Main Menu
Main Menu

Celeb News

LAPD Offers Extra Protection for Dodgers Even With Recent Arrest of Burglary Suspects

Celeb News

Celebs often live in the lap of luxury, are known to posts pics of their bling, or at least are often photographed with their bling game strong. So, people take notice (that’s part of the intent, isn’t it?). In many ways celebrities are easy targets for crime because of this and also because their comings and goings are documented on social media and in the tabloids. Would be burglars can readily track the movements of celebs and figure out when it’s best to strike. Of course if Yasiel Puig is going to be out in right field for a few hours–whether at Dodger Stadium or on the road–the coast is pretty clear. And, bragging rights? Don’t discount those. It’s cooler to burglarize a celeb than it would be you and me.

On PROOF we’ve written about the seemingly endless string of celebrity burglaries occurring in LA (click here for more posts on that).  Finally though police have made arrests stemming from some of these lootings. Nineteen year old Tyress Williams and three other suspects (one is alleged to be the mother of another suspect) have been brought in, accused of targeting the homes of Christina Milian, Yasiel Puig, Rihanna, and LA Rams star Robert Woods. Yasiel Puig you might recall has been a repeat victim-4 times! In Williams’ home, police found items connected to burglarized homes, and, in total his crew had pulled in over $1 million in property including, watches, jewelry, purses, and car. Fifty thousand dollars in cash and a firearm was also recovered.

Police don’t believe those arrested were acting alone and are currently searching for more suspects. In total, the burglars are alleged to have hit 24 homes and were looking to steal from at least 12 more rich and famous targets. Super scary is that the suspects allegedly already had the exact addresses of homes of their famous prey. We’re thinking there are some members of the rich and famous clun sleeping with one eye open in the San Fernando valley lately.

With the Dodgers playing in the World Series, LAPD Police have offered extra protection to players’ homes. Usually this type of special treatment can come across badly to the public but after all that has gone and the very real risk that exists, we at PROOF think this is a good idea. Thanks LAPD. We’re hoping that with your help the Dodgers can focus on bringing home that World Series Commissioner Trophy rather than worrying about the security of their homes.

Russell Simmons Accused of Sexual Assault While Brett Ratner Watched

Brett Ratner, Celeb News, Russell Simmons

No shock that there are more allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Ratner but we have to say we didn’t expect other men were going to be named in those allegations. This time, music mogul, Russell Simmons is being accused of sexual assault while Brett Ratner watched. Yes, watched!!

Keri Claussen alleged that she met Russell Simmons in 1991 at a casting call. She was seventeen years old.

According to the horrifying allegations, Simmons invited Claussen to his home to watch a music video that he and Ratner, then an aspiring director, were working with on together. Quickly things turned physical when Simmons began pulling off Claussen’s clothes–right in front of Ratner. In light of all the allegations against Ratner that have recently come to light, it is no surprise that Ratner didn’t jump to Claussen’s rescue.

The report is troubling in and of itself, but more troubling is the way that Claussen describes looking to Ratner. “I looked over at Brett and said, ‘help me’ and I’ll never forget the look on his face. In that moment, the realization fell on me that they were in it together.”

Though Claussen was initially able to resist Simmons by “fighting wildly” when he tried to force her to have sex; instead he forced her to perform oral sex while Ratner “just sat there and watched.”

Claussen went to shower afterward, feeling “disgusting.” She then alleges that Simmons entered the bathroom, walked up behind her in the shower, and penetrated her without permission. When Claussen moved away, Simmons left. Sex without consent is rape. Let’s call this what it is, folks.

Simmons, of course, denies that there was any lack of consent. In a statement he said, “Everything that occurred between Keri and me occurred with her full consent and participation.” (Keep in mind readers: Kerri was 17 at the time; Simmons, 34). He also stated that he spent two days and one night with Claussen, and that much of it was spent with other people. When he says other people is he referring to Brett Ratner? The man accused of numerous acts of sexual misconduct? The man who Claussen says ignored her pleas for help? Or, are there other witnesses? And, if so, wouldn’t it be great if they stepped up now? Worse still, is that Claussen says Simmons privately apologized to her yet publicly, naturally, he’s singing a different tune.

Of course, even if witnesses, Ratner or others, came forward and corroborated Claussen’s story, and even if Simmons admitted his wrongdoing, he would not be charged with a crime or held civilly liable for his conduct. If you’ve been a PROOF follower you know the answer: the statute of limitations has run. This alleged act occurred 25 years ago in New York and while the statute of limitations for rape was abolished there in 2006, there was a time limit in 1991 (the 2006 change is not retroactive). The civil statute of limitations for assault, battery, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, all counts that could be levied in a civil suit based on Simmons’ alleged conduct, have also long run.

We are proud of Ms. Claussen for coming forward with her story, which was corroborated by a few friends whom she told after the incident, especially in light of the fact that she has zero legal recourse. We will continue to encourage our readers not to ask, “Why now?” But instead, we applaud and thank Claussen for her bravery and her willingness to join in this movement that will no doubt lead to much needed social change. Despite the thousands of allegations that have been publicized these past few months, it remains incredibly difficult for women to call out these powerful men.

Leaving Neverland Premieres at Sundance: Asking Again Did Michael Jackson Molest Children?

Celeb News, Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson’s career was marred with allegations of sexual abuse of children that followed him to the end of his life, and now they are being brought to the surface again. At this year’s Sundance Film Festival, Leaving Neverland premiered, a documentary that clocked in at nearly 4 hours long and required a team of healthcare professionals who offered to speak with anyone who became distressed by the explicit descriptions of sexual abuse.

In the documentary, two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, describe in painstaking detail the graphic acts Jackson committed against them and that Jackson had the boys perform on him. Robson met Jackson through a dance contest when he was 5; Safechuck met him through a Pepsi commercial when he was 10. In the film the men describe in detail the way that Jackson befriended them, made them trust him, and then persuaded them to partake in oral sex, mutual masturbation, and viewing porn.

Some of the most shocking moments of the film include allegations that Jackson’s Neverland Ranch had many hidden alcoves and nooks that served as places for Jackson to molest the boys. This allegedly included a locked, private area in Jackson’s movie theatre that had one-way glass so that no one who was in the theater could see inside the room. There are also allegations that Jackson, after his 1993 child sex abuse case, asked Robson to dispose of any evidence of molestation of Robson. The film suggests that Robson and Safechuck are far from the only victims of Jackson’s abuse.

What’s interesting here is that both Robson and Safechuck testified at Jackson’s first criminal trial for child sexual abuse. Jackson was acquitted. Though many still firmly believe that Jackson did molest children, others are seizing on the fact that, despite testimony, he was not found guilty.

The Jackson family released a lengthy statement that described the documentary as a “public lynching” and stood by Michael. They wrote, “People have always loved to go after Michael.   He was an easy target because he was unique. But Michael was subjected to a thorough investigation which included a surprise raid of Neverland and other properties as well as a jury trial where Michael was found to be COMPLETELY INNOCENT. There has never been one piece of proof of anything. Yet the media is eager to believe these lies.”

They continued on to say that, though Michael Jackson largely ignored the rumors about him, the Jackson family cannot “stand by while this public lynching goes on, and the vulture tweeters and other who never met Michael go after him.” He said that the allegations against Michael would never have been made if he was alive to defend himself.

In addition to the public nature of these allegations, the Jacksons say that they are simply unfounded and untrue. “The creators of this film,” why wrote, “were not interested in the truth. They never interviewed a single solitary soul who knew Michael except the two perjurers and their families.” They finished off their statement saying, “Michael Jackson was and always will be 100% innocent of these false allegations.”

The timing of the premiere, which both Robson and Safechuck, now 36 and 42 respectively, attended and spoke at, is interesting with all that is going in with R.Kelly, post the airing of docuseries “Surviving R. Kelly” which included graphic details of the women Kelly abused.

We haven’t see the full ramifications of R. Kelly’s situation, but he is under investigation. And, it’s clear the culture is shifting. Much of his music has been removed from streaming platforms, other musicians have denounced him and have pulled music on which they collaborated with him, and Twitter is ablaze with people who believe R.Kelly has committed these heinous acts.

As for the Jackson family’s claims that Leaving Neverland is untrue, they do not have any legal recourse. Defamation lawsuits, not filed while the alleged victim is alive, are not available to the dead.

