Main Menu
Main Menu

Celebrity Lawsuits

Tentative Settlement in Weinstein Civil Suits

Celeb News, Celebrity Lawsuits, Harvey Weinstein

Scores of civil suits have been filed against Harvey Weinstein and his bankrupt film company. While not all of the suits are rooted in sexual misconduct claims, those that are may be coming to an end. Allegedly his insurance company has made a $25 million settlement offer to the victims.

This money will not be coming from Weinstein’s pockets but rather from an insurance policy, not unlike when an insurance company pays a car accident or other negligence claim. The insurance company also likely footed the bill for the lawyers and other litigation costs too. But don’t get too upset, this isn’t because of any special treatment for the rich and famous, it’s just how these types of claims and these types of insurance policies work. What you can get upset over is that as part of the settlement, Weinstein will not have to admit any wrongdoing nor apologize to the victims. It’s understandable why he doesn’t want to admit guilt (it’s primarily because of the upcoming criminal trial) but an apology could have been worked in and not damaged the rape case. Though, really what would be the point? Is Harvey Weinstein truly sorry for any of the pain he caused his victims? That’s a rhetorical question.

Another complexity is that the money is going to have to be shared by all the accusers. Divvying any global settlement is never an easy task. Ultimately, even if all relevant parties agree, the settlement will require court approval.

Bottom line: $25 million may sound like a lot but given the number of claimants, the degree to which they suffered, it’s not going to even come close to fairly and sufficiently compensating them for the wrongs Harvey Weinstein and his company committed.

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!

Glee’s Mark Salling Commits Suicide Weeks Before Sentencing on Child Pornography Charges

Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Mark Salling

Update: Mark Salling found dead on January 30, 2018. He was set to be sentenced in March on charges stemming from his guilty plea to possession of child pornography.

Salling joined the ranks of Jared Fogle (aka the Subway spokesperson) and Jeffrey Jones of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, when he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor.

Salling was arrested back in 2015 for possession of child pornography. Police found 50,000 images of “child sexual exploitation” on the Glee star’s computer. They also shared a particularly troubling detail: That the images they captured from the computer were of children younger than 15 and 16 years old. Apparently the investigation into Salling’s computer conduct was prompted by information supplied from an ex-girlfriend of the actor.

Salling was indicted on two counts of child pornography after police uncovered the images; he faced up to 20 years in prison for those acts. On October 4th, 2017, however, Salling entered into a plea bargain which required that he admit guilt (as all plea bargains do by the way). In court he stated his guilt aloud in exchange for a sentence of 48-84 months of imprisonment. Pretty good deal considering what he was facing.

In addition to jail time, Salling will have to pay $50,000 per victim. To date, we do not know how many victims will request restitution but this is certainly going to put a dent in Salling’s bank account, especially as right after he was indicted he was fired from the project he was working on, Gods and Secrets. It is doubtful Hollywood will welcome him back with open arms after his release from prison so this financially penalty is going to hurt–as it should.

Salling will also have to register as a sex offender. He will not be allowed to live within view of any parks, public pools, schools, arcades. He is pretty much barred from places frequented by children under age 18.

Jared Fogle, perhaps the most recent and well known example of a personality being arrested for child pornography, ended up paying $1.4 million to 14 victims for restitution after being charged with paying to engage in sexually explicit acts with children, receiving, and distributing child pornography. Jared had allegedly been using websites to solicit minors for sexual acts from 2007 to 2015. He, too, plead guilty. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on November 19th, 2015.

Certainly, the charges between the two men are different because Salling did not engage in sexual acts with minors, but nevertheless, his crimes are deserving of real punishment.

Given the gravity and breadth of Salling’s wrongdoing it was likely his sentence was going to to be on the longer rather than the shorter end of the 48-84 month window.

