Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
--------
Question: Scott Brunton had just gone through a bad breakup when actor George Takei offered to take him out on the town . It was the summer of 1981   and Takei   then 44   was well - known for his role as Lt . Hikaru Sulu on Star Trek . The two men knew each other socially . “ It was a very hard breakup for me   and he said   ‘ Well   let me take you out to dinner and the theater and we will talk  ’" said Brunton   who was 23 at the time . “ And I thought   OK   that would be nice .” The two men — who hadn ’ t spent time together one - on - one before — spent the evening out before returning to Takei ’ s Los Angeles condo for a cocktail   Brunton said . Takei prepared a drink in the kitchen and brought it out to Brunton   who was in the living room . Brunton recalled that Takei served it in a Star Trek glass   which he found “ a bit cheesy .” “ I ’ m pouring my heart out on my sleeve to him ” talking about the breakup   Brunton said . “ He is very sympathetic . And then he asked if I would like another drink and I said   ‘ Sure .’” But by the second cocktail   Brunton said he felt like he was going to pass out . “ I was shaky  ” he told BuzzFeed News in an interview . “ I said   ‘ I have to lie down .’ He said   ‘ Come over here and sit .’” Brunton recalls sitting down on a yellow beanbag chair . He doesn ’ t know how much time passed   but the next thing he remembers is waking up   his pants down around his ankles   and Takei on top of him pushing his hand down his underwear    Brunton  said . “ He ’ s on top of me   trying with his hand down my underwear [ to ] pull my underwear down  ” said  Brunton  .  Brunton  said  he  then pushed Takei off and asked what he was doing .  He  said Takei told him he was trying to make him comfortable .  Brunton  said  he  told Takei  he  had to go home   though  he  was “ still a little bit out of it .” Takei told  him  that  he  was in no condition to drive    Brunton  said   and he agreed but told the older actor he was leaving anyway . " I got my pants up   composed myself   and I just couldn ’ t believe this whole thing happened  "  Brunton  told BuzzFeed News . " I went out to my car and I sat in it and that was that ." A representative for Takei denied multiple detailed requests for comment   saying the actor was traveling . After this story was published   Takei tweeted on Saturday morning   saying the events  Brunton  described " simply did not occur ." He also said he did not remember  Brunton  . " I want to assure you all that I am as shocked and bewildered at these claims as you must feel reading them  " Takei said . " The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur   and I do not know why he has claimed them now . I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr .  Brunton    and I cannot say I do ." Takei said he took the claims very seriously and wanted to provide a thoughtful response . " Right now it is a he said / he said situation   over alleged events nearly 40 years ago . But those that know me understand that non - consensual acts are so antithetical to my values and my practices   the very idea that someone would accuse me of this is quite personally painful  " Takei said . Five of Brunton ’ s friends independently told BuzzFeed News that they have heard  Brunton  tell the story at various times over the years . One of those friends   Jan Steward   told BuzzFeed News she recalled  Brunton  telling her the story at the dinner table roughly a decade ago . “ It was clearly very   very upsetting to him  ” she said .

Answer: Scott Brunton


Question: LONDON (Reuters) -  Harry Potter  is continuing to work  his  magic for publisher Bloomsbury (BLPU.L) 20 years after  his  debut  with special editions of  his  first adventure helping revenue rise 15 percent.
FILE PHOTO: Copies of the book of the play of  Harry Potter  and the Cursed Child parts One and Two are displayed at a bookstore in London  Britain July 31  2016. REUTERS/Neil Hall/File Photo
Bloomsbury released new editions of J.K. Rowling’s “ Harry Potter  and the Philosopher’s Stone” with covers dedicated to wizarding school Hogwarts’ houses Gryffindor  Slytherin  Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw to mark the anniversary in June.
 Revenue from Harry Potter  grew 40 percent in the period   the company  said on Tuesday  and the young wizard and  his  magical world will feature strongly in the publisher’s assault on the important Christmas market.
“We have a strong second-half list including the illustrated edition of ‘ Harry Potter  and the Prisoner of Azkaban ’ the illustrated edition of ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them’ and two major books to accompany the British Library’s  Harry Potter  exhibition ” said Chief Executive Nigel Newton.
FILE PHOTO: A woman holds copies of the book of the play of  Harry Potter  and the Cursed Child parts One and Two at a bookstore in London  Britain July 31  2016. REUTERS/Neil Hall/File Photo
Analyst Steve Liechti at Investec said Bloomsbury’s second-half list looked strong  with cookery titles from Paul Hollywood  Tom Kerridge and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall as well as the new Harry Potter editions.