Cardi B Gets True Taste of Fame: Her Former Manager is Suing Her

Cardi B, Celeb News

Cardi B is experiencing a meteoric rise to fame. You may recognize her from her stint on Love & Hip Hop back in 2017, where she was known for being a “regula degula schmegula girl from the Bronx” and speaking her mind both on camera and on social media. Since her time on the show, the 25-year-old rapper has experienced major success. She was nominated for two Grammys, will be touring with Bruno Mars at the end of the summer, and released her first album, Invasion of Privacy, and has broken records on the Billboard charts. It’s safe to say that everyone wants a piece of Cardi…including her former manager.

Her manager, whose real name is Klenord Raphael but goes by Shaft, is claiming that he discovered Cardi B and took her from Instagram personality to superstar but that, after all of his hard work, he didn’t see the fruits of his labor. He says that he “catapulted [Cardi B] from exotic dancer and social media presence to music icon” in 2015 and that his involvement in her career “orchestrated Cardi B’s rise to become the biggest music sensation on the planet.”

Shaft insists that, without him, Cardi’s time on Love & Hip Hop and her number one megahit “Bodak Yellow” simply would never have happened. The argument is that Shaft orchestrated her appearance on Love & Hip Hop, which lead to the hit single, which lead to a major record deal, which lead to features on songs with major artists. (By the way, have you seen the Maroon 5 Girls Like Youmusic video with all those amazing women in it? We at PROOF love it!)

But that’s not all he is claiming. He also claims that she defamed him when she told people close to her, including her fiancé, Migos rapper Offset, that he was the one who robbed her of time and money. He cites a heated text exchange that he had with Offset where he accused him of “taking her sh*t.” He believes that, as a result of this defamation, Cardi was persuaded to leave his management and instead work with Quality Control Management, who manages her fiancé and his group Migos.

In a statement to the press, Shaft’s rep said, “While he is proud of their successful collaborations as she evolved from Instagram influencer to music megastar, Shaft is disappointed by her actions to freeze him out of her career, which are detailed in the complaint.”

Shaft is seeking damages of $10 million from Cardi B and is also seeking $10 million in damages from Quality Control for interfering with his management deal.

 

Though there are big names and made-for-tv claims, this matter is a pretty ordinary dispute and will come down to who has the facts on their side. Does seem to us that Shaft is looking for a payout he might not be wholly entitled to. And while it doesn’t feel good to watch your alleged discovery reaching super stardom, that, in and of itself does not make for a winning lawsuit. So, we will see what facts unfold, what the nature of relationship among all of these parties–Shaft, Cardi B and Quality Control–really is and then make some more solid predictions on liability. Until then, a big shout out of congratulations to Cardi B, who is expecting her first child with Offset.

Will Kate Middleton Topless Photo Lawsuit Make the Paparazzi Back Off?

Celeb News, Kate Middleton

The British royals were victorious in the latest in a seemingly never-ending battle with the paparazzi and tabloids. A Paris judge awarded Prince William and Kate a sum of 190,000 euros after unauthorized topless photos were taken of Princess Catherine during a French vacation and published in a tabloid.

Back in 2002, Prince William and wife Kate were vacationing on a 640-acre property in the South of France. The princess thought she was far from peeping eyes, but little did she know that when she removed her bikini top to sunbathe at a beach house, a photographer was lurking a half mile away with a long-range lens, ready to capture her private moments on film.

The photos were reportedly rejected by British tabloids, but French magazine Closer opted to purchase and publish the grainy, far-away shots.

The royals immediately sued the magazine for invasion and privacy seeking for 1.5 million. A palace spokesperson referenced Prince William’s mother, Princess Diana, at the time, saying, “The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to The Duke and Duchess for being so.”

Diana was notoriously hounded by photographers and the tabloids throughout her life, and she died at age 36 in a car accident during a paparazzi pursuit. It is likely this is the very reason Prince William and Kate opted to go big in their suit: to send a message to the paparazzi that they will not tolerate this behavior.

Closer, meanwhile, argued that the photos were “beautiful” and did not harm the Princess’ reputation. Not a viable legal argument, Closer, and we at PROOF think you and your lawyers knew that. Really? Well, the judge did and ruled in favor of the royal couple, though for a lesser sum than what was originally requested. Not that the case was about the money anyway.

A spokesperson for the royal couple said of the ruling, “This incident was a serious breach of privacy, and Their Royal Highnesses felt it essential to pursue all legal remedies. They wished to make the point strongly that this kind of unjustified intrusion should not happen.”

It’s clear that the royals were trying to send a message, and we certainly hope their privacy will be more closely respected.  Respect and privacy will be even more necessary for the pair, as Will and Kate announced they are expecting their third child.

Cosby Retrial: Guilty on All Three Counts. Bye, Bye, Dr. Huxtable

Bill Cosby, Celeb News, Celebrities

The second sexual assault trial of disgraced comedian, Bill Cosby will begin on April 2, 2018. Given how much evidence and information there is from the first trial and all the pretrial proceedings and investigations this actually is not too bad. Though we often hear the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied,” the truth is delay is a tactic that many defense teams use to their advantage. In Cosby’s case, given his advanced age and the fact that he is not sitting in a jail outside of Philadelphia awaiting trial, a later trial date might have been preferable to his team. But, that’s not what they got and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. William H. Cosby, Jr. will be retried within a year of the original trial date.

To recap, despite the fact that nearly 60 women claimed that Cosby assaulted them, this case, is the only one in which Cosby will face criminal charges (there are several civil suits against him). As you might recall, that’s because in all of the other incidents the statute of limitations–the time period in which criminal charges can be brought–had run. Cosby stands accused of three counts of aggravated indecent assault, a second degree felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

 

So, what happened last June and why is there a second trial? Many of you know I was there for the trial’s entirety and wrote about what occurred. Click here  to read detailed daily updates. The bottom line is that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on guilt on ANY of the three counts. They deadlocked on all of them with no hope of any movement. After six days of intense deliberation, Judge O’Neill, the presiding judge, had no choice but to declare a mistrial. What’s surprising though is that the jury, who was sequestered during the trial, were very quiet post the declaration of the mistrial. We know very few details about what went on in the deliberation room. Having feedback from them would have been helpful to both sides because on April 2, 2018 a totally new trial will begin. So, while this is a second chance for both Cosby and for the prosecution, Judge O’Neill is set to sit at the next trial so it may prove not to be overly different from the first one.

One major way in which it will be different, however is that in August 2017, Cosby’s lead defense counsel, Brian McMonogle (who, you will note in my daily trial briefing I praised for his zealous, albeit perhaps sometimes overly zealous, representation of Cosby), withdrew from the case; Cosby replaced him with Thomas Mesereau, the attorney to such celebrity clients as Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Robert Blake and Marion “Suge” Knight, among many others.  No doubt right now Mesereau and his team are poring over trial transcripts, witness statements and evidence as well as looking for that new information attorney Matt Swain referenced that might just make Judge O’Neill change one of his rulings.

Rest assured, PROOF will be back in Norristown, PA for the second trial and we will certainly let you know all about it.

 

 

celebrity news | celebrity divorce news

4 High Profile Celebrity Divorces You’ll Want to Read About

Amber Heard, Angelina Jolie, Assault, Brad Pitt, Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity News, Celebs and Divorce, Custody, Divorce, Drew Barrymore, Family Law, Jennifer Meyer, Johnny Depp, Toby Macguire, Will Kopelman

Celebrity news is always a hot topic. Love and dating life of celebs hotter. And celeb divorce probably the hottest. That’s because nothing gives us better insight into the personal lives of the rich and famous more than learning what goes on in the family law courtroom and the celeb news about divorce, annulment, custody, property settlement, and paternity just to name a few of the types of cases that fall into the family law arena.

PROOF is taking a look at some recent big (translation: sad) divorce cases and providing insight into these stories that rocked the celebrity news world. And to provide further insight into these divorces and the fact that divorce is more prevalent in Hollywood, especially among two celeb homes, consider these words from therapist Lindsey M.Hoskins, “There are several reasons that celebrity relationships are uniquely challenging. First, celebrities often spend a great deal of time apart from each other due to their busy travel and shooting schedules, making it difficult to prioritize the relationship. Second, a relationship in which both partners are used to being the center of attention presents  challenges related to compromise and being able to put the other person’s needs ahead of one’s own. Third, many celebrities are exposed to almost constant opportunities to explore other relationships. Over time, the temptation can be difficult to resist, and infidelity is common in celebrity couples for this reason.”