NY Attorney General Not Playing Around: Sues Harvey Weinstein, Robert Weinstein and The Weinstein Company

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Harvey Weinstein

Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General filed suit against Harvey Weinstein, his brother Robert Weinstein and, The Weinstein Company (TWC) for civil rights and human rights violations stemming from the culture of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct that pervaded the company from 2015-2017.

By now we all know well the allegations against fallen mega mogul Harvey Weinstein. What law enforcement in New York has been doing these last four months since those explosive claims came to light is investigating–speaking with witnesses, subpoenaing, reviewing, and analyzing documents. And, although the investigation is ongoing (which means they have many more witnesses with whom to speak and many more documents to review and analyze), the AG’s office (that’s the shorthand reference we lawyers use for attorney general) has already come out swinging. That’s because the sale of TWC is imminent and if that should happen prior to suit they are concerned that Weinstein “survivors” (we love that they used that word to describe Weinstein victims) would be left without legal recourse and that it would allow the “bad guys” and their enablers to receive unwarranted financial benefits, and that TWC employees might end up reporting to some of the same managers post a sale and that would make for an unsafe work environment. Way to go, Eric Schneiderman! What a clear, direct act on behalf of those whose lives the Weinstein bros and their company damaged.

What we like the most is the way the AG is going after the NDAs (non-disclosure agreements).  And not just those NDAs stemming from settled sexual harassment and sexual misconduct cases. They are also going after the NDA’s that TWC employees had to sign which effectively forced them to keep the company’s dirty little secrets as well as that of the Weinstein brothers.  In fact in the prayer for relief — also called a wherefore clause or ad damnum clause– (law lesson: that’s the last part of a complaint in which the party who filed the suit details what they want the court to order as remedies for the wrongdoing) in addition to asking the court order the Harvey, Robert and TWC to stop violating the law, to pay to New York hundreds and thousands in civil penalties, to pay restitution and damages to the individuals they harmed, the AG also asked the court to nullify the NDAs.  All of those people would then be free to share their personal stories and experiences with whomever they wished.

The AG’s complaint is quite an easy read.  It’s not littered with legalese and provides one of the clearest pictures of what the heck was going on at TWC and just how disgusting Weinstein repeated sexually harassing, assaultive behavior was. We strongly encourage you to click here to read the entire document.  We have no doubt that it will clarify a lot of things we’ve all been hearing these last few months.

This case is HUGE and will likely go on for years; it also wouldn’t surprise us if the California AG’s office filed a similar action.  Read the complaint and let us know your thoughts.

Bill O’Reilly Settled Sexual Harassment Suit for $32M; Fox Renewing His Contract Anyway

Bill O’Reilly, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebs

It has been six months since Bill O’Reilly was ousted from Fox News in the midst of a sexual harassment scandal. Reilly ended up striking a deal with his accuser, Fox News network analyst Lis Wiehl, for $32 million. Note, Wiehl served as O’Reilly’s lawyer, for a time. As surprising as it may sound, we haven’t really missed Bill. Actually, we haven’t missed him at all. But, back to the settlement . . .

Thirty-two million not a small number, right? In fact, it is the sixth and largest of those that were intended to settle harassment allegations against O’Reilly. A key requirement of the settlement was that Wiehl had to sign an affidavit (statement under oath) “renouncing all allegations against [O’Reilly,]” destroying photos, texts, and any other communications between the two of them.  That we get. Thirty two million is pretty unprecedented so the evidence must have been very damning. Here’s the double whammy though.  Turns out that 21st Century Fox was aware of Ms. Wiehl’s allegations and settlement all while still negotiating with O’Reilly for a contract extension! So despite knowing about Wiehl’s allegations which included “repeated acts of harassment, a non-consensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material” the network wanted to keep O’Reilly on and pay him a whopping $25 million per year. How’s that for an “atta boy?!”