Answer: Harry Potter


Question: The media-savvy special prosecutors have colluded with the Fourth Estate to try — and convict — Paxton in the court of public opinion long before the case even comes to trial.  Wice  in particular is an aspiring media celebrity  serving as a TV “legal analyst” on Houston’s Channel 2 (KPRC) since 2003. Think of a male version of Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren — a Dan Abrams wannabe. One profile described the bombastic  Wice  as a “media magnet” who “never shies away from the spotlight.” The KPRC website brags that
Beginning the very day  Schaffer  and Wice were appointed by Becker  the prosecutors were in contact with the media  shamelessly promoting themselves by mass distributing press statements and publicity photos.  Schaffer  and  Wice  obviously intended to milk the case for all the news coverage they could get  for two self-serving reasons: to poison the well of public opinion against Paxton  and to generate free advertising to attract future clients. Neither motive is ethical for a special prosecutor. Yet   Wice  has conceded that pretrial media coverage “impacts the way potential jurors view our client’s case long before they are ushered into the courtroom for voir dire. Being able to effectively represent your client on the courthouse steps can be every bit as important as representing them inside the courtroom.”
Moreover   Wice  once cynically acknowledged the economic benefits of making media appearances  informing fellow lawyers that “appearing on TV is client development — free advertising — that might well yield future business. And you never can tell what that one local  or  with a bit of good fortune  national TV appearance  can do for you or your practice.” Exploiting the media  in other words  is the latest form of ambulance chasing. “Celebrity” attorneys  like the Kardashians  are famous for being famous.
In that vein  Schaffer and Wice continued a steady stream of self-aggrandizing communications with the press corps during the “investigation” and grand jury phases  despite the strict secrecy associated with the grand jury process. The special prosecutors had numerous communications (by email and telephone) with the New York Times’ reporter early in the case  following which the NYT reported Paxton’s indictment on August 1  2015  before the indictment was even unsealed. Was this national media scoop a coincidence? The special prosecutors were the obvious source of the highly-unprofessional leak  but the press corps gratefully reciprocated by uncritically reporting  Wice ’s spin as “news.”
In addition to regularly sending eager reporters status updates and copies of pleadings and orders  on at least two occasions  Wice  circulated to the media Paxton’s annual Personal Financial Statement  presumably to encourage reporters to scrutinize the donors to Paxton’s legal defense fund — a wholly improper purpose. In an even more egregious breach of propriety   Wice  emailed a copy of Paxton’s booking “mugshot” to his KPRC colleague  reporter Phil Archer  shortly after Paxton was released on bail. The only word to describe this type of conduct is “sleazy.”
Intemperately denouncing Paxton’s legal arguments as “frivolous” and “clearly baseless ” the special prosecutors’ tone toward Paxton dripped with contempt as they delivered sound bites to groveling reporters on deadline. When asked by a reporter about a new attorney joining the Paxton defense team to deal with the federal civil case (which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice)   Schaffer  sarcastically responded “Never heard of him. Looks like we set off the Lawyer Relief Act…” When a prominent Paxton supporter wrote an op-ed in the Midland Reporter-Telegram  criticizing the indictment  the thin-skinned prosecutors immediately issued a florid press statement — presumably on the taxpayers’ nickel — condemning the piece as a “rant” containing “lies bathed in the cologne of half-truths  fabrications and disinformation.”
Mimicking the prosecutors’ flippant and unprofessional tone  some reporters began running stories with shockingly-unbalanced headlines  such as “Another Day  Another Idiotic Ken Paxton Motion ” which  Schaffer  and Wice gleefully circulated to their media contacts  with the message “I love it.” If media outlets did not parrot the prosecutors’ swaggering narrative  they were cut off from “insider access.”
This incestuous arrangement likely explains why the Dallas Morning News  which was closely following the Paxton case  never reported the bombshell mentioned in Part 2 — that  Schaffer  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal RICO case against the leader of the Bandidos motorcycle gang — a revelation that would have greatly tarnished the special prosecutors’ undeserved Boy Scout image — which McGaughy had gone to extraordinary lengths to burnish.
This apparently referred to Paxton’s retention of a defense team that included Dan Cogdell and Philip Hilder  with respect to whom  Schaffer  and Wice issued polite public statements.
The hundreds of email exchanges between the prosecutors and reporters (McGaughy in particular) are clearly collusive. With the avid cooperation of the press corps  for two and a half years  Schaffer  and Wice have been busy smearing Paxton through leaks and planted stories  all while risibly claiming to be “seeking justice on behalf of the people of Texas.”
To re-cap this series: The baseless  politicized prosecution of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a travesty on many levels. Following the recusal of Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis  the matter should not have been referred to mercenary “special prosecutors” for investigation;  Schaffer  (the unindicted co-conspirator in a RICO case) and Wice (an incorrigible diva) were not suitable for the assignment in any event; the open-ended compensation arrangement agreed to by Judge Scott Becker was both unlawful and foolhardy; the grand jury indictment improperly obtained by the unscrupulous prosecutors amounts to fabricated felonies — made-up crimes never previously prosecuted in a Texas court; the overtly-biased George Gallagher presided over the case as a farcical kangaroo court; changing the venue of the case to Harris County was an absurd and outrageous denial of due process to Paxton; et cetera  ad infinitum.

Answer:
Schaffer Wice