Jill Talks Oscars 2018: Kobe Bryant, Gary Oldman, #metoo, and what the heck is an inclusion rider!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=51tJPBvi0lQ%3Frel%3D0%26showinfo%3D0
Celebrity Good Samaritans: 7 Times Big Name Actors Came to the Rescue of Car Accident Victims
Nope, these aren’t rehearsals for new action films. Just some big name celebs helping others in need.
Patrick Dempsey
I’m sure more than a few of us have spent some time daydreaming about the day Dr. McDreamy from Grey’s Anatomy would save us, but for one teen, that wasn’t a dream at all. The actor pulled a teenage boy to safety after his car flipped near Dempsey’s home in Malibu. 17-year-old Weston Masset was driving when his car flipped three times leaving him trapped and nearly unconscious. After pulling Masset from the car, Dempsey called an ambulance and stayed with the teen as he was airlifted to the hospital and later treated for a concussion and an eye injury. According to Masset, Dempsey had a pretty great sense of humor about things. When Masset asked, “Are you famous?” Dempsey replied, “Yeah, I’m a doctor.”
Jamie Foxx
The Oscar winner saved a man’s life after his truck crashed in front of Foxx’s home in 2016. The truck caught fire, rolled in a drainage ditch– the driver was trapped inside. Foxx gave an interview about the events saying, “As I’m getting him out, I said, ‘You’ve got to help me get you out because I don’t want to have to leave you.’ I said, ‘You’ve angels around you.’” Foxx and an off-duty EMT were successful in getting the man out of the truck. Foxx is humble about the whole thing saying, “I don’t look at it as heroic. I just look at it as…you just had to do something. It all worked out.” It should be noted that the driver was arrested for driving under the influence. Foxx posted a photo to Instagram after the accident that showed him hugging the young man’s father and saying, “No heroes…Just happy fathers.”
[adinserter block=”1″]
Tom Cruise
We know Tom Cruise likes doing his own stunts in his films but he used those skills for some pretty cool heroics in real life, too. In 1996, Cruise witnessed a 23-year-old woman, Heloisa Vinhas, get hit by a car. Did he just keep going? He could have. Instead, he sprung into action. He directed nearby pedestrian to call an ambulance and followed Vinhas to the hospital. When he found out that she didn’t have insurance to pay the $7000 hospital bill, Cruise took his good samaritan role even further–he stepped up and took care of it. The woman, as you can imagine was more than grateful for what was Mission Impossible for her. (too cheesy? Yeah, maybe.)
Luke Wilson
Just this past February 2018, Luke Wilson was involved in a multi car accident in Los Angeles. He was hit by a Ferrari in which pro-golfer Bill Haas was a passenger. Haas was injured; sadly, the driver of the Ferrari did not survive. However, after his car was struck, Wilson acted quickly to help a 50-year-old woman who was trapped inside her flipped vehicle. Her leg was pinned and she was unable to get out of the car on her own. Wilson and another onlooker worked quickly to get her to safety. According to his fellow hero, Sean Heirigs, “He was calm. He was definitely a hero, super nice guy.”
Mark Harmon
One man owes his life to the NCIS star after he was trapped in a fiery car crash that could have certainly been much worse. When Colin Specht got into a car accident outside of Harmon’s home in Brentwood, Los Angeles, Harmon jumped into action. Specht’s friend (who was driving the car) got out, but Sprecht himself was pinned. Next thing he knew, Mark Harmon was breaking the window with a sledge hammer and pulling Sprecht, then 16, from the fiery vehicle. “He tugged me, because I was still upside down with the seat belt on, and he ripped me out of the car,” Sprecht said. Though Sprecht credits Harmon for his life, Harmon said, “I won’t take credit for it, because if the car explodes and I’m there next to the car, then you’re talking about two young boys who don’t have a father. And you’d be doing this interview with my wife and talking about how stupid it was.”
Vin Diesel
The Fast & Furious actor pulled a move that we wouldn’t be surprised to see in one of his films. In 2002, Diesel spotted a car crash in front of him in Hollywood and saved an entire family from harm. He ran over to the vehicle and safely got the family, which included two young kids, from the vehicle before the car reportedly went up in flames. Who doesn’t love this story?
Ryan Gosling
Here’s a fun, not so serious one for you! Ryan Gosling saved a British reporter from an oncoming cab in New York City. British people are used to looking both ways when crossing the street, but they get it backwards in America because they don’t drive on the same side of the road. When the reporter went to cross the street and looked the wrong way Ryan Gosling (off all the people in New York) grabbed her and pulled her away just in time. And yes, many of us wish we were that reporter-even with that imminent risk of danger!
