Actor Charlie Sheen fired back at his ex-fiancée in a new court filing this week, alleging Scottine Ross tried to extort him and threatened to divulge his HIV diagnosis. In a new interview with MSNBC, Ross rebutted those new allegations for the first time.
“They were the ones who offered me and my attorneys substantial money to be quiet, based off of my abuse claims,” she said, arguing her dispute is over allegations that Sheen abused her.
“Charlie frequently would hit me, he would push me, kick me, drag me, shake me, and choke me,” she said. “Everyone keeps focusing on this issue — his lawsuit being about his HIV status — but that’s not what it’s about,” she said.
“His HIV status, my abortion, happened to be contributing factors to prove manipulation and excessive abuse — they’re just contributing factors to the fact that he abused me,” Ross tells MSNBC in the new interview.
RELATED: Charlie Sheen reveals he’s HIV positive
Sheen’s filing alleges Ross “attempted to extort millions of dollars” from Sheen, with the help of her lawyer David Ring.
Ring emphatically denies that allegation. “That’s a flat out lie,” he told MSNBC.
Ring said he had negotiations with Sheen’s lawyer, Martin Singer, who was “aware of what the allegations were, and not one time was there ever a threat that someone was going to file to expose Mr. Sheen’s medical condition,” he said, reiterating “that’s a flat out lie.”
SECRECY CONTRACT
Ross said she first met Sheen two years ago, after he spent “six months” asking people to introduce them.
“He eventually offered $10,000,” she said, “in exchange to see me with the intentions of having sexual relations.” Sheen tried to secure her silence in advance, she said, by having her sign a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
That secrecy contract may be pivotal in the case.
MSNBC exclusively obtained a copy of the NDA, signed by Sheen and Ross, which states that Ross waived her rights in exchange “for the opportunity to spend time” with Sheen.
It also states Ross must pay an automatic $100,000 in damages to Sheen, in the event of violating or even “threatening” to violate the agreement. It’s a very high penalty for a contract that, Sheen claims, both parties agreed to without money changing hands.
Ross said “it was signed under duress,” and her lawyer argues the state can’t enforce a contract if its very purpose was against the law.
“The original purpose was an illicit purpose — it was illegal,” said Ring.
“The reason why she was going over to his house — and she readily admits it — is to have sex and he was going to pay her money to do it,” he explains. “So that contract in California is void, because you cannot enter into a contract for an illicit purpose. That ends the NDA right then and there,” he told MSNBC.
California law states when if a contract’s “single” goal is unlawful, then “the entire contract is void.”
Sheen’s lawyer insists the contract is valid, “customary for all of his visitors,” and that she violated it.
Their new filing argues that even if the NDA was not valid, any dispute about it should be handled in private arbitration, not open court.
“Celebrities do have a genuine interest in protecting their privacy,” said Paul Nicholas Boylan, a California attorney who specializes in NDAs and is not involved in the case.
“But these agreements are a form of intimidation,” he told MSNBC. “No contract should limit rights if one party is physically injured,” he added. Boylan expects a court would reject Sheen’s NDA.
Kenneth Sargoy, a California contract attorney who is not involved in the case, said the NDA was “incredibly general.” While such contracts can legitimately protect privacy, he said “she is not attempting to profit from her relationship with Mr. Sheen,” but rather seeking compensation “for harm caused to her by Mr. Sheen.”
Sargoy emphasized that the case is all about “alleged misconduct” — it’s not like Ross is “writing a tell-all book about Sheen,” he said.