Lindsey_1

Drew Barrymore & Will Kopelman

On July 15, 2016, after four years of marriage, wild-child-turned-Earth-mother Drew Barrymore filed for divorce from art consultant husband Will Kopelman. The two confirmed that they were separated in April 2016 but the “Santa Clarita Diet” actress didn’t file the docs until mid summer. The fallen lovebirds have two daughters, Olive and Frankie. The pair issued a joint statement at about their split, it read: “Sadly our family is separating legally, although we do not feel this takes away from us being a family. Divorce might make one feel like a failure, but eventually you start to find grace in the idea that life goes on. Our children are our universe, and we look forward to living the rest of our lives with them as the first priority.”

On a personal note, we’re sad about this one. Will seemed so solid, such a good long term choice for Drew and we really wanted her to live happily ever after with him and her girls. Though the two are not officially divorced, there has been no talk whatsoever of reconciliation. But it’s clear these two are going to handle the divorce and the future running of their family with grace and ease–can’t say that about the rest of the fallen couples on this list.

Amber Heard & Johnny Depp

In a pretty surprising turn of events, Amber Heard filed for divorce from Johnny Depp on May 25, 2016 after a mere 15 months of marriage. Heard cited irreconcilable differences in her divorce petition. Then, all hell broke loose.

What do we mean by that? Well, let’s start with the fact that on May 27, Heard was granted a restraining order against the beloved “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor and also that photos surfaced that appeared to support Heard’s claims of physical abuse at the hands of Depp.  To say Hollywood was thrown into a tizzy about this is an understatement. Almost a year later, we at PROOF remain somewhat perplexed that so many in Hollywood seemed to rush to support Depp and, at the same time, alienate Heard.  

After months of arguing, legal wrangling, and excoriating public commentary, Heard and Depp finalized their divorce in Los Angeles on Jan. 13, 2017.  The two worked out a settlement that included Depp agreeing to pay Heard $7 million (as well as money towards her legal fees, among other things). Ahh, if only things were that simple though. What seemed like a clean settlement became quite murky due to Heard doing a PSA on domestic violence when part of the divorce agreement mandated that she stay mum on the subject as well as the complex nature of Depp’s payout, which was to go solely to charities.  And, can we add, we were impressed by Heard’s choice to forego the big payout and seek to do good out of something not-so-good.

Tobey Maguire & Jennifer Meyer

These two have not officially filed papers yet but they have announced their separation (and McGuire has been photographed out and about. And by out and about we mean kissing other women in public).  After nine years of marriage and thirteen years together, Tobey Maguire and Jennifer Meyer told the world they were splitting. They have two children, Ruby, 9, and Otis, 7. The exes, who met in 2003 and were married four years later in Hawaii, issued this joint statement: “After much soul searching and consideration we have made the decision to separate as a couple. As devoted parents, our first priority remains raising our children together with enduring love, respect and friendship.” It’s an encouraging sign that so many Hollywood couples seem to be quite clear on their post-marriage goals regarding their children: protecting them and making sure their lives remain as stable, good, and happy as possible.

While Maguire and Meyer (trying saying that five times fast!) announced their separation last October, as of this writing, it does not appear that divorce documents have been filed. No news may be good news with this couple. Perhaps they are working it out? We surely hope so despite those pics of Maguire.

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie

Of course, for last, we saved the the biggest divorce case of the year (maybe the decade) in celebrity news. Here ya go …

In September 2016, Angelina Jolie shocked the world when she filed for divorce from her superstar hubby Brad Pitt, asking for full custody of their six children, Maddox, Zahara, Pax, Shiloh, Knox and Vivienne.

The trouble began during the family’s international flight on September 14, 2016 which ended abruptly at Minnesota’s International Falls Airport (trouble likely didn’t begin there but that was the first public report of something amiss in the child rearing category in the Jolie-Pitt family).  Reports suggested that a drunk Pitt lunged at 15-year-old Maddox on the flight. In November, Pitt was cleared of abuse allegations after the LA County Department of Children and Family Services investigated. But, while the investigation was pending, Pitt was not allowed to see his children. Once it was resolved, he was granted supervised visits.

Pitt has been on the offensive since that fateful flight, and on Dec. 21, 2016, asked a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to seal any future court documents pertaining to the exes’ kids and to keep any further custody disputes private. Jolie agreed. And, we are not surprised by that. Though the couple’s breakup opened up a media can of worms they are trying to put a lid back on things and keep their names out of celebrity news’ headlines. In fact, on January 6, 2017, they released a joint statement, in which they made known their intention to hire a private judge to handle the matter. The press release stated: ”The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues.” The statement continued, “The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification.”

Though we at PROOF would have liked to have access to legal documents in this matter so we can reduce the amount of gossip and untruths coming out about this family’s breakup, given the situation, the number of children, and the very high profile nature of the parties, we applaud this move by Pitt and Jolie. Nice to see adults acting like adults and in the best interest of their children.

Seeking more celebrity news? Check out other PROOF articles.  We cover celebrity news like no one else!

Civil Lawsuits Effecting female celebs || Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Civil Lawsuits Affecting Four of Your Favorite Female Celebs

Assault, Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity News, Civil Law, Custody, Divorce, Erin Andrews, Kendall Jenner

Celebrity news has always been and will always be the talk of the town. Sure people want to know what stars are wearing and who they’re dating. But, what really piques people’s interest is who is suing whom for what and how much!

When celebs find themselves in civil court cases, there is one major thing at stake: money. (That’s basically the main distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. In criminal cases, the focus is freedom; in civil cases it’s finances). No one likes to lose money, including celebrities, and with the resources to fight hard, these big cases usually turn into big legal battles.

Take a look at four of our favorite celebrity civil court cases from the past year and gain legal insight into the stories that rocked the celebrity news world as well as celebrity wallets–those hired guns don’t come cheap!

Erin Andrews

Celebrity news headlines were made and justice was most certainly served in March 2016 when a jury awarded sportscaster, Erin Andrews, a whopping $55 million in her civil suit against her convicted stalker, Michael David Barrett, as well as the owner and operator of the Nashville Marriott, where a nude video of her changing her clothes was filmed back in 2008. The shocking events sparked public outcry at the time and had many rethinking what privacy means.

The sportscaster, who was working at ESPN at the time of the incident, originally filed a suit for $75 million after Barrett, who was shockingly a former insurance executive, used a hacksaw to create a peephole and record her changing in the privacy of her hotel room. The video was later posted online. Millions watched. As one can imagine, the invasive incident caused Andrews great personal distress.

The unanimous jury deliberated for seven hours and determined that 51% of the fault belonged to Barrett, which amounted to more than $28 million of the total verdict. The hotel’s management company, Windsor Capital Group, and its owner, West End Hotel Partners, were found 49% responsible, which amounted to $26 million.  West End Hotel Partners attorneys claimed that they shouldn’t be held liable because Barrett’s actions were his own and had nothing to do with the company. That argument failed because evidence showed that Barrett went to the hotel restaurant, used the house phone, called the hotel operator, asked to be connected to Andrews’ room, and easily learned her room number because it was displayed on the hotel phone. It was that information that lead him directly to her. Further, how secure is a hotel that makes it possible for another guest to alter a peephole and not get caught? The reality is West End Partners has a duty to protect the security of their guests and when they fail to do so and harm results, they are responsible. The jury was correct in assigning blame to them.

This verdict was important and not just from a celebrity news perspective but for victims everywhere. In fact,  Andrews released a statement after the jury returned their verdict. The statement, posted on Instagram, read: “I’ve been honored by all the support from victims around the world. Their outreach has helped me be able to stand up and hold accountable those whose job it is to protect everyone’s safety, security and privacy,”

It should also be pointed out that prior to the civil case, Barrett was convicted of interstate stalking Andrews in a criminal court case. He was sentenced to 27 months in prison. Let’s hope Barrett learned his lesson and won’t be making any more celebrity news headlines again.

Kendall Jenner

How much is Kendall Jenner’s face worth? She thinks $10 million dollars!

In February 2016, the model/reality star sued skincare company Cutera for unauthorized use of her likeness in ads for their “Laser Genesis” treatment.

The company made a pretty ballsy move when they featured the brunette beauty in an ad that read, “Acne ‘Completely Ruined’ Kendall’s Self Esteem,” and then boasted that Cutera’s Laser Genesis treatment is what she used to get her “flawless skin.”

In the lawsuit, Jenner’s legal team contended that due to their client’s A-list status (Is Kendall an A-lister? ) she should be awarded $10 million for the use of her image. According to documents filed in court Cutera never obtained nor sought permission from Kendall for use of her image. In addition to seeking $10 million for the unauthorized use of her “face” Kendall also asked for a temporary restraining order (referred to as TRO for those into legal jargon) against the skincare company, as well the prohibition of any use of her name, likeness, or identity.