What’s in a Name? Famous Celebrity Trademarks
Several celebs have tried to trademark their name or, in Beyonce and Jay-Z’s situation, in addition to their own names, that of their children. What is a trademark and why do celebs want them? A trademark, that little ™ we see next to a word, phrase, symbol, or design, helps us identify and distinguish brands or services from others. Whoever has that trademark registered is the person/company/brand who can use that word, symbol, phrase, etc and can legally prevent others from doing so. Why do celebs (or anyone for that matter) seek a trademark? Bottom line? It’s very valuable from a brand perspective. Beyonce and Jay Z haven’t garnered a combined net worth of approximately 875 million by being lazy with their business decisions– they are careful and protective with their brand(s). So, they are making a second attempt at trademarking daughter Blue Ivy’s name.
Back in 2012, when their daughter was born, the celeb parents filed a trademark request for “Blue Ivy.” They were thwarted when Veronica Alexandra of Boston’s Blue Ivy Events filed her own trademark request, claiming her business had been using the name since 2009 — three years before Blue Ivy became the apple of her parents’ eye. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sided with Alexandra, allowing her to continue using the name in the event and wedding planning space.
In January 2016, the Carters tried again, this time filing a trademark based on their daughter’s full name — “Blue Ivy Carter.” Blue Ivy Events is once again trying to block that. In a recent filing, the company stated that the Carters have no intention of using the name to market products but rather want to stop others from doing so. (One of the legal requirements for filing a trademark is that you have to prove that you are using, or intending to use, the trademarked name or phrase. You can’t get a trademark simply to prevent others from using the “mark.”)
Don’t feel too bad for the Carters. They own tons of trademarks. Beyonce has registrations on “Beyonce” “Sasha Fierce” “Yonce” and “Beyhive, among others. Hubby owns Jay Z and Shawn Carter, and like his wife, many, many others as well.
Kylie Jenner is another celeb who attempted to trademark a name and failed. The youngest Kardashian-Jenner sibling attempted to trademark the name “Kylie” but Grammy winning songstress Kylie Minogue wasn’t having it. Minogue claimed in a legal filing that if Jenner owned the trademark it would confuse audiences and dilute Minogue’s brand. Remember, trademarks are all about brand protection and Minogue fought hard to protect hers even referring to Jenner as a “secondary reality television personality.” We at PROOF know that many of our readers may not have even heard of Kylie Minogue and consider Kylie Jenner the bigger of the two celebs but Minogue has been nominated for several Grammys and, as stated above, won one when Jenner was barely six years old! Minogue is respected talent and has been in the entertainment industry for many years. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was correct when they sided with Minogue and rejected Jenner’s bid; and, despite the fact that Jenner has filed an appeal on the matter, at PROOF we do not think the USPTO is going to reverse that decision.
Jersey Shore alum, Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki, tried to trademark her name and was also shot down by the USPTO. Apparently there’s a character, actually it’s a cat, in children’s books, named Snooky, who beat the Jersey Girl to the name and owns the Snooky (spelling not relevant here) trademark. Not sure where the brand confusion would come from but it does show how “by the book” the USPTO is with the issuance of trademarks.
Though regular folks cannot generally trademark a name, as noted above with Jay Z and Beyonce, several celebs have been successful in doing so. Singer Curtis Jackson, aka 50 Cent, is a great example. He trademarked his stage name early in his career, and it turned out to be a smart move. In fact, he had to invoke the power of that trademark when in 2008, Taco Bell sent an “open letter” over PR wires asking Jackson to change his stage name to 79, 89 or 99 Cent (the prices of some of their menu items) in exchange for a $10,000 donation to the charity of his choice. Charity offer or not, Jackson did not appreciate the use of his name in what he claimed amounted to implied advertising. Jackson’s lawyer has this to say about the matter, “He gets substantial sums of money when he chooses to endorse something, and he controls it pretty closely.” Apparently Taco Bell wasn’t a brand Fifty wanted to be associated with (at least without prior approval). Jackson ultimately settled with Taco Bell’s parent company Yum Brands for an undisclosed amount.
Looking up who owns a mark is super easy and kinda fun. Just go to the USPTO website, click on the “Trademark” tab and then go to the Trademark electronic Search System (TESS) and put in whatever name you might be interested in learning about. Try Beyonce or Jay Z–they’re right there! And you thought trademarks were boring stuff?! We don’t know about you but we could talk about celebs and trademarks all day long!