O’Reilly is adamant that he is not guilty (ok, Bill, all the women are lying because it’s really fun and good for our careers to accuse men of sexual harassment) with a statement from the O’Reilly camp accusing The New York Times, who broke the story, of smearing O’Reilly and “failing to print a sworn affidavit from [Bill’s] former lawyer, Lis Wiehl, repudiating all allegations against Bill O’Reilly.” Bill also insists that the only reason that he settled was not to admit guilt, but to clean up the mess for the sake of his children. He also insists that “in the more than 20 years Bill O’Reilly worked at Fox News, not one complaint was filed against him with the Human Resources Department or Legal Department by a co-worker, even on the anonymous hotline.”

Megyn Kelly, herself a victim of sexual harassment at O’Reilly’s hands, hit the nail on the head saying in response to the news that Fox knew yet continued negotiations, “You are just this one person about to go up against a machine. It’s daunting and frightening and it holds you back from taking action sometimes.” Additionally, she said, “Fox News was not exactly a friendly environment for harassment victims who wanted to report, in my experience. However, O’Reilly’s suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know because I complained.”

The company released this statement as a means of explaining their decision away: “When the company renewed Bill O’Reilly’s contract in February, it knew that a sexual harassment lawsuit had been threatened against him by Lis Wiehl, but was informed by Mr. O’Reilly that he had settled the matter personally, on financial terms that he and Ms. Wiehl had agreed were confidential and not disclosed to the company. His new contract, which was made at a time typical for renewals of multi-year talent contracts added protections for the company specifically aimed at harassment, including that Mr. O’Reilly could be dismissed if the company was made aware of other allegations or if additional relevant information was obtained in a company investigation. The company subsequently acted based on the terms of this contract.”

Essentially, Fox was fine with giving Bill a slap on the wrist for his behavior so long as he wasn’t accused again. Well, we all know what happened there. Finally, in April 2017, 21st Century Fox fired O’Reilly (and awarded him a $25 million payout).

So, here we are in this O’Reilly, Ailes, Weinstein, and Toback (Hollywood director currently being accused of harassing over 30 women) world. But, it’s not all bad. The world is not ending. Quite the opposite in fact. There is something empowering about the lifting of this shroud of silence. And we are witnessing in real time. One by one, women in Hollywood are finally feeling strong enough to call men out on their abominable behavior and standing up for our sisters. We at PROOF are excited about these times–they are a changing’.

Celebrity Herpes Lawsuits | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Lawsuits: Celebs and Herpes

Athletes, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Jim Carrey, Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries, Michael Vick, Robin Williams

PLEASE BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!

The information in this post falls so squarely in the category of “stuff everyone should know” that I made my three teenage sons read it.  Twice. Here’s the main takeaway: if you give someone an STD you can be sued; if you get an STD you can sue the person who gave it to you.  You can stop reading now if you want or continue on and learn how you can protect yourself from such suits.

Lawsuits for the transmission of an STD can be based on theories of negligence and/or intentional acts and can include counts for fraud and emotional distress. In certain situations, criminal charges can also be brought. Celebrities are not immune from these suits and in fact, may be bigger targets than regular folks because they have deep pockets (translation: they have the money to pay for a verdict or settlement).

One celeb (ok, quasi-celeb) slapped with a herpes suit was Kris Humphries. Remember him? Kim Kardashian’s second husband? Might be hard as they were only married for 72 days in 2011 and with all of the fame Kim K has experienced since then it almost seems like that never happened, right?  Well, back pedal to 2010. Kris is just a basketball player and not yet trying to keep up with the Kardashians when he has a one-night stand with a woman named Kayla Goldberg.  A week after their night of unprotected sex, Kayla is diagnosed with herpes. She thinks Kris gave it to her so she sues him—2 years later.  Note, this was after his televised “fairytale” wedding in which he and Kim allegedly made out with more than 2 million dollars. Not sure what Kris’ NBA contract was then but at the time the suit was filed he certainly wasn’t hurting for cash.  