Just a few months after filing, Kendall’s legal team dismissed the case. Though likely less than $10 million, I am certain she received a nice payout from Cutera in exchange for that dismissal. In most jurisdictions when a civil case is dismissed, it done with or without prejudice– the distinction is that when a matter is dismissed with prejudice the case is completely over and cannot be bought again while a dismissal without prejudice allows for a case to be refiled. In Kendall’s situation, the Cutera case was dismissed without prejudice so her attorneys can refile should there be a need to do so.

Sofia Vergara

This is one of the celebrity news cases that we here at PROOF are obsessed with as it addresses complex legal issues regarding ownership of fertilized human eggs.  There has been a lot of back and forth on this between the Sofia and her former fiancé, Nick Loeb. Most recently, Loeb filed a lawsuit against the actress on behalf of the fertilized eggs for the right to live.  Yep, you read that right; Vergara is being sued by her own embryos. Now this one of those celebrity news story for the ages!

This isn’t the first time that Loeb has put up a fight for custody of the embryos or made headlines in celebrity news. The couple created the embryos together back in 2013 when they were still a couple (Sofia married Joe Manganiello of Magic Mike fame in 2015); Loeb sued her in California for custody of them. A California judge sided with the 44-year-old actress, when she requested that Loeb identify two of his previous lovers who had had abortions after he ­impregnated them. Loeb refused to reveal that information and the case was dismissed. He filed this new action in Louisiana. Among other things, this new suit claims that because “Emma” and “Isabella” (yes, the embryos have names!) have not been born, they’ve been deprived of an inheritance from a trust that has been ­created for them in Louisiana. The fact that Sofia’s ex chose to file the matter in a traditionally pro-life state is no accident. Though he allegedly has ties to Louisiana, the embryos aren’t there, Sofia doesn’t live there, and neither does Loeb, he’s clearly looking for a favorable jurisdiction (forum shopping, anyone? More about that in another post!).  Still, the decision in this matter will be a landmark one in an area of the law that remains unsettled. And, with reproductive rights such a hot topic in this era of President Trump, all eyes will be on Sofia’s embryos. One part of this matter that we at PROOF find very interesting is the validity of a previously signed contract between Sofia and her ex that spoke to the subject of the embryos, specifically the part of the agreement that states that neither party could use the embryos without the consent of the other. The issue here is whether that is something that can even be contracted–this is going to be a very interesting legal discussion.

Is it just us or are you glad that the Vergara got rid of this guy and is living happily ever after (seemingly!) with her hubby?  One take-away for all of us–men and women? Think twice about with whom you create embryos or you might find yourself in some not-so-flattering celebrity news headlines or at least in the case caption of a lawsuit!

Beyonce

Beyonce stealing the work of a deceased YouTube star? Seems unlikely but so says a $20 million lawsuit the estate of Messy Mya filed against Queen Bey.  Mya’s family is claiming that Beyonce sampled the gunned-down rapper’s words in her hit song, Formation, but did so without permission.  According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the estate claims that Mya’s words helped, “create the tone, mood, setting and location of the New Orleans-themed ‘Formation’ video and audio recordings.” The case alleges that the sample was “blatant in both scale and degree” and that Mya “has received nothing — no acknowledgment, no credit, no remuneration of any kind.”

These types of cases are growing in popularity (Bieber is facing a similar suit in relation to his hit son, Sorry) and we have to wonder if these Grammy winning artists simply asked for permission, received permission, and gave a shout out to the original creator, they would never be brought. Certainly there is great financial value to Beyonce giving a relative unknown a little musical credit or some money. And, with a net worth of well over $200 million, she could well afford it.  We at PROOF do not want to believe that Beyonce would steal anyone’s work so we are eager to see how this celebrity news story develops and we look forward to analyzing the evidence uncovered in support of Mya’s claims.

Interested in learning more celebrity news? Please peruse PROOF. We have tons of celebrity news articles about your Hollywood favorites.

Celebrity Criminal Cases | Celebrity News | Proof With Jill Stanley

Celebrity Criminal Cases That Have Us Talking in 2017

Assault, Bill Cosby, Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Criminal Law, Custody, Divorce, Shia LaBeouf, TJ Miller

Celebrity news is fun to follow, but nothing ensnares our attention quite like a star who is mixed up with the justice system. While many celebs find themselves involved with the court system due to divorce or contract disputes, it’s the star that has run-ins with the criminal law system that really gets us talking.

From physical assault to sexual assault and DUIs, count on PROOF to cover the most shocking celebrity criminal cases. Below though you will find a handful of celeb criminal cases that are keeping our attention in 2017.

Shia LaBeouf

Surprise, surprise! Shia’s in trouble — again!

The always controversial former Disney star was charged with misdemeanor assault and a harassment violation after getting in a fight.  LaBeouf got into a scuffle with the 25-year-old man in front of the Museum of the Moving Image in the Big Apple where Shia was holding his anti-Trump, He Will Not Divide Us protest.  Authorities allege that LaBeouf pulled on the man’s scarf and in doing so scratched the man’s face. While this may be his first arrest of 2017 – we have a feeling he’ll be making more headlines in celebrity news, especially because the 30-year-old has said he’s planning to continue the protest art exhibit for the next four years. That’s right, FOUR YEARS!  The exhibit was originally slated to run continuously outside the Museum of the Moving Image, but due to the controversy, it got shut down on February 10, 2017. No fear though because just about a week later, LaBeouf and his collaborators, Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner, announced that the exhibit was relocating to the El Rey Theater in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sadly though, once again the protest has been shut down. Apparently gunshots were heard in and around it. At the time of this writing, Labeouf tweeted the following: We have taken the stream down after shots were reported in the area. The safety of everybody participating in our project is paramount. It’s a shame that this keep happening, that’s there’s violence in the face of a seeker of free speech, especially with all that’s going in with this Administration. Perhaps this “participatory performance artwork” will reopen and any acts of violence will cease.  As for LaBeouf, let’s hope he will play nice and stay out of celebrity news headlines.

T.J. Miller

T.J. Miller is one of Hollywood’s newest funny guys, but certainly no one was laughing when Uber driver, Wilson Deon Thomas III, said that the “Silicon Valley” actor slapped him after getting in a dispute about Donald Trump. Talk about some celebrity news drama!

Los Angeles Police Department Officer, Jenner Houser, said that authorities responded to a report of battery at the 6900 block of Camrose Drive in the Hollywood Hills at 1AM. Miller was charged with that battery. He was issued a citation and was quickly released from custody with a promise to appear in court on the matter at a later date.  Despite his quick release, Miller may have to deal with more than just a slap on the wrist for his slap across the face. The driver now claims he suffered violent whiplash from the incident after slamming on the brakes while driving and is now suing T.J. for medical expenses and other damages.

Miller’s attorney has called the lawsuit a “pure money grab” and said Thomas is prone to filing “lawsuits to extort people.” I’m not sure what that is based on as PROOF has searched LA County court records and found only this case with Wilson Deon Thomas as a plaintiff. We look forward to seeing the evidence T.J.’s lawyer has to support his statement.

Though not overly serious, this is one celebrity news tale we are interested in for both civil and criminal ramifications

Bill Cosby

Anyone spending time on PROOF knows we just can’t stop talking about the fallen funnyman. And, we’re not the only one. Seems like no story since O.J. has grabbed the celebrity news world’s attention than that of the tale of Bill Cosby and sexual assault. Over the past few years, Cosby has been accused of sexual assault, rape, sexual battery and more by over 60 women, spanning from 1965-2008. Despite the abundance of allegations, Cosby has been able to escape the full weight of law because the accusers came forward years after the alleged incidents occurred and well after the statute of limitations had run.

Many thought that Cosby would never see a courtroom despite the mounting complaints against him — that is until Andrea Constand stepped forward one more time.

In January 2004, a former Temple University employee named Andrea Constand alleged that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in his home outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In January 2005, the Montgomery County Detectives opened a criminal investigation. On February 22, 2005, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor released a statement on his office’s website that he found, “Insufficient, credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.” The case was then dropped.

In March 2005, Constand filed a civil suit against the former “Cosby Show” star. Instead of dealing with the likely celebrity news scandal that would surely follow, Cosby settled with Constand out of court for an undisclosed amount in November 2006.