5 Celeb Break Ups that Bummed Us Out in 2019
1. Adele and Simon Konecki
The singer filed for divorce from her husband of six years in September 2019. The two share a six year old son, Angelo. Adele is worth tons of cash so in addition to custody, unless the couple executed an iron-clad, hyper inclusive prenup prior to marriage (word on the street is that there isn’t one), then asset distribution is going to be an issue. Money aside, we are super sad about this one–getting the tissues ready just thinking about the music that might flow out of Adele from this experience.
2. Justin Hartley and Chrishell Stause Hartley
In all honesty, we didn’t know who Chrishell was before the breakup announcement in November, but being such big fans of This Is Us just made us sad. Too much of real life mimicking Hollywood. Truth is we want all of that show’s stars to ride off happily into the sunset. But, alas, that is not to be as these two are divorcing after two years of marriage. This is Justin’s second divorce. He shares custody of his fifteen year old daughter with the first ex Mrs. Hartley.
3. Bradley Cooper and Irina Shayk
Certainly we all saw it coming and, by “we all,” I mean everyone who saw that Lady Gaga/Bradley Cooper performance of Shallow at the 2019 Oscars, nevertheless, at Proof we had hoped it was just a rumor. But, a rumor it was not. In June 2019, after 4 years of dating and one child (Lea de Seine), Bradley Cooper and Irina Shayk split. Apparently all is still amicable as of this writing and the two are sharing custody and financial support of Lea de Seine without the need for court involvement.
4. Sarah and Todd Palin
Maybe the title of this article overstates our true feelings about this couple. We were not so much bummed out as we were surprised. In fact, we were not bummed out at all but we were definitely surprised when in September 2019 we learned that Todd had filed for divorce after 31 years of marriage. The couple had five children together but only one, Trig, is a minor. Apparently the couple intends to share legal and physical custody of him. As for why we were surprised, perhaps it was the length of the union-31 years is a long time-but also Todd seemed to truly support his former Alaskan governor wife (despite repeated pretty ridiculous blunders) during the 2008 campaign when John McCain picked her as his running mate. Disastrous choice by McCain but, to outsiders, a marriage strengthener. Boy, were we wrong.
5. Jamie Foxx and Katie Holmes
Yeah, we know there are no legal issues here: no divorce decree to be issued, no custody matters to be addressed, no assets to be distributed but still, we had to include these two because this break up bummed us out the most. We loved how Jamie and Katie kept so much of their relationship private. We loved how they seemingly made the long distance thing work. We loved how these two independent creative people respected and supported each other’s choices. Clearly our impressive view of them was misplaced because in May 2019, after six years of dating, the couple called it quits. Sadly, it seems as if it’s for good. Haven’t heard a peep about reconciliation. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
Kanye, Gaga, Beiber: Who is Financially Responsible When an Artist Cancels a Tour?
When a music artist cancels a tour for medical reasons, as Lady Gaga had to do in 2013 after suffering a labral tear on her hip, the tour is usually insured and the artist would not be responsible for the losses incurred for the cancellation. It makes sense in cases such as hers — Gaga’s shows feature heavy dancing, the experience wouldn’t be nearly as good if she sang while lying in traction, right? (Actually, note to Gaga, you can use that idea, I don’t think it has been done yet.) Touring insurance protects everyone, including the artist, from suffering huge financial losses when the reason for the cancellation is beyond the artist’s control.
But what about when an artist cancels a tour just… because? Justin Bieber recently announced that he would be canceling the remaining 14 dates of his Purpose tour, with one source saying the Biebs was just “over it.” In that case, an artist may face penalties due to the massive financial losses incurred from ticket refunds, plus all costs for promotion, marketing and advertising.
Kanye West is currently in the middle of a lawsuit that, to some, might seem to straddle these situations. Back in November, 2016, West canceled the final 21 dates of his Saint Pablo tour in 2016 and the cost of ticket refunds alone were upwards of $24 million. Two days after he canceled the tour, he checked himself into a psychiatric facility after suffering a breakdown which his own doctor called “a debilitating medical condition” that prohibited him from performing, yet West’s insurer, Lloyd’s of London, has not paid any claims out to West’s company, Very Good Touring, Inc. West is suing Lloyd’s for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for upwards of $10 million.
West’s suit accuses Lloyd’s of London of not providing “anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums.” West also claims in his suit that Lloyd’s sought an independent physician to examine West to verify the claims of his mental health, and despite the fact that their doctor agreed with West’s primary physician, they continued to deny the claims. The suit essentially alleges that Lloyd’s continues to find provisions that will allow them to stall or deny payment.
