Posted on 01/07/2004 10:12:09 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The estate of former Beatle George Harrison (news) filed a $10 million law suit on Tuesday against one of the last doctors to treat the late rock musician, claiming he violated patient confidentiality and misused his relationship to procure souvenirs.
The suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court claimed that Dr. Gilbert Lederman, director of radiation oncology at Staten Island University Hospital, a co-defendant in the suit, had coerced a failing Harrison to autograph his son's guitar and sign autographs for his two daughters.
It also charged Lederman with using Harrison's treatment to gain publicity for himself and the hospital against the express wishes of Harrison, who died of cancer on Nov. 29, 2001, about two weeks after he had left Staten Island for California.
Harrison was treated for about three weeks in New York.
"Staten Island University Hospital takes patient confidentiality very seriously and has not breached confidentiality," said hospital spokeswoman Arleen Ryback.
The suit claims Lederman "preyed upon Mr. Harrison while he was in a greatly deteriorated mental and physical condition by coercing" him to sign a guitar and other autographs as he was being prepared to leave Lederman's care.
Court papers say Lederman visited Harrison with his son and daughters and had Harrison listen to his son play the guitar and then placed it in the former Beatle's lap and asked him to autograph it.
When Harrison resisted, the suit claims Lederman reached out to hold his hand to help him write.
"As far as Mr Harrison being forced to sign the guitar goes, he absolutely and categorically denies that," said the doctor's lawyer, Wayne Roth.
The suit says that after Harrison's death, Lederman gave a story about the guitar to the National Enquirer, which featured a photograph of the doctor's son holding the instrument.
The lawyer representing the Harrisons, Paul LiCalsi, said the family was primarily interested in retrieving what it felt was ill-gotten memorabilia.
"As recently as a few hours ago we gave them the opportunity to avoid this proceeding by simply returning the guitar and the autographs," said LiCalsi. "We even offered to give him a replacement guitar and the doctor refused."
How many?
One, two, three or four autographs?
B.F.D.
A hundred?
That's another issue.
Actually, I believe they remarked that they were probably more popular than Jesus at that time.
And, sadly, they were probably right.
Today in Odd History, The Evening Standard published a long, rambling interview with John Lennon in which he proclaimed that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus." Although there was little reaction to his statement in England, Christians elsewhere embarked upon a massive campaign to destroy Beatles albums and other paraphenalia. Lennon apologized for the remark later, and the Archbishop of Boston admitted that he was probably right, but many still refused to forgive him.
In its original context, the remark was part of a rather harmless lifestyle piece by Evening Standard reporter Maureen Cleave. She had spent the day Lennon, whom she described as "imperious, ... unpredictable, indolent, disorganised, childish, vague, charming and quick-witted." He took her on a tour of his mansion, talking about books and fame, and the gorilla suit he bought so he could drive around wearing it. When they reached the subject of religion, Lennon said, "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. ... We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first-rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
The British public took the comment as what is was: An opinion voiced by an artist known as much for his hummingbird mind as for his considerable talent. In July, however, an American teen magazine called Datebook quoted the infamous Jesus statement without reprinting the original article. It appeared as part of a cover story called "The Ten Adults You Dig/Hate the Most." The American reaction was instantaneous. Radio stations across the country, but especially in the South and in the Midwest, stopped playing Beatles records. Death threats began pouring in, directed against not only John, but the other Beatles as well. Bonfires appeared, with Beatles pictures and albums providing the fuel. Maureen Cleave tried to explain that "John was certainly not comparing the Beatles with Christ. He was simply observing that so weak was the state of Christianity that the Beatles were, to many people, better known. He was deploring, rather than approving, this," but to no avail. In Cleveland, the Reverend Thurman H. Babbs threatened to excommunicate any member of his congregation who listened to the Beatles. In the South, the Ku Klux Klan burned the Beatles in effigy and nailed Beatles albums to burning crosses. Finally, on August 11, with a scheduled American tour fast approaching, Lennon held a press conference in Chicago, at which he attempted to make amends. "I'm not saying that we're better or greater," he said, "or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. ... I wasn't saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don't know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry."
For most people, this was enough, but not for all. The KKK tried, unsuccessfully, to stop their show in Memphis. On August 13, KLUE, a radio station in Texas, organized another Beatles bonfire. (That same night, the station was struck by lightning, which damaged their equipment and knocked the station manager unconscious. Sometimes, justice really is poetic.) And the international reaction was just beginning. Beatles albums were banned from the airwaves in Spain and Holland. The Vatican, while recognizing that the remarks were made "off-handedly and not impiously," also said that "[T]he protest the remark raised showed that some subjects must not be dealt with lightly and in a profane way, not even in the world of beatniks." In South Africa, Piet Myer of the South African Broadcasting Corporation justified his decision to bar Beatles albums by saying, "The Beatles' arrogance has passed the ultimate limit of decency. It is clowning no longer." Even years later, after the group had broken up, John Lennon's albums were still banned from South African radio, although Paul McCartney's and George Harrison's music could be broadcast.
John Lennon returned to the subject in December, when he told LOOK magazine that "I believe Jesus was right, Buddha was right, and all of those people like that are right. They're all saying the same thing--and I believe it. I believe what Jesus actually said--the basic things he laid down about love and goodness--and not what people say he said.... If Jesus being more popular means ... more control, I don't want that. I'd sooner they'd all follow us even if it's just to dance and sing for the rest of their lives. If they took more interest in what Jesus--or any of them--said, if they did that, we'd all be there with them."
Although the Beatles would remain together for 4 more years, the American tour that followed the Jesus incident would be their last.
And no hell below us? Above us only sky?
Imagine.
Makes you wonder what he thinks about it all now.
Yeah.
Just picture some shyster rubbing his hands when he decided to take this case.
Any decent guy would have just said, "Aww, why don't you just let bygones be bygones."
I rode up the elevator with poor old George a few months before he died, and he looked like a street person...almost as bad as Bob Dylan.
/ cynicism, but I've seen too many supposedly civilized and devoted relatives and friends turn into a pack of wolves at the thought of their "inheritance"...I'd easily give the doctor the benefit of the doubt here!
(where's that Johnny Unitas story?)
Ouch...It sure is hot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.