Ultimately, the suit included counts of sexual battery (I know this term sounds very violent like rape but here it refers to the intentional act of transmitting an STD to someone), negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Kayla’s initial lawsuit filed in August 2012 included 2 counts of fraud, violation of the California Health and Safety Code, and intentional infliction of emotional distress but she dropped all of those in less than two months of filing.  So, what are we left with, what exactly is Kayla claiming? Well, she is claiming Kris knew or should have known he had herpes, never told her about it, yet had unprotected sex with her anyway.  And, as a result she suffered physical pain and injury, mental and emotional distress and financial damages. Where did she get the idea that he knew he had herpes? That’s where the case weakens. There are no allegations that he had sores or lesions, had ever experienced an outbreak, had seen a doctor for it, had ever mentioned or referenced that he might have had an issue with any STD, etc.  Kayla’s whole case is based on the fact that  she had sex with Kris and a week later was diagnosed with herpes. Had she not had sex with anyone prior to Kris then her claim would have been solid even without any assertions by Kris but that was not the case. Any one of Kayla’s prior sexual partners could have given her the disease (ALERT: Please be clear, I am not nor in ANY situation would I ever blame the victim or allege that because someone was sexually active they are responsible for a wrong, criminal or civil, that has been done to them by someone else. The only way Kayla would be responsible for getting herpes was if she consented to having sex with an infected person).  If you want to see the actual First Amended Complaint, including the claim that “Defendant earned Plaintiff’s trust throughout the night, and came across as charming, trustworthy, and caring,” click here.

In STD transmission suits, here is what the liability boils down to whether the claim is based on a theory of a negligent or an intentional act: Prior to intercourse, you have a legal duty to warn a sexual partner if you think you have a disease or might be infected with a disease.  If you breach that duty and harm results, you will be found liable. So, Kris had a legal duty to Kayla but in order to prove her case she needed to show that Kris breached it—that he knew or should have known he was infected with the disease. There are a few ways to do this—the easiest being to submit medical evidence.  And, that’s just what Kris did. He submitted blood tests that showed he didn’t have genital herpes (HSV-2).  But Kayla wanted more. She asked the court to order him to undergo testing for herpes simplex type 1 (HSV-1), the one most of us associate with cold sores and blisters on the mouth and lips. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center HSV-1 is transmitted through kissing or sharing glasses and utensils and though it can also cause genital herpes, HSV-2 is the main cause of genital herpes; and, as many as 90% of American adults have been exposed to HSV-1). The judge stopped it all right there. He denied Kayla’s request saying that given the circumstances (no doubt considering how common HSV-1 infection is) ordering more testing would have violated Kris’ privacy rights. Soon after this ruling the case was dismissed. Kris, despite initially threatening to file a counterclaim against Kayla for defamation, never did so. Most likely, he just wanted the whole thing to go away. Keeping a conversation going about herpes is not good for anyone’s game. And I’m not talking about basketball.

Herpes settlements and verdicts are big money though because there is no cure for the disease, there is a stigma associated with having it, and the infected person now has the legal duty to inform every lover of her condition for the rest of her life or risk being sued herself.  The late Robin Williams and former disgraced NFL player, Michael Vick both settled herpes transmission suits out of court for undisclosed sums. But, we can make an educated guess that those sums were substantial. Back in the late ‘80s the suit Robin Williams’ ex filed sought 6.2 million. That number may seem high but it is not unreasonable when you consider the fact that in 2011 a California court upheld a 6.75 million dollar verdict against hair care millionaire Thomas Redmond for giving his former girlfriend the disease.

As mentioned at the outset of this article, I think everyone should know their legal responsibility as it relates to transmitting STDS but another reason why I’m writing about it is because of a celebrity case that I will be discussing a great deal in the coming months—the wrongful death lawsuits filed against actor Jim Carrey by the husband and mother of Cathriona White, Carrey’s deceased former girlfriend. In those matters, allegations that he knowingly infected Cathriona with several STDs, including herpes, is a central issue.  And, because of the complexities in those lawsuits, it’s good that PROOF readers will understand the STD liability before we dive deeper into the other allegations.