As we all know, West is known for his controversial behavior onstage (and, sometimes, off) and in fact, just days before he cancelled his tour, he had been making erratic statements to the press and performing abbreviated shows, all of which ultimately led him to seek help. Who determines the cause of his behavior and whether or not he should have continued performing his tour are two issues this case is sure to address. For an update on the case, click here. One thing for sure is that we are glad Ye is better.
Lawsuit Involving Johnny Depp and His Ex-Managers Aggressively Wages On
On January 13, 2017, Johnny Depp filed a lawsuit against his ex-business managers, The Management Group (TMG), the counts ranged from breach of contract to professional negligence. Depp claimed that TMG paid itself more than $28 million in fees without getting Depp’s written consent. (Is this the way Depp and TMG had been doing business for years? TMG was Depp’s manager for 17 years, was there a time when written consent was required and adhered to? These are factual and contractual issues that are going to be addressed in this suit). Depp also alleged that TMG didn’t file or pay his taxes on time. Hmmm. This seems like a pretty easy one. Taxes due April 15 (and likely quarterly!). TMG if it’s your job to pay them (which as Depp’s financial manager this would seem to be well within your job duties) you either do so or arrange for an extension. This failure to file had pretty serious ramifications for the actor: Depp alleges it resulted in him owing more than $5.6 million in fees and penalties.
Depp also alleged that TMG “loaned” nearly $10 million of his money to third parties–without Depp’s authorization. Ten million? We’re still trying to get back 50 bucks back for an Uber ride we covered for a friend whose app “wasn’t working.” But, as with all lawsuits, there are two sides. And, after reading lots of documents and emails between the parties and their representatives (click here to see our favorite one. It’s about how hard it is for him to curb holiday spending because he wants his kids to have a good Christmas.) TMG points are not without merit. In a nutshell, here is what they have to say for themselves: Depp caused his own financial ruin.
That’s the crux of their argument and at the initial hearing it seemed as if they were dead in the water. Judge Beaudet, the presiding judge, dismissed TMG’s claims related to Depp’s alleged outrageous spending. Put simply, the Judge said Depp’s spending was irrelevant to the commission TMG claimed it was owed or for their work done transitioning their files to Depp’s new representatives–which is what Depp’s lawsuit is based on.
All was not lost for TMG because the judge ruled in their favor regarding their claim of promissory fraud. What is that? It’s when someone promises to do something but never had any intention of doing the thing promised. Here, it’s TMG’s allegation that Depp fraudulently induced them to work without compensation. To be clear, this does not mean that Depp committed fraud rather it means that for now TMG’s fraud claim can stand as there was sufficient information alleged in the complaint to make out the elements of the claim.
TMG naturally counted this as a win but went a step further, amending its cross complaint and adding new and different allegations about Depp’s spending. No doubt they expect the court will not dismiss this second attempt. In the July 2017 filing, TMG alleged that Depp led an “ultra-extravagant lifestyle” throughout the 17-years that Depp was represented by them. They detail a lifestyle that cost about $2 million per month–a lifestyle they say they warned Depp he could not keep up. Once again, they included examples of how the star had un-repaid loans, financial debts, and a huge credit card bills.
Why does TMG keep talking about Depp’s spending? Motive. They assert that Depp, having spent too much of his own money, is going after them because he is broke and looking to dig himself out of a financial hole. TMG attorney Michael Kump said, “Depp’s exorbitant spending remains at the center of this case.” In those amended documents, TMG references specific friends and family members that they loaned Depp’s money to, on Depp’s direction. Depp is trying to get those names removed from the legal documents. Naturally TMG is not having that. Kump believes Depp is doing this to hide the identity of the friends and family as a way to protect himself because, as Kump has said, “Depp knows how ridiculous he will look when these false allegations are publicly disclosed.”
We don’t necessarily agree with Kump’s view of Depp’s intentions on seeking to redact the names of friends and family members. Depp’s decision to hide the identity of the friends and family members could simply be that he wants to protect them, not himself. They didn’t ask to become embroiled in a multi million dollar legal mess.
What has been going on in this case for months now are disputes over documents and information that TMG seeks. They served a subpoena on Depp and they believe they are entitled to the information they requested. Depp’s team filed what is known as a motion to quash. Basically, he is seeking the court to side with him and not order him to turn over documents TMG is requesting. Depp believes the documents are confidential and TMG is not entitled to them. The parties have been trying to resolve the differences out of court but so far, the dispute remains. Certainly, in breach of contract matters, documents that show the pattern and practice of business and communication among the parties and relevant witnesses is critical evidence. But TMG is seeking documents that were exchanged between Depp and his attorney (not the attorney handling this lawsuit) as well as that between him and his long time agent at United Agency.
