The lawsuit asks for at least 55 million dollars in punitive damages saying the film has “ruined and impugned the reputations of these honest and courageous public servants ...” many of whom are impacted in their current jobs from the “defamation and damage” done by the movie.

Excessive you say?  A Universal spokesman named Michael Moses would agree and he goes one step further.  “The lawsuit is entirely without merit,” he explains.  “’American Gangster’ does not defame these or any federal agents.”  And, David L. Burg, a Senior Vice President of Litigation for NBC Universal wrote that, “The film in no way charges or even insinuates wrongdoing on the part of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.” 

Oh, really?  Then why at the end of the movie does the final full screen graphic – called the ‘end card legend’ – declare that drug dealer Frank Lucas’ collaboration as an informant “…Led to the convictions of three quarters of New York City’s Drug Enforcement Agency.”

In response to the lawsuit NBC Universal lawyer Burg writes further, “… the corrupt law enforcement officers portrayed in the film are specifically identified as members of the New York City Police Department and the film refers to their subsequent prosecution by the federal government.

Oh, really?  Well, the truth is that not one member of law enforcement who was assigned to the Lucas case – be they working for either the city of New York or for the DEA – were ever charged or convicted of anything.  Let me repeat that.  Not one member of law enforcement was convicted of anything.  Zero, zip, never happened.

“As a result of viewing ‘American Gangster’, the lawsuit claims, “millions of people now believe an awful falsity: that these law enforcement officials, DEA and NYPD officers, who searched Lucas’ house … were brutally corrupt and were convicted for this corruption.”

The suit, which claims the movie has made close to 130 million dollars so far, also reveals a troubling story about a DEA agent, on leave to serve in the armed forces in Iraq.  After his fellow soldiers saw a screening of the film and read the legend at the end they turned on him for an explanation.  “He felt deeply hurt and embarrassed by the questions … Although he explained the truth to the soldiers …he could not explain it to the millions of others who have seen this lie and also believed it to be true.”

After the men from the real life drama went to see the ‘based on a true story’ version of their lives they were livid.  These were agents who had worked dangerous undercover narcotics cases, strapped on bullet proof vests or secret recording devices before they left the office.  These were hard working guys who armed themselves and worried about the public’s safety. As they kissed their wives and kids good bye in the morning they oftentimes had no idea when they’d be coming home.  Yet there on the screen they were being portrayed as the bad guys. 

A long time law enforcement source, knowledgeable about today’s inner workings at the Drug Enforcement Administration told me that DEA rookies who saw ‘American Gangster’ came away believing the former agents were corrupt. 

"They don’t know any better,” this solemn sounding man told me.  “They saw it on the screen and figured it was a true story.  Breaks my heart.”

21 days after the premiere of ‘American Gangster’ the former agents had their attorney, Dominic Amorosa, write a letter to NBC Universal demanding the removal of the end card legend claiming three quarters of them had been corrupt.   NBC Universal told them to take a hike.  Why would the studio refuse to remove the offensive words? That simple gesture probably would have helped this whole problem go away. 

Maybe the studio lawyers figured it would just cost too much to pull every print of the film and replace it with the corrected version.  Maybe the lawyers at Universal weighed the possible liability and decided that that tired old phase, “Based on a true story” would protect them from litigation. 

Maybe it will. 

The former agents have now demanded a jury trial. 

-0-

Sources directly involved in the case reveal that one theory sure to surface if there is a trial is that NBC Universal knew before the film’s release that litigation trouble was brewing with the former law enforcement officers and secretly employed another division of their corporate family to help them test the waters. 

For those who think today’s news divisions are completely autonomous and outside corporate influence consider this: Within the NBC UNIVERSAL family is the NBC Television Network.  And, within the NBC TV network is the highly acclaimed news program Dateline.  (In the interest of full disclosure I reveal that I used to work for NBC and during my Court TV coverage of the Michael Jackson criminal trial I had a side contract with both the Today Show and Dateline.)  

