Since we got a pretty good response on the last price of fame story, thought some of you you might enjoy this one...

Nicholson Cited in Sex And Assault Lawsuit

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A woman who claims that actor Jack Nicholson beat her and left her with serious injuries after refusing to pay for sex has filed a lawsuit in a bid to overturn a 1997 legal settlement she says she reached with him.

Catherine Sheehan alleges that she and another woman were promised $1,000 each to have sex with Nicholson at his home in October 1996. When she asked for the money later, Sheehan claims the actor became angry, retorted he did not have to pay anyone for sex, grabbed her by the hair, pounded her head into the floor and threw her into a hedge outside.

A copy of the lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, was made available to Reuters on Friday.

Almost a year later, Sheehan says she reached a legal agreement with Nicholson to drop allegations against him in return for $32,500 and a promise not to tell anyone outside her immediate family about the alleged incident.

Nicholson's agent said on Friday there was ``no comment'' on Sheehan's lawsuit or on any of allegations surrounding it. The 63-year-old actor's lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Lawyers for Sheehan said she wanted to have the 1997 legal agreement declared null and void because she was unaware of the seriousness of the injuries she suffered in the alleged incident at Nicholson's home.

Included in the filing is a doctor's letter stating that Sheehan suffers from headaches, vertigo and insomnia. Sheehan's lawyer Ira Chester said Sheehan had spent more than $60,000 on medical bills since 1996.

Chester denied suggestions that the lawsuit was a frivolous publicity stunt. ``I would only have filed this lawsuit if I knew I had legal grounds. There is nothing uphill battle about it.''

Chester said Sheehan, who he described as in her late 30s, had worked for a video distribution company but had been unable to work since the alleged incident. She was not an escort or prostitute, he said.

``I think it was just a matter of getting a little extra rent money when times get a little tough. There was no full-blown escort deal. But even under those circumstances nobody deserves to get beat up,'' Chester told Reuters.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000

Answers

little bird,

You wish you were good-looking enough, or rich enough to attract a gold-digging whore.

-- (Plucking the fe@thers off a .dead bird), May 13, 2000.

lol! Hawk has nothing but his plastic keyboard!

-- (Women @bused by Hawk .2), May 13, 2000.

I am VERY good looking, and VERY rich. :-) I've also had my share of whores, but since I never wronged them they had no way to get my gold, so they found some other sucker.

Woman (abused@by.hawk),

You are nothing but a troll. This is the THIRD time I've posted this and I'm still awaiting your evidence. Your credibility has gone down the shitter with you, where you belong. Here is what you said to me on an earlier thread...

"You're a sick manipulative control-freak fuckwad, Hawk. It's funny watching you turn to sugary words when you think you've finaly got your way.

-- Woman (abused@by.hawk), April 24, 2000."

And this was my reply....

"Oooooooooooh, dem's fightin words, bitch!! LOL!!!

I don't think you are even a woman, probably just one of the assholes from sleazy. But hey, I'm a fair guy, let's get to the bottom of this and see who the manipulative one really is. Show us you real name, there's no need to hide if "I" abused "YOU" is there? We'll dig up the posts in question and do a little critiquing. How about it? I doubt that you will because you're just a lying sack o' shit, aren't you? :)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000."

I'm still waiting... either put up or shut up. Let's have it, WHORE!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 13, 2000.

Hawk-I really believe you ARE good looking and rich. I've surely dated enough of your type to recognize the ATTITUDE. One really has to wonder though why you spend so much time with your 'puter. Is your girlfriend blowing you under the desk? You misogynist pig.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

Gia, you don't understand me at all, so please don't pre-judge me. In my reality there are many things more interesting than sex. I am not a misogynist at all, in fact I hate no one or nothing. It does appear to me however, that you do harbor some hatred toward men. I'm sorry that you have allowed yourself to become a "victim", but don't blame others for your own weaknesses.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 13, 2000.

Gia: Contrary to what the annonymous one posted here, he really is NOT a woman hater. (did I just say that?)

He takes his whips from us women, but once you been around awhile, you'll see, he can be quite thought provoking and actually funny, believe it or not. He was a riot during the Elian posts.

Hawk:

Do you think it was right she got money or am I missing the point?

She can no longer work after all. I dont like what she did, it appears she may/may not of been an escort, however, he did not have to beat her up.

FWIW, it is 'rumored' he is a drunk anyhow, for me, I'd be afraid to go home w/him, after having heard so many rumors about him.

Being a 'little' in the know about settlements, I'd say she doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting anymore, if she already waived off and collected. Any legal jocks here who can comment?

---needs a lil mortgage $$$...tee hee

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 13, 2000.

Pardon me, but dosn't the lady usually collect da money before da fun begins?

-- Wonderin (about@lots.of.things), May 13, 2000.

Hawk said -

"I am VERY good looking, and VERY rich. :-) I've also had my share of whores, but since I never wronged them they had no way to get my gold, so they found some other sucker."

Let's reduce that -

"I've also had my share of whores, but since I never wronged them they had no way to get my gold, so they found some other sucker."