The case is set for trial January 2018 but given the complexity of the claims, we at PROOF expect that the trial date will be pushed out a few more months, at least.
Brad Pitt Not Making it Right: His Foundation Faces a Lawsuit Over Defective Homes Built After Hurricane Katrina
If you thought Brad Pitt had his hands full with Angelina Jolie and their custody and child support battle, things seem to be only getting worse for the A-lister.
In 2005, the actor’s charity, the Make It Right Foundation, made a promise to build homes for victims in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward whose lives and residences were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Sadly, those homes apparently have not held up. Over a decade later, homeowners claim they are falling apart, and were “deficiently constructed and built.”
Currently, the charity has been hit with a class action lawsuit. Two of residents, Lloyd Francis and Jennifer Decuir, are the named plaintiffs and represent all of the people who moved into the defective homes. They allege that the houses are rotting, dangerous, and falling apart. Specific allegations include houses with mold, plumbing problems, rotting wood, poor air ventilation, gas leaks and electrical fires.
The foundation had promised to build 150 homes, but only about 109 homes were built. In one sense that’s good news for the foundation –less potential claimants.
An attorney for the group of homeowners, Ron Austin, told NOLA.com, “While the citizens of the 9th Ward are grateful to Brad Pitt, they are forced to file this lawsuit because the Make it Right Foundation built substandard homes that are deteriorating at a rapid pace while the homeowners are stuck with mortgages on properties that have diminished values.”
The named plaintiffs allege that by 2013 the Make It Right Foundation knew about the issues with the materials that were used to build the homes. They allege that the foundation never gave residents “notice of these design and material defects,” even though those residents were paying mortgages on the homes.
Furthermore, the foundation did send inspectors in 2016, 2017, and 2018, but never provided the residents with written reports of their findings. Then, when pressed on the issue, they allegedly told the homeowners that they first had to sign a packet, which Francis and Decuir are claiming contained NDAs and a binding arbitration document that needed their signatures.
Pitt isn’t named in this lawsuit and admittedly his foundation tried to “do good” and revive the Ninth Ward, but it doesn’t change the fact that these residents are living in sub-par homes and are facing second powerful round of stress and anxiety and money loss.
Special Prosector to Investigate DA’s Handling of Smollett Case
UPDATE: A special prosecutor will be appointed to review State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s handling, and ultimate dismissal, of the Jussie Smollett faux assault case. Depending on the findings, there’s a chance Smollett could be charged again.
UPDATE: Jussie Smollett has been arrested in Chicago for allegedly faking his hate crime attack to further his career. Police report that Smollett paid $3500 to two Nigerian men who were extras on Empire to stage the attack.
Update: Two suspects were interrogated and released in connection with the recent hate crime attack against Empire actor, Jussie Smollett. Now there are reports that Smollett himself may have been involved in the incident and that the whole thing was a hoax. We at PROOF certainly hope not. We have no idea what purpose this might have served.
Hollywood was shaken after reports of a hate crime against actor Jussie Smollett hit the Internet on Wednesday morning. In the early morning of Tuesday, January 28th, in Chicago, Empire star Jussie Smollett was the victim of an attack that targeted him for his race and sexuality in According to initial reports, Smollett went out for a sandwich in the early morning when two men approached him yelling racial and homophobic slurs at him.
Then, the two men attacked the actor, poured “an unknown chemical substance” on him and wrapped a rope around his neck. Smollett confirmed to police in a follow-up interview that the suspects yelled “This is MAGA country” during the attack.
Smollett was treated at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. The police continue to investigate the crime as a “possible hate crime.”
It was confirmed that a threat in the form of a very creepy, homemade note was made towards the actor before the attack. The FBI is investigating this threat to Smollett.
According to an incident report, Smollet’s 60-year-old friend was the one who called the police on his behalf, saying that the actor “did not want to report offense however he believed it to be in the best interest to.”
Smollett confirmed that he was attacked by two men dressed in black–one of them was wearing a ski mask–though he does not remember any other details of the attack. The police report also states that the police found Smollett with a white rope around his neck. Smollett stated that the attackers threw an unknown chemicals onto him that stained his clothes.