Due to a complete coincidence one of the former DEA special agents had stumbled upon the ‘American Gangster’ movie location as filming was underway in the streets of New York.  He struck up a conversation with a stage hand and when he revealed he had worked on the original Lucas case the woman told him, “Oh, you’re not going to like this movie – the cops look like gangsters!”  Once this former agent began to ask questions, the plaintiff’s theory goes, the word got back to the studio that trouble might be on the horizon. 

Several weeks before ‘American Gangster’ premiered – when the brain trust at Universal was believed to know full well the content of the movie was infuriating the law enforcement troops who had worked the Lucas case – a Dateline producer named Bradley Davis reached out to the real-life characters in this drama.  This was welcomed news to the group who saw it as a chance to give their side of the story.  They were optimistic about producer Davis’ claim that the program wanted to “tell the real behind the scenes story” of the Frank Lucas saga.  Bolstered by Dateline’s dogged work with law enforcement during the long-running “To Catch a Predator” series targeting pedophiles, these agents believed they’d get fair treatment when they sat down to talk. 

Less than a month before the film’s release, in October 2007, former narcotics prosecutors Dominic Amarosa and Sterling Johnson (now a federal court judge), former DEA agents Jack Toal and Lew Rice and a journalist named Ron Chepesiuk, who has written extensively about the Lucas case, trudged down to a rented loft space in New York’s So-Ho section to commit their version of the story to video tape. One of them even brought along his daughter, a college communications major, so she could see “how the professionals did it.”  

“We were told it would be an hour long program on Dateline,” one of the participants told me.  “And we understood our comments would be used along with Denzel Washington’s and several others from the movie.  We knew it was to help promote the film but we were going to set the record straight!” 

Another former fed told me he’d spent three hours telling the Dateline crew his truth about the Frank Lucas case.  “When I finished … three hours later, I felt good and realized that I had had the opportunity to work with a special group of people that risked their lives in turning this city around. The producer and the camera men thanked me for my service and I left there feeling good.  Then came the double cross.”  

From the get-go the Dateline timing seemed odd.  The movie premiered November 2nd, 2007 yet producer Davis was quoted as saying their interviews would be used “sometime later.”  And as it got closer to the time for the Dateline piece to actually air the group got phone calls informing them that the segment had been cut – drastically cut.  It was no longer the full hour, it was a half an hour.  And in the final cut there was not one comment from any of the real-life participants in the Lucas case.  Nothing from the prosecutors Amarosa or Johnson, no sound bites from the agents Toal or Rice, nothing from the journalist most acquainted with the story.  

“I’ve worked most of my life on undercover cases,” one of them told me.  “And if I wanted to uncover a scheme, to find out what the other side was thinking or planning this is exactly what I’d do.”  In other words, this experienced law enforcement officer was telling me he felt it was all a set up and the interviews were conducted under false pretense.  

One of the lawyers, who does not want to be identified as trying his case in the media told me, he believes “absolutely” that this was a corporate scheme to gather facts and pick their brains to see if they planned to sue the studio.  He believes Dateline never intended to run their set-the-record-straight comments because it would harm the movie’s chance of success.  And he added, “The relevant issue is whether they were told ahead of time … that no DEA agents were ever convicted” and went ahead with that false legend at the end of the movie anyway.  

One of the former DEA agent Special Agents told me the night the suit was filed, “I knew something was wrong from the beginning. When we were done with the Dateline interviews that day the producer never had us sign anything – usually you have to sign a consent form, right?” 

He’s right.  Even when I had a formal contract with NBC I had to sign such a document every time I sat down in front of a Dateline camera. 

Several calls and e-mails were placed to David Corvo, the Executive Producer of Dateline, and to producer Bradley Davis to ask for comment.  Ultimately a response came through an NBC public relations person.  She said, “We interviewed many people who never made it into what became a half hour program, instead of the hour originally slated … The allegation that Dateline journalists are somehow agents for NBC executives is ludicrous.”  

