'American Gangster' Slapped by Feds' Lawsuit (Former DEA Agents Say They Were Defamed By The Film)

ABC News has learned that a group of former federal drug enforcement agents has filed a class-action lawsuit against NBC Universal today, asserting they were defamed by the blockbuster flick "American Gangster."

As the final credits roll on the flick starring Denzel Washington as Harlem drug thug Frank Lucas, a screen appears that states three-quarters of the drug enforcement agents assigned to New York were convicted as a result of Lucas' cooperation with "outcast cop" Richie Roberts, portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie.

There were no such convictions, Drug Enforcement Administration officials told ABC News. But the agency had no immediate reaction when told of the lawsuit.

The agents are also seeking a restraining order against further distribution of the movie, $55 million in damages and punitive damages and any profits from a box-office gross that so far has exceeded about $130 million.

The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, charges that "the defamation involved the defendant NBC Universal, through its Universal Studios, falsely communicating, in writing, to millions of people in a motion picture called American Gangster that three-quarters of New York City's DEA, from approximately 1973 through approximately 1985, were convicted criminals."

According to former U.S. attorney Dominic Amorosa, who prosecuted Lucas and his cohorts in the federal case and now represents the aggrieved former narcs, the assertion that Lucas' cooperation with "outcast cop" Richie Roberts "led to convictions of three-quarters of the New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency" is baseless and "impugns and damages the reputations of hundreds of honest, decent and courageous agents."

NBC Universal declined to comment in early December when ABC News first reported on the dispute between the former agents and the Hollywood studio. Contacted on Tuesday, the studio was not immediately available to discuss the pending developments.

In a letter to Amoroso dated Dec. 7, replying to his demand that the movie studio "retract and correct" its statements, David Burg, NBC Universal's senior vice president for litigation, said, "The film in no way charges or even insinuates wrongdoing on the part of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. Thus, we must respectfully deny the claim of your client and other former federal DEA agents."

"American Gangster falsely represents that Lucas not only cooperated with Roberts in investigating corrupt law enforcement officers, but...falsely states as a fact that this 'collaboration led to the convictions of three-quarters of New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency.' This legend is false, defamatory and libelous per se. No such thing ever occurred. Not a single agent of New York City's DEA, or any other law enforcement officer, was convicted of anything based upon the so-called 'collaboration' of Lucas and Roberts. Nor was a single agent of New York City's DEA or officer of the NYPD convicted in any case or investigation involving Frank Lucas whether based upon a collaboration of Lucas and Roberts or any other resource."

Among the narcs Amorosa represents is Gregory Korniloff, the Drug Enforcement Administration case agent on Lucas.

"After risking life and limb for two and a half years in this investigation, we are portrayed as a gang of corrupt hoodlums," Korniloff told ABC News in December. "Just on the faces of it, there were about 300 agents in New York at the time," Korniloff says. "Leaving the theater you get the impression that the movie audience comes to believe we are corrupt."

Are you a lawyer? Did a little digging, and the whole issue of defamation of a group is very complex and the laws and court rulings seem to vary widely from state to state...

Are you a lawyer? Did a little digging, and the whole issue of defamation of a group is very complex and the laws and court rulings seem to vary widely from state to state...

No, not at all. I just have been around long enough to know that suing "art" for libel has been very unsuccessful in this country over the years. In England, it is easier to be successful in lawsuits, but here courts have not been very friendly due to the court's interpretations of our 1st Amendment protections.

Dramas based on historical events have never been totally accurate. Not at any time in history. Never.

I thought it was real based on that but the entire story was fiction, including the end statements which was trying to make it look somewhat factual.

You got it right with "end statements which was trying to make [the movie] look somewhat factual". When the producers put up a quote at the end of a movie, then they're trying to say "this is the truth". If they "knew" the facts in this case were wrong, and real people were involved, then they have even less defense for their actions. That's not merely slandering someone out of ignorance, but slandering someone with a deliberate fiction.

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.