The Chicago police have been reviewing surveillance footage after releasing an image of two persons of interest on Wednesday, January 30th. Unfortunately, they have not yet found any video of the attack.
Smollett was back to performing on Saturday, February 2nd at the Troubadour in West Hollywood and clarified some things about the incident, telling the audience, “I was bruised but my ribs were not cracked; they were not broken. I went to the doctor immediately. I was not hospitalized. And above all: I fought the f— back.”
His family was also vocal about the attack, calling it “domestic terrorism” and saying, “We are so grateful that God saw him through this cowardly attack alive. We want people to understand these targeted hate crimes are happening to our sisters, brothers and our gender non-conforming siblings, many who reside within the intersection of multiple identities, on a monthly, weekly, and sometimes even daily basis all across our country. Oftentimes ending fatally, these are inhumane acts of domestic terrorism and they should be treated as such.”
We at PROOF want to echo the outpouring of well wishes Smollett has received from Hollywood and around the globe and, to use the actor’s own words, we hope he continues to “fight the f-ck back” until these ignorant cowards are brought to justice.
New Moonves Accuser Places Ousted CBS Chief’s $120 million Severance at Real Risk
UPDATE: November 30 2018: Actress Bobbie Phillips has alleged that in 1995 Les Moonves sexually assaulted her. The details are downright despicable. Newish to Hollywood, Phillips’ manager had set up a meeting for her with Moonves. In the meeting, Moonves allegedly unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, pushed Phillips to her knees and forced his penis into her mouth. She reported the incident to her manager who bot only did not do anything to help but rather appeared to have used the information to improve his own standing in Hollywood. Moonves’ $120 million severance package is now at great risk– as well it should.
UPDATE: September 9 2018: Les Moonves “resigned” from CBS and the Network says it will donate $20 million to an organization that supports #metoo. Moonves made a statement continuing to deny all claims and reminding everyone that they are decades old.
We love Ronan Farrow. Can we just say that at the outset? His investigative work and commitment to exposing sexual harassment in Hollywood is deserving of recognition and praise.
So, what did he uncover this time? (In case you forgot, Farrow, son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, is the reporter who blew the lid off Weinstein). Well, this time, it’s all about CBS chairman and CEO Les Moonves. In an article published in The New Yorker, Farrow talked with 6 women who accuse Moonves of harassment and intimidation and speak of a culture of sexual misconduct at CBS since the late 1980s to late 2000s. Moonves has been a powerful media executive for more than twenty years and is one of the highest-paid corporate execs in the world so, this is a VERY big deal. But, what makes these allegations all the more disturbing is that Moonves has been very outspoken (“supportive”) of #metoo movement. In fact, he was a member of the Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace which is led by Anita Hill (for those who don’t know about Anita Hill–she is the lawyer and colleague of Supreme Court Clarence Thomas, who, at Thomas’ confirmation hearing spoke out about his sexual misconduct toward her. Though it was a big story back in 1991 you see who won that.)
What are these women alleging Moonves did? Four of the six women said Moonves forcibly touched or kissed them during business meetings. They even called it a “practiced routine.” The other two women said that the executive intimidated them physically and threatened their careers.
Moonves admits he may have been inappropriate at times, but that he always understood that ‘no’ meant ‘no.’ In a statement he said, “I recognize that there were times decades ago when I may have made some women uncomfortable by making advances. Those were mistakes, and I regret them immensely. But I always understood and respected—and abided by the principle—that ‘no’ means ‘no,’ and I have never misused my position to harm or hinder anyone’s career.”
Hmm. Really Les? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Moonves is powerful, and like those who have such power, he understands it–it is well known in Hollywood that he is someone who can make or break a career. We at PROOF are huge fans of Emmy award winning actress and writer, Illeana Douglas, one of his accusers, so when we learned of what she experienced with the all-powerful Moonves, we were almost at a loss for words. She said that “the physicality of [her experience] was horrendous.” and that she was soon fired from the station and told that she would “never work at this network again.” Douglas even told director Martin Scorcese (whom she dated for several years) about her experience; and he urged her to “be cautious” about legal action because of how powerful Moonves was in the industry. Yup. You read that right, ridiculously talented and accomplished director Martin Scorcese told his girlfriend to be not make waves. Ultimately, Douglas “lightly complained” and CBS gave her $125,000 and $250,000 to appear in a new mini-series. She never worked for CBS again.
Or, how about writer Janet Jones? She alleges that Moonves “threw himself on top of her” while trying to kiss her in 1985. Jones told a producer who then confronted Moonves. Moonves once again retaliated with fear allegedly telling Jones, “I’m warning you. I will ruin your career.” This stuff really happens! This is not a Scorcese mob film.