Over a decade after the settlement, a motion was filed to void the confidentiality agreement that stemmed from settlement of the 2005 civil suit. In court, Constand’s attorney argued that Cosby himself had already displayed a ”total abandonment of the confidentiality portions of the agreement” with his denials of all allegations against him. On July 8, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ruled to unseal some of the private documents in that civil case. In his ruling, the judge wrote that Cosby’s role as a “public moralist” was in contrast to his possible crimes. The unsealed documents were made public and showed that in 2005 Cosby had said that he intended to give Quaaludes to young women so that he could have sex with them (he insisted, however, that the sex was consensual).

The celebrity news world was then rocked when, after years of speculation and dozens upon dozens of accusations, Cosby was finally charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault on December 30, 2015.

Cosby’s attorneys have been fighting these charges tooth and nail ever since. On January 11, 2016, they filed a motion to dismiss the sexual assault charges stating that the local district attorney’s office had promised in 2005 that Cosby would not be prosecuted. On February 3, 2016, Judge Steven O’Neill ruled, “there was no basis” to dismiss the case based on Cosby’s assertions. Cosby’s legal team has made several attempts to have the criminal case thrown out but none have been successful. On September 6, 2016, Judge Steven O’Neill set a trial date for June 6, 2017.  If convicted on all three counts, Cosby faces a maximum of of thirty years in prison and a fine up to $25,000. It should also be noted that Cosby is fighting dozens of civil suits for defamation when, through his lawyers, he called his accusers liars. One of those cases, a matter filed in Massachusetts, was dismissed in February 2017, and though others have also been dismissed, several remain active.

Want more celebrity news about Cosby and other celebs? Explore the pages on PROOF. We’ve got lots of celebrity news articles about your favorites!

Stalkers: 2017 Proved to be a Terrifying Year for Celebs

Bethenny Frankel, Carmen Electra, Celeb News, Celebrities, Ellen Page, Gretchen Rossi, Kylie Jenner, Moby, Rihanna, Sandra Bullock, Taylor Swift

We often throw the word “stalker” around to imply that someone has copied another person, comments too much on their Instagram, or a friend has become a little too enthusiastic about spending time together, but the reality is that real-life stalking is dangerous, often deadly, and changes the quality of someone’s life. And while the life of a celebrity seems luxe and glamorous, stalking comes with the territory and every week it seems there’s a new story about a famous person requiring an order of protection from a fan who has gone too far. And while the letter of the law says “stay back 100 feet,” often that doesn’t dissuade obsessive fans. Here are some of the craziest/scariest stories from just 2017 alone where some of the world’s biggest names have literally been hunted down by fans in the name of love, hate, and obsession.

Ellen Page is the latest Hollywood celeb to receive death threats. The actress reported the threats, which came back in June from an anonymous Instagram user, to police who are working to trace the IP address of the person threatening to kidnap and kill her.

A man accused of stalking Rihanna was arrested May 217 — but even he himself has reportedly said that it won’t stop him. Salmir Feratovic was arrested outside Rihanna’s New York home and charged with criminal trespassing. He was released after spending the night in jail. Not surprisingly, this May incident didn’t mark the first time he attempted to go to RiRi’s home — he was reportedly stopped outside her home twice in 2016, once while allegedly carrying a knife. Rihanna is tough and has security but when a stalker is known to have stated that being arrested wouldn’t deter him from trying to find her, the threat and the fear is real.

Singer and producer Moby also faced a stalker situation recently. A woman named Kelly Lord who was ordered to stay 100 yards away from his home, work and car, after allegedly attempting to steal his mail last year, was reportedly spotted on his surveillance video at his Hollywood, California home. Cops were called, but by the time they arrived, she was gone. No doubt Moby is keeping those cameras turned on.

Sandra Bullock was granted a permanent restraining order against Joshua Corbett, the man who has been stalking her for years. Corbett suffers from bipolar schizophrenia and had been in a mental health institution after an incident in 2014 where Corbett was found roaming Bullock’s home. She hid in a closet and called the police when she discovered him there (How scary is that??!! Sounds like a movie, doesn’t it?). Corbett was released from the facility early – unbeknownst to Bullock – and she and her lawyers had to scramble to request that permanent restraining order.

It’s scary enough to be stalked by a stranger, but what about when you’re threatened by the father of your child? Bethenny Frankel has filed charges against her ex-husband, Jason Hoppy, and in June 2017 he was arraigned on one count of stalking in the third degree and one count of stalking in the fourth degree. Frankel now has an order of protection against Hoppy, and she claims he threatened to “destroy” her after he showed up unexpectedly at their 6-year-old daughter Bryn’s school.

Marvin Magallanes, the man who twice tried to drive a car through the gate to Kylie Jenner’s home last year turned himself in and admitted to police that he killed a 49-year-old homeless man back in January 2017. Magallanes has referred to Jenner as his “soul mate” and was committed to a psych ward after one of his attempts to break through her front gate but successfully escaped from it. We know it’s sometimes hard to have sympathy for Kylie but this is a very really threat to her safety.

If Kylie’s situation weren’t scary enough, sister Kendall also experienced a chilling situation: her stalker, Shavaughn McKenzie, did manage to get through her front gate and accosted her while she was pulling into her driveway in late 2016. She recalled to a judge, “I’ve never been so scared in my life.” The judge granted her a permanent restraining order against McKenzie, who had a habit of trailing Kendall, banging on her windows and following her car before his arrest.

“Real Housewives of Orange County” star Gretchen Rossi was allegedly stalked by a former friend, Jay Photoglou, and early this summer, he allegedly attacked her boyfriend Slade Smiley. Photoglou reportedly approached Smiley from behind and hit him in the head outside a Newport Beach, California restaurant. Photoglou has since been charged with assault and battery.

This past June, Carmen Electra sought a permanent restraining order against a fan, Daniel Lablanc, who is convinced the pair are engaged. Electra already had a temporary restraining order against Lablanc, but when he showed up on her doorstep in June 2017 because he believed they were getting married, she called the cops and he was hauled away for evaluation.

We all know that Taylor Swift’s public feud with Katy Perry is the stuff of tabloids, but Swift’s stalker used it as part of his attempts to get her attention. Mohammad Jaffar was arrested in March 2017 after months of harassment, ringing Taylor’s doorbell non-stop, leaving dozens of messages for her managers, and ultimately climbing onto the roof of her New York City penthouse and staying there for four hours. After his arrest, Jaffar told a detective he worked for Perry and helped get her career started.

This list seems to grow ever longer by the day, and we think it shows a pretty terrifying side of the reality of celebrity. So perhaps when you are wishing you were in that designer gown walking the red carpet or leaving a restaurant to a sea of paparazzi shouting your name, think about how nice it is that for most of us we can curl up on our couches and binge watch our favorite shows or do our food shopping without the world knowing, anyone following us or watching us through a window. Certainly there are fabulous perks to celebrity but these stalker stories just might give us all a little pause. Want to read more about the scary price of fame? Click here.

Kevin Spacey Accused of Child Molestation: Statute of Limitations Protects Him

Celeb News, Kevin Spacey

Rumors of Kevin Spacey’s sexual preference have run rampant in the acting community for years, and his choice to remain silent and keep his personal life quiet has been respected throughout his career, as well it should. But after actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of climbing on top of him on bed in 1986 when Rapp was 14 years old and Spacey was 26, Spacey chose that moment as the time to publicly come out as a gay man. PROOF has publicly commended Rapp for sharing his story and we will continue to do so. It takes bravery, courage and a certain selflessness to share such a story, especially when there was nothing, legally, “in it for him” (more about that below). Rapp said he was inspired to share his story “not to simply air a grievance, but to try to shine another light on the decades of behavior that have been allowed to continue because many people, including myself, being silent.” The decades worth of accusations against some of the most powerful names in Hollywood from producer Harvey Weinstein to directors Brett Ratner to James Toback, appear to have fueled Rapp’s decision, as he added, “Part of what allowed the Harvey situation to occur was that there was this witting and unwitting conspiracy of silence. The only way these things can continue is if there’s no attention being paid to it, if it’s getting forgotten.” We wholly agree with Rapp.

We also agree with the widespread criticism of Spacey apology, in which, for some odd reason, he felt like there was no better time to acknowledge the longstanding rumors of his homosexuality. It was neither wise nor helpful to his career and seemed as a move to attempt to deflect from the real accusations at issue. For us, Spacey’s statement was made even weaker when he linked it to drunken behavior, “I owe (Rapp) the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” The fallout from the accusation has been immediate. Though Spacey’s highly regarded Netflix series, House of Cards, was allegedly going to end after the current season that is shooting, production has come out with a definitive statement and announced that it will in fact conclude. Also, the International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said that it would no longer honor Spacey with the 2017 Emmy Founders Award.

