Alec Baldwin fired prop gun, killing 1 on movie set, Oct 2021 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw these 2 statements today for the first time “subordinates & her department”

“Hannah kept guns locked up, including throughout lunch on the day in question, and she ~instructed her department~ to watch the cart containing the guns when she was pulled away for her other duties or on a lunch break," the statement continues.

“Bowles also said Gutierrez Reed kept the guns locked up or ~under the eye of subordinates~
 
AB could move to Texas and purchase a homestead home. Texas homestead homes cannot be seized, even if purchased to avoid a judgement.

^RSBM

If AB and his wife jointly own their home in New York as tenants of the entirety, the asset may be protected from a lawsuit brought against him individually.

It was prudent of Halyna’s family to act quickly before he can move other assets. Since he’s aware a lawsuit is being filed, it may be too late for that, legally.
 
Ok , so now its ' briefly unattended ' . . What is the armourers' story she is presenting ? Who knows , cos her attournies certainly don't .

I am starting to wonder if her defense will be extreme emotional duress and stress due to the working conditions on set. Thus causing the ammo ‘mishap’ and a subsequent shifting of her memory of how the events played out the day Halyna was killed.
 
As the investigation continues, industry professionals have rallied around Hutchins' death and called for change. Variety reports that an open letter with four pages of signatures calls for an outright ban on functional firearms on movie sets.

We vow to no longer knowingly work on projects using functional firearms for filming purposes. We vow to no longer put ourselves and our crew in these unnecessarily lethal situations. We have safe alternatives in VFX and non-functional firearms. We won't sit back and wait for the industry to change. We have a duty to effect [sic] change within the industry ourselves.

The open letter joins a Change.org petition addressed directly to Baldwin, calling for the actor and producer "to use his power and influence in the Hollywood film industry to make change and ban real guns on film sets," in a proposed "Halyna's Law." The petition was created by filmmaker Bandar Albuliwi and has gathered over 104,000 signatures so far including Lena Dunham and Sarah Paulson.

Read More: Dozens Of Cinematographers Sign Open Letter Refusing To Work On Sets With Functional Firearms In Rust Aftermath
 
On the question of assets, many high profile wealthy people who have potential liability exposure issues --lawyers, doctors, famous actors ---do not buy properties in the their names for privacy, real estate portfolio purposes, taxes/write offs AND, most importantly, asset protection from legal liabilities. Many of these folks form small limited liability corps to protect their assets. They also will shelter money off shore. They will also have umbrella insurance policies. Some one like Mr. Baldwin probably have large policies that are connected to production companies that they started in order to protect their personal wealth. Very wealthy people have had high paid lawyers working to protect every dime they have rather than lose it to a lawsuit---frivolous or with merit....
 
On the question of assets, many high profile wealthy people who have potential liability exposure issues --lawyers, doctors, famous actors ---do not buy properties in the their names for privacy, real estate portfolio purposes, taxes/write offs AND, most importantly, asset protection from legal liabilities. Many of these folks form small limited liability corps to protect their assets. They also will shelter money off shore. They will also have umbrella insurance policies. Some one like Mr. Baldwin probably have large policies that are connected to production companies that they started in order to protect their personal wealth. Very wealthy people have had high paid lawyers working to protect every dime they have rather than lose it to a lawsuit---frivolous or with merit....

Very true. Seems like a scam to me, but you are right of course.

I do wonder whether his income can be protected in the same way. He may have layers of protection, but income is income, and the IRS is the IRS. He has to pay taxes on deposits that end up funding his personal lifestyle. If, for example, a court orders that his residuals from Boss Baby go instead to any plaintiffs who succeed against him in court, then Warner Bros or whoever it is will surely fork the money over to the court-ordered account rather than just pass it on to Baldwin. If Baldwin is smart, he'll get some kind of structured agreement, but his cashflow may be at issue. With the budget for his household alone, he is in need of spendable cash. Real estate taxes paid by him out of, say, an LLC, would still be recorded as personal income to the owner of the LLC. You can't simply buy and sell through an LLC and never pay tax on it.

Similarly, a court could attach part of the funds dispensed from any entity in which Baldwin had ownership, IMO. Personally, I don't think he has a lot of cash. Just a feeling from listening to him and Howard Stern talk about it. At least not compared to Howard (and both men do pay taxes on personal income).

Baldwin should probably put what cash he has into the hands of, say, a family trust if he hasn't already, but as far as I know, a person can't have hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into a bank account, from which they personally use funds to pay for nannies, trips, jewelry for their wife, wife's procedures, own cosmetic procedures, even own health insurance. Those have to be treated as a form of earnings or salary - whichever works out better taxwise.

He's going to take a huge hit from this and, IMO, was already cash poor. Which is why he was scrambling to do various projects (and is still renaming, rebranding his projects that are barely keeping themselves afloat - his podcast doesn't produce itself).
 
Very true. Seems like a scam to me, but you are right of course.

I do wonder whether his income can be protected in the same way. He may have layers of protection, but income is income, and the IRS is the IRS. He has to pay taxes on deposits that end up funding his personal lifestyle. If, for example, a court orders that his residuals from Boss Baby go instead to any plaintiffs who succeed against him in court, then Warner Bros or whoever it is will surely fork the money over to the court-ordered account rather than just pass it on to Baldwin. If Baldwin is smart, he'll get some kind of structured agreement, but his cashflow may be at issue. With the budget for his household alone, he is in need of spendable cash. Real estate taxes paid by him out of, say, an LLC, would still be recorded as personal income to the owner of the LLC. You can't simply buy and sell through an LLC and never pay tax on it.