I’ve worked in a big mega-media atmosphere and the truth could be something far less sinister than the former feds think.  It could be that Dateline producers simply thought it would be a good idea to pursue a story with the real life characters of ‘American Gangster’ and Universal honchos knew nothing about it.  It could be that Dateline will claim that when it came time to air the hour long program some breaking news occurred which forced the producers to edit down the feature about ‘American Gangster’.   As one longtime NBC news producer who requested anonymity told me, “I think the DEA agents are thinking too hard about this.  I think it is more simple than that.  What will get a better rating - an interview with Denzel Washington or an anonymous DEA agent? It’s a no brainer, especially for (a) prime time (show).”  

-0-

But I can’t help thinking that this whole episode could have been better handled.  I know the studio struggled just getting this movie made.  They lost 30 million dollars on a false start and when it was finally filmed and released it probably was a great relief.  

But I go back to the film maker’s decision to tell the story of ‘American Gangster’ through the eyes of the criminal Frank Lucas.  This ex-con was reportedly paid a large sum of money to be a consultant on the film.  Denzel Washington helped buy Lucas a house in appreciation for his input.  All that is capitalism, part of the way America works.  But what about the good guys who were erroneously painted as the bad guys – aren’t they owed something for their years keeping us safe?  I know all about dramatic license but why take swipes at the good guys and glorify the criminal?  With just a little bit more care for the facts couldn’t the script have been written more truthfully and still have been the compelling, creative masterpiece every director and producer strives for.  

We all saw the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” – a story also told through the criminals eyes but in the end we came away knowing who was right and who was wrong.  The truth of the story was straight. 

Maybe I’m too much of a Pollyanna.  But I believe those who wear uniforms to protect the rest of us deserve respect and allegiance.  If they are dirty cops then all bets are off and I’ve done my fair share of stories about corrupt officers.  I was instrumental in sending a couple of them to jail. 

This episode was likely made worse by bad advice from studio lawyers who waved their hands and warned against changing anything in the film lest it be taken as an admission of wrong-doing.  Dropping that final legend card from the film would have likely placated the DEA agents and would have in no way made director Ridley Scott and his crew to loose face.  In fact it would have gone toward the truth – and what would have been wrong with that? 

-0-

POST YOUR COMMENT HERE

DD note:  I received many kind reader comments on this column about the movie "American Gangster" and the way the real life DEA agents were portrayed in the film.  As I say in my mission statement on the home page sometimes I'll use this space to simply tell you a story that has touched me in some way.  This was just such a story.  Here are some of your comments.

Levi in Oklahoma writes:

     I think your column on the movie "American Gangster" is GREAT. I think what is behind the movie and the way the officers were portrayed, is simply anti law enforcement, anti prosecution, pro criminal, left wing, ACLU propaganda extremist politics. That crowd likes to portray law enforcement as a bunch of evil psychopaths who violate the civil rights of American citizens everyday. 

    It seems like they have a slander or a libel suite on their hands. This damaged their character obviously and in my opinion was done with malice.

Lou in Manhattan writes: 

Wow, this is great, Diane. You've started a movement. Shame on Universal NBC.

Bob Martinez, Former Federal Law Enforcement Official writes:

Peter in Boston writes:

Diane-- It's great to know that there's a person out there still practicing journalism the authentic way-- by wearing out shoe leather, phoning, digging, investigating, cultivating reliable sources, etc.-- not just printing rumors and gossip as so many do nowadays. You're still the state-of-the-art cutting edge. I remain your biggest fan. Can't wait till your definitive book on juries comes out. Until then, I remain an avid reader of your blog.

Shelley in North Carolina writes:

Mike in Albuquerque, NM writes:

Excellent.... I enjoyed your comments on the "GANGSTER"  movie.  I did see the movie and liked it, but I'm glad you uncovered the self-serving crap.  Why am I not surprised ???