in the movie, although the character–“Rugrat”–has a different name and does not look like Greene (who, apparently, is the one on the left in the linked picture, to which I lack the posting rights).

As alleged in the complaint (do not read), Greene is peeved because his “character is shown doing cocaine on company premises during business hours… The motion picture included other scenes depicting Mr. Greene’s character in a reckless and depraved manner, including more than one scene wherein his character is depicted having sexual relations with a prostitute.”

To reiterate. “Hey everybody–you know that guy with in the movie who does a lot of cocaine and prostitutes? The one depicted in a reckless and depraved manner? They’re saying that’s me! And, but for this lawsuit, you would not know that!”

Thought. Greene’s real-life nickname was “Wigwam.” Not as cool as, say, “Italian Stallion” or “Old Hickory,” but still much better than “Rugrat.” Not enough of an annoyance to justify litigation though.

Thought 2. In the complaint, Wigwam’s lawyers take pain to point out that they show Rugrat drugging “on company premises during business hours.” I’m not sure how that makes the cocaine allegations worse. “All the scenes where he’s Dysoning up rails after work, on top of Old Smokey? Yeah we’re fine with those.”

Goddamn it. This is a great movie insofar as it makes finance people the zenith of hateability. As a lawyer, I always appreciate it when another profession is cavalierly demonized, so I’m thankful that Greene’s suit adds to–sorry, Paragraph 2 of the complaint, what’s that you say?

“Mr. Greene is an inactive member of the State Bar of California and is currently pending admission before the Courts of the State of New York.”

Fuuuuuuuuu*k. Of all the dipsh*ts involved, it had to be the lawyer who begged for more bad press. Still, insofar as he has been suspended twice by the California Bar for failing to pay his dues, and he filed this suit while New York is considering his application for Bar admission–including the Good Moral Character requirement–there’s an excellent chance that Wigwam won’t be lawyering any time soon.

Verdict. In Jordan Belfort’s book, the basis of the movie, Greene is apparently referred to by his real name (I haven’t read the book, not because it’s a book per se, but because f*ck Jordan Belfort, and also it’s a book). If he wants to sue somebody, it should be Belfort. The movie took pains to distance itself from Greene’s name and likeness.Also, he’s suing for $25 million. Fire this putz out of a cannon.Know who shouldn’t be fired out of a cannon?If there’s a cure for Margot Robbie, I don’t want it.

2. Loose Ends. A couple of cases I wrote about a few months ago have come to ignominious conclusions. So I’ll take a moment to provide closure to those of you who have, I guess, openure.

Baseball Movie Suit Gets Thrown Out. In October, a long, horribly-written lawsuit was filed against the makers of the Clint Eastwood film Trouble With the Curve (the link is to a Mancini post, but I covered it as well). In addition to excruciating mixed metaphors, eighteen uses of the word “irascible” and photographs documenting the plaintiff’s high school baseball career, the complaint contained allegations of idea theft and fraud and so forth that led to what I’m told is a shitty movie, albeit a shitty movie in which Amy Adams plays a lawyer.

How’s that working out for you, plaintiff? “A federal judge said that she was inclined to dismiss a screenwriter’s claim that Warner Bros.’ Trouble With the Curve was ripped off from his idea.”

After reading the movie’s script and the one it allegedly plagiarized, the judge “concluded that the projects lacked substantial similarity. ‘These, in my view, are two very different stories.'”

So this is kind of a pre-f*ck you, since the judge has yet to issue her final ruling. Still, “inclined to dismiss” does not bode well for the plaintiff. Ladies, if your date says that he’s “inclined to blow some dude,” you can probably stop worrying about whether you have any Plan B left in your apartment.

Verdict. Goddamn, this complaint (DO NOT READ) is f*cking terrible. A victory for the defendants is a victory for the English language. Huzzah, your honor.

Can Anybody Think of a Headline About the Harper Lee Lawsuit? I was compelled to write about the To Kill a Mockingbird brouhaha (scroll down, it’s the second part of the column) last fall because 87 year-old author Harper Lee thought up the name Atticus Finch, and game recognize game. She had beef with a museum in Monroeville, Alabama that sold merch using her trademarks.

A judge recently rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss, so Lee is settling the suit she filed last year.

“Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird, is settling a lawsuit filed last year.”

Terms of the settlement were not revealed. I’m guessing she got money, indulgences and/or soft food, as opposed to, say, a Jet Ski. She’s 87, for f*ck’s sake.

Verdict. Sure, why not.

Be excellent to each other.

Twitter: @Buttockus