SC6 Legal News: Judge Reino Gives His Verdict on the Borat - USC Frat Boys Suit........

There has been a lot of chatter this year about the lawsuit brought by two members of a USC fraternity against Sacha Baron Cohen for their appearance in Cohen's summer hit, "Borat". Not having watched the movie, I was ill-equipped to render a decision. Having finally had a chance to see it this week, I will now give my verdict.... *

From what I have seen, the suit's basis is on the fact that the young men looked bad in the movie, and that they were told that the film would only be shown in Europe. The scene was apparently staged, and they went out for drinks to "loosen up" for the scene before filming. This despite the fact that one of the three in the film was under 21 years old. I will render my verdict based on these three criteria.

There is no doubt that the boys did not do much to make themselves look good. Too avoid embarrassment , I will refer to them as "The Chubby One", "The Idiot" and "The Other Guy". If you have watched the film, you know which one is which. In my opinion, I feel that Chubby appeared to care for Borat, that he felt bad when Borat saw his true love (Pam Anderson) in a home movie having sex. While he may have been drunk, Chubby by far looked the best of the three, and his case lacks merit. The Other One did not appear to look bad, until grabbing Borat as he left their Winnebago, and uttered the usual "Don't Let Women Rule You" speech. While he appeared more intoxicated (likely to weighing less than Chubby), it was obvious that he was in control of his actions. His case lacks merit as well.

Lastly, we have The Idiot. TI is obviously drunk, and he absolutely looks bad in this film. Perhaps he is the John Doe in the suit, but i don't know. Does this give him a case? No. How so? In the famous cases of Kaelin vs. MSNBC , Imus vs. Sharpton, and Herman vs. Regent Movie Theater, a plaintiff can pass a certain criteria of stupidity that nullifies any efforts made by the defendant to impugne their reputation. Therefore there is precedent. Being overly drunk, yelling at the top of your lungs for the entire scene, and offering to shove a hunk of cheese in your ass and allowing someone else to eat it there are clear indications that these criteria have been met.

The other two complaints are of little value. Before the filming, the boys voluntarily went drinking with the crew. There is no evidence of alcohol being forced down the throats of any of the plaintiffs by the defendants. Lastly, the plaintiffs argue that they were told that the film would only be shown in Europe. This shows an lack of intelligence on the plaintiffs part. The Film Industry is a worldwide business. They are made for international release, and the naivete of the plaintiffs shows in this case. If there was any evidence of an agreement between the two regarding release locations, I would suggest the plaintiffs present it, otherwise, we are faced with a verbal agreement, which has less bearing than a written agreement.

Therefore, based upon the evidence presented in the film, I find no basis for damages due to the plaintiffs. Case dismissed..... VERY NICE !!!!!

* - Mr. Reino is not an actual Judge, his rulings have no legal weight, and he did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Therefore , basing your legal decisions on his advice is an exercise in stupidity.