Similarly, a court could attach part of the funds dispensed from any entity in which Baldwin had ownership, IMO. Personally, I don't think he has a lot of cash. Just a feeling from listening to him and Howard Stern talk about it. At least not compared to Howard (and both men do pay taxes on personal income).

Baldwin should probably put what cash he has into the hands of, say, a family trust if he hasn't already, but as far as I know, a person can't have hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into a bank account, from which they personally use funds to pay for nannies, trips, jewelry for their wife, wife's procedures, own cosmetic procedures, even own health insurance. Those have to be treated as a form of earnings or salary - whichever works out better taxwise.

He's going to take a huge hit from this and, IMO, was already cash poor. Which is why he was scrambling to do various projects (and is still renaming, rebranding his projects that are barely keeping themselves afloat - his podcast doesn't produce itself).

My guess is that Mr. Baldwin (like most other celebrities and very wealthy folks) has created shelters for the vast majority of his wealth. Family trusts are a great way to shelter as is creating llcs for each project and keeping very limited cash flow in the llc that would be associated with income on this project.

I see him as a big pocket in this so he will be a target of a lawsuit but I don't think this is going to be a lawsuit that targets his personal wealth. If he followed the standards for acting with a fire arm and didn't go beyond the bounds of his training or ignore the safety manual regarding his own actions, I don't think he will be held personally accountable. As a producer, I think he and the company will be the target of a lawsuit. There has to be a huge liability policy, D and O insurance, and umbrellas to cover these folks. No personal or corporate lawyer would let him or anyone else set up a company and not have sufficient coverage. I see people on here really wanting to make sure that Mr. Baldwin becomes the target or fall guy for this but if he followed the rule book for what he does on set as an actor in scenes with a gun and didn't go beyond that capacity or boundary, he won't be able to be the primary target. (And, I think it would be a mistake to go after him rather than the two employees and the production company because it is so much easier to prove liability there --if not just criminality). Additionally, if criminal charges are filed (and successful) against these individuals or anyone else who utilized those guns or brought live ammo on the set, then, it will be almost impossible to go after Mr. Baldwin personally---especially if he doesn't have criminal charges filed against him. JMHO.
 
I saw these 2 statements today for the first time “subordinates & her department”

“Hannah kept guns locked up, including throughout lunch on the day in question, and she ~instructed her department~ to watch the cart containing the guns when she was pulled away for her other duties or on a lunch break," the statement continues.

“Bowles also said Gutierrez Reed kept the guns locked up or ~under the eye of subordinates~
Sounds like Hannah's dad got her a PR team to try and stop the bleeding...she is not supposed to allow anyone else to 'watch' the tray of guns while she leaves. The whole point of having an armorer is that ONE person has the ultimate responsibility to guard the weapons and ammo and check all of the guns EVERY single time they are used.

So those new words---her department and subordinates---:rolleyes:---seem like her team is spinning now
 
It was prudent of Halyna’s family to act quickly before he can move other assets. Since he’s aware a lawsuit is being filed, it may be too late for that, legally.

You are right, once one is aware of the possibility of a lawsuit, it becomes illegal to transfer assets for the purpose of evading a possible judgement- at least it is illegal in the technical legal sense.

My general understanding is that provisions of fraudulent transfer laws are rarely, if ever actively enforced. That could be doubly so before a judgement. Likewise, in the distant theoretical sense, it might be possible for a Court to freeze assets pending the trial.

In the practical and real world sense, however, AB could well retain full control of his assets even after verdict as appeals will be filed. Thus, AB is going to have plenty of opportunities to move assets.

Given his resources, my guess is that if he transfers assets, they are going to be unreachable. AB will, of course, deny such transfers. Instead, he will just say that he is grief stricken, that he offered a settlement, and that the family was then deceived by personal injury attorney hype. Now, after "expenses", he has nothing to give....
 
Last edited:
Sounds like Hannah's dad got her a PR team to try and stop the bleeding...she is not supposed to allow anyone else to 'watch' the tray of guns while she leaves. The whole point of having an armorer is that ONE person has the ultimate responsibility to guard the weapons and ammo and check all of the guns EVERY single time they are used.

So those new words---her department and subordinates---:rolleyes:---seem like her team is spinning now

Spinning and…more spinning ahead with this cast of characters.
 
Similarly, a court could attach part of the funds dispensed from any entity in which Baldwin had ownership, IMO.

That depends on the State. In my state (Texas) courts cannot garnish or otherwise pre-emptively intercept wages for lawsuit related debt. Rather, such actions can be done only for owed taxes and child support.

My general understanding is that in the event of a verdict, the Court will simply had the plaintiff a piece of paper affirming that the verdict is valid. AB will also be tokenly required to identify his assets. The Court will then figurately walk away from the matter.

The Court will not delve into whether or not AB (or anybody else) has truly listed their assets. Likewise, they will not compel AB to produce assets, nor will they aid in searching for assets.

The Court will order assets seized- if the plaintiff finds the asset and if the asset is not legally exempt (homestead homes in Texas, or say, shared residence in New York) and if the asset is otherwise legally seizable.

At the end of the day, my understanding is that the Courts just don't do debt collection on behalf of plaintiffs- either directly or indirectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
2,675
Total visitors
2,859

Forum statistics

Threads
599,879
Messages
18,100,685
Members
230,943
Latest member
evil.unmasked
Back
Top