But as for the legal consequences for his actions toward a 14 year old Rapp? Zero. Nothing. The statute of limitations in New York, where the incident occurred, has long run on both a criminal and a civil action. Law enforcement will not investigate in a way that would lead to Spacey facing criminal charges and Rapp cannot file a lawsuit and seek any type of compensation–despite the years of emotional pain and suffering–not that Rapp has referenced in any way that he was after any type of compensation. A bill in New York to repeal the statute of limitations on civil suits for victims of child molestation has been stalled for quite some time. Perhaps Rapp’s story will help push it forward. We certainly hope so as we at PROOF strongly believe in a victim’s right to confront his/her accuser in a court of law and seek resolution, solace, and a modicum of peace through the justice system.
Watch this PROOF video to learn more about sexual assaults and statute of limitations.

Big Surprise: Brett Ratner is Denying Claims That He Sexually Harassed and/or Assaulted Six Women

Brett Ratner, Celeb News

Olivia Munn and Natasha Henstridge are among the six women who shared, in alarming detail, their experiences of being assaulted by producer Brett Ratner. Let’s just go ahead and add him to our Hollywood Male Producer Sh-t List, shall we? He can join the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeremy Piven, Kevin Spacey, and James Toback (not to mention the non-producers such as Andy Dick, Mark Halperin, and Dustin Hoffman). We here at PROOF are angry, now. The pace, the details, the breadth and depth of these violations have reached staggering proportions. Forgive us if our patience is wearing thin with these “alleged” abusers.

Back to Ratner (behind the scenes at PROOF we refer to him as Weinstein’s mini-me): The LA Times broke the story after having spoken with six women, two of whom are well known actresses Olivia Munn and Natasha Henstridge, about their experiences with “The Revenant” producer, Brett Ratner. Here is what they had to say:

Henstridge was 19 years old when Ratner (then in his twenties and a music video director) forced her to perform oral sex on him. The producer, “strong-armed [her] in a real way. He physically forced himself on [her.] At some point, [she] gave in and he did his thing.” Yes, you read that correctly. Natasha Henstridge has said that Brett Ratner FORCED her to perform fellatio on him.

Olivia Munn has a similarly disturbing story. In 2004, Munn (then 24 years old) was visiting one of Ratner’s movie sets to deliver him a meal. The director, who was 35 years old at the time, masturbated in front of her. To make matters worse, after Munn wrote about the incident (without mentioning Ratner by name) Ratner took it upon himself to spread the rumor that they had had sex in the trailer. He later admitted this was false. Munn actively refused to work with him.

Something Munn said in her interview with The LA Times struck us here at PROOF as very poignant and illustrative is this: “It feels as if I keep going up against the same bully at school who just won’t quit. You just hope that enough people believe the truth and for enough time to pass so that you can’t be connected to him anymore.” She said that when she sought out advice as to how to proceed with pressing charges against Ratner, she was dissuaded from going up against a Hollywood power player.

We’ll remind our readers that it is never easy for victims to speak up, and while many may ask, “Why now?” we say “Why not now?” and we also implore people to also should ask “Why didn’t she feel comfortable then?” Munn equating Ratner to a bully who won’t quit is right on the money. At PROOF we’ve often referred to these power hungry, Hollywood power players as bullies. Ratner had the means to humiliate her and bully her into silence. So truly, to us, “Why now?”  doesn’t really matter other than waiting means that legally many victims are left without legal recourse–criminal or civil–because he statute of limitations has run. We all do know the answer of “Why now?” though. With all of the media attention on the hundreds of women accusing Weinstein, Toback and others of assault, victims are feeling safe and/or feel it’s just the right time for them to speak up. Good for you, Natasha Henstridge and Olivia Munn and all of Ratner’s other victims, as well as those who suffered at the hands of other aggressors.  Your timing (unlike that of Kevin Spacey’s coming out story) is irrelevant.

Big shock. Ratner “vehemently disputes” Munn and Henstridge’s allegations, as well as the four others that are included in the report. Okay, Ratner. We’re not sure how long you’re going to be able to take that position. There is very little doubt that the victim count is going to remain at six. Not that any more are needed to make it true–one is enough.

While we are angry about these near daily stories of harassment, abuse and assault, we will not stop telling them. There is a bright spot and that is that it will all lead to much needed massive social change. Women and men are coming forward, talking about their sad, tragic reality and we are listening. We are not ignoring it. We have said it before and we will say it again, times are changing. Women becoming more comfortable with speaking out about their abuse signifies a change in the culture that allows a breeding ground for sexual assault and abuse. We applaud their courage and we stand with them.  We will always stand with them.

Amber Heard Deposition Troubles, Again

Amber Heard, Celeb News

The producers of Amber Heard’s film, London Fields have sued her for breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract. They argue that she failed to fulfill required acting services and failed to promote the movie after director Mathew Cullen claimed that producers released a version Cullen did not approve. Heard has denied the claims and alleged that a nude body double was used in violation of her contract. The case has been rather quiet as it relates to the discovery process (the period in a lawsuit when evidence is gathered documents are produced, questions answered, etc.). The producers believe part of the reason for the failure of the case to move forward is because since March 2017 their lawyers have been trying to depose Heard but so far, the actress has failed to identify a date and show up.

Now it seems the lawyers are no longer going to sit around waiting for an agreed upon date; they’ve asked to the court to order Heard to appear for a deposition and are seeking $70,000 in sanctions for her actions in avoiding being deposed.

Many might recall that this isn’t the first legal matter in which it has been claimed that Heard has attempted to avoid being deposed. And, if the court hearing the London Fields matter wasn’t aware of that prior instance, the producers’ lawyers made sure that it did, detailing in court documents that while Heard and ex-husband Johnny Depp were in the process of divorcing, Heard postponed depositions in Los Angeles numerous times and would claim to be out of town when she was really in Los Angeles–allegedly there were paparazzi photos that proved her whereabouts.  She went to “extreme, frivolous efforts to avoid being deposed,” say the Lost Field legal team.

Heard’s team believes the motion to order her to appear should never have been filed and that the actress has complied and will continue to comply with her obligations in the case.

Deposition is a key element of discovery and given the nature of the Lost Fields lawsuit, Heard’s deposition is critical, naturally. Unlike criminal cases, in which a defendant need not testify (we’ve all see this on tv!), civil cases do not have that same protection–the 5th Amendment applies only to criminal matters.

Heard isn’t the only celeb who has faced allegations of blowing off a deposition. Last March, PROOF favorite, Justin Bieber claimed he was sick just hours before a scheduled deposition and failed to show up for a scheduled deposition in a lawsuit filed against him by a songwriter. Photographs on social media showed that Bieber was partying hours earlier, and therefore very likely not too sick! Attorneys for the plaintiff in that case had incurred a great deal of expenses as it related to the deposition–they flew in from Nashville, spent money on hotels and had considerable time preparing for the deposition that was not to be (note, they too had waited a long time simply to find a date that Bieber agreed to). Certainly, a judge could have imposed sanctions should plaintiff’s lawyers requested it–avoiding depositions or acting cavalierly about them and/or the legal process is not looked upon favorably by those in a decision making position.

As of this writing, news of Heard’s deposition date has not been released but we will keep you posted. Our bet is she will show up!

Harvey Weinstein: Three Decades More Than Enough

Celeb News, Celebrities, Harvey Weinstein

The New York Times lit a match and set Harvey Weinstein’s career ablaze on October 5th, 2017 with a scathing report that the Hollywood power player has been sexually harassing actresses and female employees for decades.

The report is a play-by-play of assault and harassment that makes Bill O’Reilly look downright saintly. There is the story of Ashley Judd meeting Mr. Weinstein at his hotel for what she thought was a business meeting. Instead, she was sent to his room, greeted by Weinstein in a bathrobe, and asked “if he could give her a massage of she could watch him shower.” There’s the particularly troubling story of Emily Nestor, who only made it one day as a temp for Mr. Weinstein. She, too, was invited to his hotel, but made another offer, according to the New York Times. Weinstein allegedly told her that if she was sexual with him, he would give her career a much needed boost. Nestor reported him to her colleagues. The next year, another assistant’s account of harassment upset her colleague to the point that she wrote a memo that read, “There is a toxic environment for women at this company.” Toxic? That’s perhaps the understatement of the year! Her memo also poignantly points out just how easy it was for one of Hollywood’s most powerful men to take advantage of women as he did. “I am a 28-year-old woman trying to make a living and a career. Harvey Weinstein is a 64-year-old, world famous man and this is his company. The balance of power is me: 0, Harvey Weinstein: 10.”