When writer Julie Kirgo rebuffed Moonves’ request for a date, she was labeled as “difficult to work with.”
Many are now saying that Moonves enjoyed having the power to crush women should they refuse to bend to his whim and that attitude permeated the culture at CBS. Farrow writes that 30 current and former CBS employees talk about being discriminated against and harrassed while on the job, but the male staffers who were accused were never punished. In fact, they were often promoted. Feel as if you’ve heard this story before?
While these women continue to come forward to end the cycle of abuse that starts at the very top of the CBS executive board, the company insists that during his last 24 years with the company, there have been no misconduct claims and no settlement against Moonves.
The 68-year-old is now being investigated by CBS, though the company insists that they “do not believe that the picture of their company created in The New Yorker represents a larger organization that does its best to treat tens of thousands of employees with dignity and respect.”
As for his wife, tv host, Julie Chen, she’s standing by her man. In a statement made on Twitter, Chen wrote, “I have known my husband, Leslie Moonves, since the late ’90s, and I have been married to him for almost 14 years. Leslie is a good man and a loving father, devoted husband and inspiring corporate leader. He has always been a kind, decent and moral human being. I fully support my husband and stand behind him and his statement.”
While Moonves has been suspended from the Board of USC’s renowned School of Cinematic Arts, the Board at CBS has not taken any action against him other than hiring two law firms to investigate the allegations made about him, CBS News and CBS in general.
And, the truth is, the statute of limitations has long run on the claims against him so unless more recent ones are unearthed Moonves will not face any legal consequences. Are we the only ones who are disappointed in CBS’ decision to keep Moonves at the helm? At least a suspension, a little leave of absence until the “investigation” is complete? CBS, come on.
R. Kelly Indicted on 10 Counts of Felony Sexual Abuse
Update: Cook County Prosecutors (Chicago) convened a grand jury several weeks ago to hear testimony and evidence regarding R. Kelly’s alleged sexual abuse of women and girls–minors. It has now been announced that the grand jury has returned an indictment charging the singer with 10 counts of felony aggravated sexual abuse. Reportedly, some of the victims are minors between the ages of 13-16.
While men like Weinstein, Jeremy Piven, James Toback and countless other men in Hollywood were caught in the tempest of the #MeToo movement, R. Kelly (Robert) has been hiding in plain sight. He has been producing music, touring, working with well known artists, and more. All while standing accused of being a rapist, a leader of a sex cult and even a pedophile.
This past year has been full of allegations against the R&B singer, but suddenly his wrongdoings are being thrust into the spotlight again with Lifetime’s new docuseries “Surviving R. Kelly.” The three-part, six-hour special provides vivid, disturbing and detailed accounts of Kelly’s history of abuse (both emotional and physical). At PROOF, we were interested in understanding just how long ago this all started.
He Was an Alleged Victim of Abuse Himself
According to both his own 2012 memoir and an interview with GQ, Kelly alleges that he was sexually abused as a child by an older woman. He referred to her as his relative and said that the abuse occurred every other day or week between the ages of 7-14. His brother, Carey, recently reported that their older sister, Theresa sexually abused both he and his brother.
He Wed Singer Aaliyah in 1994 When She was Just 15 Years Old ( After Forging Documents That Claimed She Was 18). He was 27.
Aaliyah, who would later die in a tragic plane accident, was just 12 years old when she met Robert Kelly. The two had begun recording “Age Ain’t Nothing But a Number” in 1993. By 1994, Kelly and Aaliyah had wed after the singer falsified documents saying that she was 18 years old. Aaliyah’s family got wind of the marriage and swiftly got the marriage annulled.
He Was Accused in 2000 of Sexual Abuse
While reporter Jim Derogatis (who also wrote the Buzzfeed expose about Kelly’s alleged sex cult…more on that in a bit) was writing for the Chicago Sun Times, he received the first of what would become many tips about R. Kelly: He was being investigated for sex crimes, but they were not being reported on. That is when the world found out that in 1996 Kelly was being sued by a girl for $10 million who alleged that R. Kelly started having sex with her when she was 15 and he was 24. According to the suit, Kelly “engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with her, including but not limited to engaging in group sexual intercouse with her and other minors.” There were other women named in the suit as having had sexual relationships with the singer while underage.
