Saturday, December 21, 2013

Tom Cruise Drops Lawsuit Against In Touch

So much for the $50M lawsuit filed by Tom Cruise against In Touch for their claims that Tom abandoned Suri. As I predicted all it took for Tom to drop the case was the threat of a deposition of Katie Holmes. That was it for Tom and he dismissed the suit on Friday. The case was not a winner from the outset. People have different definitions of abandon and the guy hadn't seen his child in almost four months. He says he spoke to her regularly but the other issues he was going to have is what has he done since they wrote the story? Have you seen Tom and Suri together? Nope. Know why? He isn't allowed. Scientology won't let him. During his deposition he threw Nicole Kidman under a bus because she had previously said she had seen her kids with Tom once or twice and he said she never spoke to them or saw them. Why? Scientology. As much as Tom would have hated a million questions about his sex life with Katie Holmes in a deposition, imagine a live trial broadcast to the world which had the same questions and questions about Scientology. It would have been a circus and a public relations disaster with a big fat loss against Tom at the end. The only reason anyone even remembers the cover any longer is because Tom sued.

19 comments:

MsWool said...

uhhh.... i think he won to a certain extent. He cost them a LOT of money (which he is not required to reimburse) and they had to apologize.

G said...

@MsWool

Get what you're saying, but anyone that is so in the right would not have dropped the case. And who knows what the actual terms were. Yes, they have to issue a carefully worded apology, but it's to save face. If I knew that I would win, I would have pursued it. Tom knew he would have really lost this one big time for a little man.

nancer said...

he didn't win. by anyone's standards, he's dropped out of his child's life. seriously, when IS the last time he saw her? he says they skype---that's not the same thing as 'seeing' your child.

he knew going in this wouldn't go all the way. he just did it to make a big splash by filing the suit with much hoopla and claiming they lied. they really didn't lie.

char said...

I think it was all smoke and mirrors to interrupt the speculation that Tom is not Suri's biological father.

Flora Goforth said...

Ms Wool I imagine Tammy has some kind of liability insurance or will write this off as a PR expense. Or if not this is a blip to his finances.

Murphy said...

I thought Suri was supposed to be the next Jesus of Scientology (after Tom) I'm surprised they let her go so easily. (I'm sure there was a lot that we didn't see but still, I wouldn't put taking Katie Holmes out past them)

MISCH said...

4 months…….please it's much longer…show me the photo proof…

Nutty_Flavor said...

There is always the chance that he is, indeed, seeing his daughter but not calling the paps or parading her in front of them. I'm sure Scientology is still organized enough to figure out how to use an underground parking garage, elevator to a hotel suite, etc.

I dunno. I think when two voluntarily famous adults trot out their romantic relationship, real or arranged, for public consumption - Tom and Katie, Kim and Kanye, Brad and Angie, Justin and Jennifer, Ryan and Julianne - it's hard to claim any right to privacy, even when things turn sour.

Kids don't sign a contract. Suri didn't, North didn't, none of the Jolie-Pitt kids did. I don't know what right we, the public, have to follow their lives and measure their time together with either parent.

f they want to go public someday, Cheryl Crane or Christina Crawford style, so be it. But when they're kids, I think they should be off-limits for the publicity machine.

Not sure what Paul McCartney and Heather Mills have done, but I know pretty much nothing about their 9-year-old daughter Beatrice, and that's as it should be.

MISCH said...

there was a photo of Sir Paul and Beatrice yesterday…doing Christmas shopping.

jodi benton said...

@Nutty Flavor

I think Tom is careful not to be seen with Suri. Other Scientologists would get angry at him getting special treatment. Isn't Suri supposed to be a suppressive person?

Sherry said...

Exactly. Suri is suppressive. I am sure he sees her without a lot of cameras around although they did do that public trip to Disneyland.

__-__=__ said...

Run Tom, Run!!!!!!!

Harry Knuckles said...

Damn. Really wanted to see the little freak take the stand and answer questions about who really fathered Suri, but of course that was never going to happen. Cruise would kill himself before he would admit he is gay.

Lola said...

Ms. Wool, I am certain that In Touch retains its own in house legal division, as virtually all large businesses do.

Lola said...

And his lawyer wasn't exactly free...

CF98 said...

While I don't think Tom is Suri's biological kid(how else would Katie get custody so easily otherwise?) that alone doesn't mean he's gay. Could he be? Sure but not fathering Suri isn't the smoking gun. And the gay rumors existed long before she came along.

Now do I think he's sterile? Yes.

Nothanksdarlin said...

Agreed, Nutty. Preach it

Rose said...

It's none of our business who is Suri's biological father. Tom and Katie don't owe us that. I am much more curious about what Katie has over Tom and/or Scientology that allowed her to basically walk away with their child without the shit storm they give other celebs.

JoElla said...

Rose, that is where the real story is. I wonder if we will ever find out?