Adding to the New York Times expose was the second punch by the New Yorker. This article, written by Ronan Farrow (son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen), included even more serious claims — allegations of rape. Farrow said, “Three women told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault.”  In fact, in 2015 the NYPD engaged in a sting operation in which an audio recording captured Weinstein admitting to groping a model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office declined to press charges. This decision apparently surprised the officers involved in the operation but recently the prosecutor’s office said this about their decision:  “While the recording is horrifying to listen to, what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent.”

We at PROOF do not agree with this legal determination but perhaps there are other factors we are not privy to that played into this decision. We do believe, however, that this is Harvey’s last lucky break. NYPD and the DA’s office will no doubt be looking more seriously and closely into the claims of rape. Currently, there are allegations that at least one of them occurred in New York.  Note that for at least the last ten years, New York does not have a statute of limitations on rape so many cases will not be time barred.  And, as of this writing, there are 4 sexual assault investigations underway in London. There is no statute of limitations on sex crimes in the United Kingdom.

Over the years, Weinstein has settled at least eight claims that were brought against him for inappropriate behavior toward women. We do not yet know if the settlements stemmed from incidents of alleged assault or harassment because the settlements are confidential. The parties to the settlements could not divulge information or talk about them BUT that does not mean the information and the witnesses (parties, victims) can’t be subpoenaed in future legal actions, including criminal investigations. While some of the clauses in the agreement will likely receive protection if/when the agreements lose their “confidential status” much of their contents will be discoverable whether it is a civil or criminal matter.

The news is coming out fast and furious about Weinstein. As of this writing, his wife has left him, he has been fired by his own company, he has been kicked out of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences, USC has returned his $5 million donation, and near daily women are reporting their experiences with him. Just about everything about this matter is disgusting and what makes it even worse is the way that Weinstein presented himself as a supporter of women. His company distributed “The Hunting Ground” a movie about sexual assault on college campuses. He donated and held fundraisers for Hillary Clinton, he employed Obama’s daughter Malia as an intern. He joined a women’s march in Utah. Talk about a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

It seems as if it has been weeks since his initial statement to the press (as of this posting it has been only 10 days), when, in explaining his conduct, he said, “I came of age in the 60’s and 70’s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. Really? Actually, they weren’t so different. Women didn’t enjoy being harassed or assaulted back then either. He continued though by saying that he learned from the past and has changed. He acknowledged that his behavior “has caused a lot of pain, and [he] sincerely apologizes for it.” Standard issues, boilerplate mea culpa from Weinstein. In light of the breadth and depth of his misconduct, we at PROOF can’t recall a more hollow and meaningless public apology.

What about that defamation suit Weinstein threatened to file against the New York Times? He has already fired the lawyer he hired, Charles Harder. (Harder famously won Hulk Hogan a $140 million settlement against Gawker, click here to read more about that.) For anyone who still cares about Weinstein’s described as his motives for the suit, here’s his explanation: I am suing because of the Times’ inability to be honest with me, and their reckless reporting. They told me lies. They made assumptions.”  Okay, Harvey.

The Hollywood casting couch has been around since the early 1900s. Most in Hollywood knew of Weinstein’s couch or what we at PROOF like to call an entire furniture store. There were jokes on sitcoms (30 Rock), comments on award shows (Seth MacFarlane at the 2013 Academy awards), and general conversations among scores of women in Hollywood about his behavior. Perhaps not everyone knew (Meryl Streep?!) about Hollywood’s biggest yet dirtiest little secret but it’s well past the time to expose it and to expose it on the level in which it is being exposed. Maybe this will be the tipping point in the way Hollywood has been run for decades, maybe it will serve as a deterrent we are hopeful that it will be. In the meantime, we will keep a careful eye on all the legal issues that will be the very predictable fallout surrounding this former Tinseltown titan.

 

 

 

Jeffrey Tambor Leaves ‘Transparent’ Amid Accusations of Sexual Misconduct

Celeb News, Celebrities, Jeffrey Tambor

The flood of accusations of sexual misconduct continue to flow in from Tinsel Town. We can now add Jeffrey Tambor to the list of names that is the ever-growing list of predatory men in Hollywood. Tambor was accused of sexual misconduct by both his assistant, Van Barnes, and his co-star, Trace Lysette, and the story is really heating up.

On November 8th, 2017, Deadline broke the news that, just three weeks after Amazon Studios’  Roy Price resigned over sexual harassment claims, Amazon was also looking into allegations against Transparent actor Jeffrey Tambor. Tambor’s assistant, Van Barnes, made claims of sexual misconduct in a private Facebook post (lol? Private Facebook post?) and stated that her former boss had propositioned her, made lewd comments towards her, and groped her. Then, he threatened to sue her if she spoke up. Barnes did not use Tambor’s name but it was clear he was the boss in question. Abuse of power?

True to Hollywood form, Tambor immediately called the accusations “baseless” and went so far as to suggest that Barnes was a “disgruntled assistant.”

Initially it seems as if some people may have believed him (we at PROOF were a wee bit surprised but sadly it’s pretty damn hard to be surprised by any of this anymore), especially considering the zeal with which Tambor denied the allegations. But then, his co-star Trace Lysette leveled similar accusations against the actor. She wrote on Twitter that Tambor had “made many sexual advances and comments at me, but one time it got physical. She then goes on to describe a disturbing encounter after a scene in which she was wearing pajamas. When Tambor saw her in her costume, he “sexualized [her] with an over the top comment.” Women are all too used to just shutting down those comments and moving on, which is what Lysette did in this situation. But then, it got physically uncomfortable.

“Later, in between takes, I stood in a corner on set…My back against the wall in a corner as Jeffrey approached me. He came in close, put his bare feet on top of mine so I could not move, leaned his body against me, and began quick, discreet thrusts back and forth against my body.” Again, Lysette “shook it off.” And how utterly humiliating it must have been to have to shake it off. We’re proud of her for deciding that she had shaken it off enough, and for calling Amazon to action.

In response to these allegations, Tambor admitted that he “can be volatile and ill-tempered…But I have never been a predator—ever.” Well, Tambor, your volatility and ill-temperament have no place in Hollywood. And, sorry, they seem predatory and unsafe and violative.

Amazon had opened an investigation into the actor’s conduct, but before they could make the results of that investigation public, Tambor resigned from the role of Maura Pfefferman on Transparent.

Tambor gave the following statement on the matter to NPR:

“Playing Maura Pfefferman on Transparent has been one of the greatest privileges and creative experiences of my life. What has become clear over the past weeks, however, is that this is no longer the job I signed up for four years ago. I’ve already made clear my deep regret if any action of mine was ever misinterpreted by anyone as being aggressive, but the idea that I would deliberately harass anyone is simply and utterly untrue. Given the politicized atmosphere that seems to have afflicted our set, I don’t see how I can return to ‘Transparent.’ ”

It looks like it’s a “politicized atmosphere” that is keeping Tambor from returning to set, which reads a whole lot like “people are believing these women over me and I don’t want to argue for myself anymore.” It also sounds like Amazon was on their way to writing Tambor out of the fifth season of the show, which is similar to the decision made by Netflix writers who are now deciding how to handle Kevin Spacey’s exit from House of Cards after allegations of sexual misconduct were levied against him.

So far no lawsuits have been filed against Tambor but we can’t express how proud we are of these women who continue to speak up after years of being silenced. As with all the other victims we’ve written about, Lysette and Van Barnes, we stand with you.

 

 

All’s Well That Ends Well? Nah. More Drama with Blac Chyna Rob Kardashian

Blac Chyna, Celeb News, Rob Kardashian

Just when we thought there was a handle on the drama between Blac Chyna and Rob Kardashian, the exes threw us for a loop. Just two weeks ago we were excited to think that the couple had finally reached an amicable agreement. On September 15th, 2017, the exes with perhaps one of the most tumultuous relationships we’ve seen in a while, settled their domestic violence case. They had even managed to work out a custody plan for the daughter they share, 10-month-old Dream Kardashian.

In case you missed it, this whole thing started, on July 5th, 2017, when Rob Kardashian began posting explicit images of his ex on Instagram and Twitter. Rob was making claims of infidelity, drug use, and accused Chyna of using him for his money. Chyna swiftly hired Lisa Bloom (who represents the woman involved in the Kevin Hart extortion case as well as Quantasia Sharpton and two unnamed plaintiffs in the Herpes case against Usher). Bloom is well known in the revenge porn world (she represents Mischa Barton) and even before being hired by Chyna, Bloom had tweeted: “Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.”