Thank you so much for reading—I know this stuff isn’t fun but I’m glad you know it.  Please be careful out there. It’s a scary world.

Celebrity News | Chris Brown Legal Problems

Chris Brown Facing Legal Problems…Again

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Chris Brown, Court, Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Ex-Girlfriend, Karrueche Tran, Restraining Order, Singer, Violence Against Women

Chris Brown has more legal problems.  Two TROs (temporary restraining order) were issued against him in February 2017. His ex girlfriend, model, Karrueche Tran got one and now, one of Tran’s closest friends, Joseph Ryan LaCor, has one against him too.

It has been a wild 2017 already for the singer. It very clearly seems he still does not have control over his anger issues. On New Year’s, Brown apparently got into a violent fight with rapper Soulja Boy over Tran.  Then on February 17, 2017, Tran, who for years was Brown’s on again, off again girlfriend finally stood up for herself and sought protection for herself-she sought a restraining order against Brown.  In court documents she filed she alleged that Brown punched her in the stomach and pushed her down the stairs several years ago but that she did not call the police or report the incident (Tran, you are way too good to endure this type of relationship–all women, all humans are.) and that recently Brown has been sending her threatening texts. In the court documents, she included the following: “He told a few people that he was going to kill me. He said if no one else can have me, he’s gonna ‘take me out.” Due to his violent history, especially violence against women, a Chris Brown threat should not be ignored. And the LA court did not ignore the. They granted the request and now Chris Brown must stay away from Karrueche Tran or risk arrest, among other things.

So, how does LaCor fit into this story? Well, apparently Brown can’t leave well enough alone as it relates to Tran and has allegedly threatened to shoot Tran’s bestie, LaCor leaving LaCor with no choice but to seek the court’s protection as well.

In documents LaCor filed, it stated that Chris said about Tran and LaCor “no matter where we go, he will find us and shoot the place up.” LaCor also spoke of past conduct by Brown.  “Chris Brown has threatened me and run up on me for not allowing him to bully Karrueche Tran in my presence. More recently, making threats to her saying that he will beat anyone that is friends with her.”  

LaCor’s allegations are specific and also include details of a harrowing night hanging out with Tran at a 2017 Super Bowl party; Brown was also there. LaCor said that he was at the party for two hours when two men confronted him and told him to leave or he was, “going to have problems.” He said he decided to leave and that’s when, “Chris Brown ran up to me, got in my face, saying, ‘It’s 2017, Ima f–k you up every time I see you. So you better get the f–k out of here before I lay your ass out.””

LaCor also claims that Brown yelled at another friend of LaCor’s and threw a drink in her face.  After that, smart move by LaCor–he left the party. Given all this information, the TRO was issued and now Brown must stay away from LaCor as well. Quite a collection Brown is building.

Brown has allegedly been diagnosed with bipolar disorder but too bad for him that is not a legal excuse to threaten people or assault them. With all this recent unacceptable, illegal, scary behavior, you’d think that Brown doesn’t know what is at stake.  But after all his run-ins with the law, especially the domestic violence occurrence with Rihanna, he most certainly does.  No excuse, Brown. Get help.

At PROOF we love celebrity news as much as you do.  So if you want more, celebrity news about your favorites, we welcome you to explore the rest of the site.

 

Mueller Cannot Pursue Slander Claims Against Taylor Swift

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs

A DJ who was accused by Taylor Swift of groping her against her will will not be able to pursue slander claims against the Grammy-winning songwriter.

Swift accused DJ David Mueller of reaching under her skirt and touching her inappropriately during a meet and greet in 2013. She reported it to his superiors at radio station KYGO, and he was later fired. Mueller sued the singer accusing her of costing him his job and damaging his reputation, and also said she was slandering him by reporting the alleged incident to the radio station that employed him (Law lesson: the fact that he reported it to job isn’t what makes it  slander. As soon as someone announces a falsehood about someone to someone else and there is damage to reputation, the slander claim is triggered).