In an interview with the Village Voice, Derogatis described the accusations of one girl in detail saying that Kelly would return to his alma mater, Kenwood Academy in Chicago, and visit his old choir teacher, Lina McLin. “He would go to her sophomore class and hook up with girls afterward and have sex with them. Sometimes buy them a pair of sneakers. Sometimes just letting them hang out in his presence in the recording studio. She detailed the sexual relationship that she was scarred by. It lasted about one and a half to two years, and then he dumped her and she slit her wrists, tried to kill herself. Other girls were involved. She recruited other girls. He picked up other girls and made them all have sex together. A level of specificity that was pretty disgusting.”
In 2001, He Was Sued By an Intern
Kelly’s intern, Tracy Sampson, sued Kelly and accused him of inducing her “into an indecent sexual relationship.” She was 17 years old. She claimed that she was “treated as his personal sex object and cast aside.” The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
In 2002, Sued Again and Again
Patrice Jones sued Kelly in 2002, claiming that Kelly got her pregnant when she was underage and alleging that she was forced to have an abortion. Another woman also sued Kelly, Montina Woods, alleged that he videotaped them having sex without her knowledge. Both cases were settled out of court. Both women signed NDAs.
Child Pornography Charges in June 2002
Kelly was charged with 21 counts of making child pornography. The tapes all involved one girl, born in September 1984. They were disturbing and involved intercourse, oral sex, urination and other sexual acts. The tapes had been sent to The Chicago Sun who passed them on to police.
Kelly denied the charges in an interview and pleaded not guilty. It took 6 years for the case to even go to trial. In the meantime, Kelly continued to experience success musically and even received an NAACP Image Award (do you find yourself short of breath reading this?).
But because the jury could not prove definitively that the girl on the tape was a minor, Kelly was found not guilty on all counts. It is this case that is highlighted in the docuseries.
He Couldn’t Stop With the Sex Tapes
Kelly was arrested in Florida in 2003. That arrest lead to him being charged with 12 counts of making child pornography. Police seized a camera during the arrest that allegedly included the singer having sex with underaged girl. In an infuriating turn of events, a judge agreed with Kelly’s defense team that the police didn’t have the sufficient evidence to conduct the search in the first place. The evidence was deemed inadmissible. Reportedly, the detective had found the pictures on a camera wrapped in a towel inside a duffel bag. The detective sought a second warrant to look for child pornography but the judge found there was no probable cause to suspect pornography was in the house.
A Quiet Few Years and Then…Allegations of a Sex Cult
We told you we’d get back to the Buzzfeed expose that left people reeling. In 2017 Jim Derogatis wrote that Kelly was the leader of a pseudo-sex cult in Georgia where he lured young women into staying with him at his home, promising them music careers and fame, and then emotionally and psychologically abusing them.
The article alleged that Kelly would essentially take over these women’s lives, dictating control “what they eat, how they dress, when they bathe, when they sleep, and how they engage in sexual encounters that he records.” The report also claimed that he confiscated their cell phones so that they could not have any outside contact.
These claims were made even more clear in the Lifetime docuseries Surviving R. Kelly. In the series, accusers, collaborators, staffers, and more detail the offenses of the R&B singer. He still categorically denies the claims and even created a Facebook page (swiftly deactivated, thank you, Facebook!) that promised to vindicate him. He began posting about his accusers, even linking to video of them, and that is when the page was deactivated. His ex-wife Andrea Kelly (who is heavily involved in the doc) even believed that her ex-husband was the one who threatened a screening of the docuseries, forcing everyone to evacuate due to a “gun threat.”
And Now, the Docuseries Has Led to New Investigations
As a direct result of the documentary, Kelly is being criminally investigated in Georgia. Fulton County District Attorney’s Office has opened an investigation into the allegations made against the singer. Reportedly the law enforcement has been speaking with women like Asante McGee and the attorney for Joycelyn Savage’s family. McGee is one of the women who allegedly escaped R. Kelly’s home; Savage’s parents believe that R. Kelly is holding their daughter, Joycelyn, captive. Savage denies this.
And, in Chicago, Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx made a public plea for victims of R. Kelly’s sexual abuse to come forward.
Taking a closer look at the pattern of abuse can be difficult, triggering, and painful. The history of this man’s transgressions is vast and the victims so young, so helpless in light of R. Kelly’s power, charm, fame, and connections. And though his alleged conduct spans over two decades, it certainly seems that R. Kelly’s luck is running out.
Often we think tv douseries are for entertainment purposes only but clearly Surviving R. Kelly is much more than that. In the coming weeks–as a direct result of this show–R. Kelly will be forced to respond to a variety of sexual abuse claims in several jurisdictions.