Bloom got the ball rolling on a restraining order against Kardashian, and explained that they would be seeking further legal action. Chyna and Kardashian seemed to be doing fine living their separate lives.

And then, a break in the case! A court official confirmed on Friday, September 15th, that Chyna agreed to drop the domestic violence case against her ex after a coming to a private agreement. The couple had been scheduled to appear in court on September 18th for the restraining order. Allegedly Kardashian is still planning on keeping his distance despite the expiration of the restraining order.

Lisa Bloom explained in a statement that while Chyna has chosen to “take the domestic abuse hearing scheduled for Monday, September 18th off calendar” Chyna still has options. “She will always have the right to go back into court if further incidents of domestic abuse occur.”  Although there has not been any word of LAPD investigating Rob for revenge porn, it is a crime in California (as well as in 37 other states) so he certainly is going to have to control himself in that regard. Click here for more info about the revenge porn claims.

And as for custody of 10-month-old Dream? It looks Chyna and Kardashian will share joint custody. Though Bloom made sure to note that reports that Rob has “more than 50 percent custody” are untrue. She also said that claims that Chyna left Dream home alone while she went out partying, were “outrageous.”

“Like many working mothers, Chyna does sometimes leave her baby with a nanny while she goes to work. Rob should stop defaming the mother of his child and instead should become accustomed himself to the concept of working for a living, something Chyna has always done before, during and after her relationship with him to support herself and her children.” Gotta hand it to Bloom, like her own mother, famed lawyer Gloria Allred, she does stand up for the rights of working women. Need some ice for that burn, Rob?

And so although Chyna’s decision to drop the case did not resolve all of the issue between the two, at the time, it had certainly seemed to put to rest the nastiest and most distracting of all the claims. But, not so fast.  Even though Chyna settled her custody war (and will be getting $20,000 per month in child support for Dream) she was not quite down with the Kardashians or Rob.

Turns out that Rob Kardashian believes in “an eye for an eye” apparently because on September 27th, 2017, Rob sued Chyna alleging she assaulted him in December of 2016. According to the lawsuit, Chyna tried to choke Rob with an iPhone charging cable, and then continued to beat him, striking him in the head and face. Rob says that she did all this as she was high on drugs and alcohol.

Kardashian also claims that Chyna went on a rampage around the house that they were renting from Kylie Jenner. According to Rob, Chyna’s rampage cost more the $100,000 in damages to the home. When rob tried to hightail it out of there, Chyna threw a chair at his car and hit Rob with a metal rod. If what Rob alleges is true, it looks like he was just biding his time, waiting for Chyna to drop her domestic violence suit so that he could go ahead and file his. He is suing her for assault, battery, vandalism, and also including Chyna’s contract for their reality show that ended up being canceled, “Rob & Chyna” for good measure.

So much for hoping everyone behaves.

Read updates on the litigation between Chyna and Kardashian.

 

 

Murder, Trademark Violations and the Drug Cartel: A Popular Netflix Show Finds Itself in Legal Trouble

Celeb News, Celebrities

No doubt Netflix didn’t expect all of this when they greenlighted the series about the drug cartel, but things are getting scarier by the day.

Narcos has been a popular pick for those of us looking for a Netflix binge, but the show’s subject matter is causing quite a stir lately. In case you haven’t seen the show, it centers around the drug cartel, namely Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. Yours truly has stayed up many a night watching this violent dramatic series but we too were surprised when the violence became all too real.

On September 11th, 2017, tragedy struck when Carlos Munoz Portal, a location scout for the show, was killed on the job. This is beyond tremendously sad for Portal’s friends and loved ones and it’s also been a wakeup call for the entire cast and crew of the show.

It’s not just violence plaguing the show, Netflix is caught in the middle of a messy trademark dispute with Escobar’s family. Escobar’s brother, Roberto De Jesus Escobar Gaviria spoke with The Hollywood Reporter and it was…well, interesting. The 71-year-old surviving brother of the drug kingpin even went so far as to suggest that producers would be better off hiring “hitmen…as security.” It’s his position that the producers can’t handle the world of the cartel in locations like Mexico and Colombia. With Portal’s death, he might not be too wrong– it’s not like they’re shooting a series in Disney World–but it would seem that Mr. Gaviria word choice is almost…well, how best to put this? Threatening?

Gaviria isn’t playing around when it comes to money he believes his company is owed for what he sees are trademark violations. In fact, he has said that he would “close their little show” if they did not give Escobar Inc., $1 billion. That’s billion with a ‘B.’ What does he base this claim on?  Apparently, Escobar Inc. believes they have trademarked the words Narcos and Cartel Wars. He goes so far as saying that “Netflix are scared. They sent us a long letter to threaten us.”

Indeed, Narcos productions’ lawyers, the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP who represent many large influential companies (You know it’s serious when the guys who have dealt with every Chipotle e-coli scare get involved) did send a letter, which was then obtained exclusively by The Hollywood Reporter, and we’re here to break it down for you.

Narcos production or NPL contends that, without their “knowledge or consent, on August 20th, 2016, Escobar filed use-based applications to register the marks Narcos and Cartel Wars with the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] covering a range of goods and services.” Essentially, they’re saying that Escobar Inc. trademarked these words associated with Narcos to profit off of the television show, and did it under the guise of “operating a website” and “game services provided online from a computer network” since January of (get this) 1986. I know to some of our PROOF readers it seems as if the Internet has been around forever but Netflix was quick to point out that “the internet has not been developed for widespread consumer use in 1986.” For those of you that remember, game systems weren’t exactly high tech either. Looks like Escobar Inc. is trying to pull the wool over Narcos Production’s eyes. The letter goes so far as to call the claims “fraudulent.”

Oh, and moreover, not only is Escobar Inc. trying to make a buck from Narcos in terms of merchandise, they’re ripping off their artwork and designs in order to do so. They’ve taken artwork from Narcos Production’s advertising, or at the very least are using pieces of artwork “that infringes NPL’s copyrights.” Now, who isn’t being respectful of someone’s intellectual property? Then, team Netflix/Narcos pulls out the big guns: they threaten to sue the Escobar family if they do not remedy the situation.

Acceptable remedies include paying damages that Narcos Productions has suffered as a result of the infringement and profits that Escobar Inc. has earned from the alleged unauthorized use of the Narcos and Cartel Wars marks, attorney’s fees. They also seek the barring of the registration of the terms Narcos and Cartel Wars as trademarks, as well as the issuance of a nationwide injunction against Escobar’s use of the marks or anything “confusingly similar.” Essentially Narcos and Netflix and not flinching in the face of Escobar’s claims and are saying just the opposite–you guys are violating our rights so pay up, stop and don’t do it anymore.

But Escobar Inc. doesn’t seem to be seeing it that way. In fact, it seems as if they think they have the upper hand. Their CEO, Olof Gusafsson said, “At first, they refused to acknowledge us. After we registered all the trademarks and we’ve been granted some of them, they sent us a cease-and-desist letter. After that our attorneys and their attorneys have come to an agreement that basically they need to pay us something. Now it’s a matter of determining how much that something is,” Gustafsson says.

And to twist the knife just a little deeper, Gusafsson adds, “At the end of the day, if we don’t take a deal, then we own the trademarks. They would have to rebrand their entire show. They know this. This is why they’re talking to us. Otherwise they would never entertain any discussions with a drug cartel family.”  Not so fast, Gusafsson. It’s highly unlikely that the Escobar family was granted a trademark for the word Narcos because it is a word that literally means “anyone involved in the cartel.” Additionally, in a high profile case like this, it’s pretty obvious that the word was copied only because of the popular Netflix show. Now, Netflix may not have registered the title of the show, so it could be fair game, but these are all details we have yet to find out.

As for a settlement? Well, they require a certain degree of reasonableness on both sides. There is a lot of money at stake and a lot of money being made on this hit show so a payoff can make this go away. It’s all going to come down to how much and if that payout will be final.

We at PROOF do think given all there is to lose that money will trade hands. How much and when will depend on a lot of additional facts that we do not yet know. However, maybe we are too influenced by the show and the power of the Escobar family but we hope that Netflix can resolve these intellectual property) matters quickly so that they can focus on the safety of the cast and crew. At this point, that seems to be the more pressing issue, don’t you agree?

 

 

Scroll to Top