Swift turned around and counter-sued Mueller, and in true Swift style (and one of the reasons we at PROOF love her) says she’ll donate any funds she recovers to “charitable organizations dedicated to protecting women from similar acts of sexual assault and personal disregard.”

In May 2017,  judge threw out Mueller’s slander claim saying, “There would appear to be nothing improper about Swift — or any other person — making an honest report to an entity with which she does business that one of its employees assaulted or harassed her.”

Meanwhile, Mueller has also been accused by Swift’s team of destroying evidence related to the case. He allegedly taped a conversation pertaining to an investigation into the incident, but only preserved a few key snippets.

The case is due back in court later this summer.

Need more stories to feed your celebrity news fix? Check out what PROOF has to say about celebrity divorce, celebrity arrests, and other breaking celebrity news.

New Lawsuit Alleges That Disastrous Fyre Festival Was Nothing More Than ‘Get-Rich-Quick Scam’

Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Ja Rule, Legal

Last week, social media exploded with shocking photos of the doomed luxury music festival in the Bahamas known as the Fyre Festival. Organizers, rapper Ja Rule and businessman Billy McFarland, had promised a luxury festival with A-list bands like Blink 182 and Major Lazer, gourmet food, and cush accommodations, and ticket holders had paid between 1,200 and $100,000 apiece to attend.

But when attendees began arriving April 27, all they found was a gravelly field, wind-and-rain-battered FEMA-like tents and bread and cheese for dinner. By Friday morning, the festival had been canceled — and the festival goers found themselves with few options to get home quickly. Organizers had encouraged them to leave their cash at home, and use pre-loaded festival wristbands instead, so, according to the lawsuit, many had no way to get a taxi to the airport.

So how did everything go so very wrong? According to a $100 million class action lawsuit filed by celeb lawyer Mark Geragos on behalf of attendee Daniel Jung, the festival organizers, who began promoting the festival back in December 2016, failed to deliver on even the most basic of their promises, and left the attendees in a life-or-death situation.

The suit alleges, “Defendants intended to fleece attendees for hundreds of millions of dollars by inducing them to fly to a remote island without food, shelter or water — and without regard to what might happen to them after that.”

The suit claims that the atmosphere on the island was less like Coachella and more like The Hunger Games, or Lord of the Flies, and goes as far as to allege that enticing the attendees to the island without basic services and no easy way to leave was “tantamount to false imprisonment.”

Festival organizers blamed inexperience. “We were overwhelmed and just didn’t have the foresight to solve all these problems,” McFarland has reportedly said. “The reality is, we weren’t experienced enough to keep up.”

But that explanation is just not good enough, according to the lawsuit. “This outrageous failure to prepare, coupled with Defendants’ deliberate falsehoods in promoting the island ‘experience,’ demonstrates that the Fyre Festival was nothing more than a get-rich-quick scam from the very beginning.”
Ja Rule strongly denied that allegation, telling Rolling Stone, “My partners and I wanted this to be an amazing event, it was NOT A SCAM as everyone is reporting. I don’t know how everything went so [wrong] but I’m working to make it right by making sure everyone is refunded.”

Refunds are allegedly in the works, and perhaps shockingly, the festival organizers say they’re moving forward with plans to hold the festival in 2018 in a U.S. location.

Kelly Rutherford Child Custody | Celebrity News

Kelly Rutherford Finally Enjoys a Victory Over Her Ex

Bankruptcy, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebs and Divorce, Custody, Divorce, Gossip Girl, Kelly Rutherford

Kelly Rutherford may have lost her kids to her ex but she’s not losing her money to him – or at least not as much as he wanted. Hardly a consolation, I know, but there is some feeling of “justice” is there not that Rutherford’s ex husband, Daniel Giersch, will only be awarded a fraction of the $1.5 million he sought in her bankruptcy case?