Let's zero in alittle more -

"...but since I never wronged them they had no way to get my gold, so they found some other sucker."

Sounds to me like an acknowledgment that if there is no "wrong" there is no way to "collect". Or put the other way: If there IS a "wrong" there IS a way to "collect".

Now, with an acknowledgment like that Hawk, where exactly do you get off with the title of this post? -

"Gold-digging whore goes after Jack"

Or your other -

"Gold-digging whore goes after Jagger"

According to you there is no room for ANY consideration that either woman has any rights. Both are reduced to "gold-digging whores".

Please stop contributing to and spreading this kind of thought pattern in our society. I have to raise my daughters in it.

-- Debra (think@think.com), May 13, 2000.

Debra,

Of course the women in question have "rights". The only thing that Hawk and others have disputed is whether or not their "rights" include fleecing a man for a sexual dalliance. Note that I say fleecing. Reasonable support for a child was never an issue.

Hawk,

I'd like to propose a difference in definition between prostitutes and "whores". To me a prostitute is someone who provides sexual services in return for money. A whore is someone like the two women who you have been describing, who attempt to extort money from a man beyond what is reasonable for the circumstances involved. I have enjoyed the occasional services of prostitutes and believe that the experiences have enhanced my life. I've also tangled with a few "whores" who were not up front about the compensation issue. Luckily I escaped their greedy grasp.

Most women do not fall in either of these two classifications, but when they do, let's call a spade a spade. Let's also note that this kind of behaviour would not be mostly the province of women if men possessed the same power over women that they do over men.

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 13, 2000.

Hawk- Sweetie, your analysis was surely worth every penny I paid for it.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 14, 2000.

Observer -

You state first:

"Of course the women in question have "rights"."

You go on to make another statement:

"A whore is someone like the two women who you have been describing,..."

So ... you give me my "rights" while calling me a "whore?" No. You give me my rights OR you call me a whore. You DON'T do both.

And your last statement:

"Let's also note that this kind of behaviour would not be mostly the province of women if men possessed the same power over women that they do over men."

Can't males see what they do? Your words invalidate women but your actions give her a power beyond what is real. The word is EQUAL. I have no more power over you than you have over me.

-- Debra (...@....), May 14, 2000.

Debra,

You seem to have some sort of "axe to grind", and frequently quote parts of a person's statements out of context.

What is the purpose of the following statement?

"So ... you give me my "rights" while calling me a "whore?" No. You give me my rights OR you call me a whore You DON'T do both."

I didn't call you or anyone else a whore unless you/they engage in the type of behavior that I was referring to in the rest of the quote that you so conveniently left out.

I see no positive purpose in engaging in "Decker-like arguments". I made a simple statement to Hawk that most men will understand. Does it ever occur to you that men have rights too?

What about this statement?

"Can't males see what they do? Your words invalidate women but your actions give her a power beyond what is real. The word is EQUAL. I have no more power over you than you have over me."

How do my words invalidate you? Where have I said that you or women in general aren't entitled to the same rights that men expect?

While it is true that I have some choice about whether or not to give a women power over me, putting on a well-filled bra with a plunging neckline, and donning a short skirt isn't an option for me (even if I shave my legs and chest). Only the more well-built or pheremone-rich men have the same overt sexual power over women as as even a relatively plain female has over men by merely showing a little extra skin in the right places. It's a well known fact that men as a group are far more stimulated by the sight of a naked female body than is true of women viewing men. Sure, women like to look at Arnold Schwartzanagger type guys, but most of us aren't built like him. You, on the other hand, don't have to be built like Pamela Anderson to get our attention.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 14, 2000.

Observer is right Deb, you have got this way out of perspective. I'm going to repeat part of my reply on the first "whore" thread, because perhaps you didn't see it....

"Of course some women have such an insecurity problem that when anyone says anything negative about any ONE female, they automatically conclude that this is your opinion of ALL women. Not so. I love women, but I don't like greedy vultures."

The way I understand the word "whore" is... someone who seeks compensation, usually money, for engaging in sexual activities. A prostitute is a professional whore, and is usually considered more respectable because they spell out the conditions in advance and do not try to manipulate their clients.

The only one I called a whore was the woman mentioned in this article, so I have no idea how you concluded that I meant all females. Get a grip.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), May 14, 2000.

Debra, it is my professional opinion that you are suffering from the notorious Po Ho No Blo syndrome. There is treatment available for this common malady found in the retired truck stoppers community and you should consult with your PimI mean shrink as soon as possible.

-- Your (best@friend.Sigmond), May 14, 2000.

Debra, allow me a moment to interject a little perspective. Fighting with men with an IQ of 50 is a waste of time.

-- (SpaceCases @re .here), May 14, 2000.

Debra,

After reading your comments here and also on the Female Experience thread, I am reminded of the person who calls in to a radio talk show and then starts spouting off on their own agenda despite the host's attempts to get them back on the subject at hand. Unfortunately we don't have a kill-switch here.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.