By now, most fans of celebrity news know that the former “Gossip Girl” actress’ split with her ex erupted in the custody battle to end all custody battles. That terrible story came to a close a little over a year ago when, sadly, a Monaco judge ruled that Giersch should be granted full custody of their two children, Hermes and Helena. The judge also ruled that the children could no longer come back to the United States to visit their mother. It was a devastating blow for the actress who had been fighting for years to keep them in the U.S. The legal fees she incurred and the time she had to take off work having to fight that fight wiped Rutherford out financially. The actress was left with no choice but to file bankruptcy. Rutherford lost her kids and her money in this hellish ordeal so dear readers, please prominently put Rutherford’s story in the reality check file when you think about the truth of celebrity power, money and fame. Thankfully, though the bankruptcy matter is now resolved. A bankruptcy trustee, an impartial person who reviews all the debts and assets of the person who filed bankruptcy and whose job it is to figure out how to pay claims of valid creditors. (Note that the word impartial is critical here–the trustee is not on anyone’s side-not the people owed money or the person who filed bankruptcy.) recently filed a report that showed Giersch, to whom the actress was married to from 2006-1010, will only get $163,000 of the $1.5 million he claimed.

I know, it’s kind of a bummer that he is getting anything at all seeing as what he put the mother of his children through but at least Rutherford can close this chapter of her life. Law lovers, no pun intended by the chapter reference. And for those who aren’t sure what I mean by that– bankruptcy proceedings are referred to as chapters, depending on the type of case filed: Chapter 11, Chapter 7, Chapter 13, etc.  The chapters are simply a reference to the specific title or section of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the law that governs bankruptcy proceedings) upon which the case is based.

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

Shia LeBeouf Charges Dropped | Celebrity News | Celebrity Gossip

Charges Dropped Against Shia LaBeouf in Assault and Harassment Case

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Court, Shia LaBeouf

Shia LaBeouf, a PROOF favorite, got some legal good news. Charges have been dismissed against the activist actor stemming from his January arrest in New York City that resulted from an alleged fight with a protester at his anti-Trump live stream protest/performance piece, “He Will Not Divide Us.”

As we previously reported, in January, LaBeouf was charged with misdemeanor assault and a harassment violation after that alleged fight.  Apparently, the actor got into a verbal fight in front of the Museum of the Moving Image, the site where the performance piece was streaming and the victim accused LaBeouf of scratching his face when he pulled his scarf. The alleged victim did not seek medical attention. LaBeouf was released a few hours after the arrest. He was given a DAT–a desk appearance ticket–which mandated that he was to return to Queens County Criminal Court for arraignment.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office have now reviewed the facts and information and have decided not to prosecute.  A spokesperson with the Queens District Attorney’s Office has confirmed that and said the charges against LaBeouf have been dropped for insufficient evidence. (Here’s a little fun PROOF point: I was an Assistant District Attorney in Queens. It’s my favorite New York borough– for law, not really for fun, that’s Manhattan!).

Shia LaBeouf, Luke Turner, and Nastja Ronkko, the artists behind “He Will Not Divide Us” began the performance piece on inauguration day, January 20, 2017.  Interested parties were invited to say, “He will not divide us” into a camera outside the Museum of Moving Image. The “protesters” were encouraged to repeat the phrase as often and as many times as they wanted into the camera. The artists intended the project to last four years. With the divisiveness that surrounds President Trump, the message the artists had hoped to get across was a powerful one, a unifying one. But, the art installation was shut down by the museum on February 10, 2017 because it had become “unexpectedly volatile.”

The artists then moved the project to a theater in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Things were not much better there as it was soon shut down due to gun shots. On February 23, 2017,LaBeouf himself tweeted “We have taken the stream down after shots were reported in the area. The safety of everybody participating in our project is paramount.”

Since then the project moved to a gallery, Foundation for Art and Creative Technology (FACT) in Liverpool, England (not far from where Turner is from). The artists made a statement on FACTS’s website stating that that the project moved because “events have shown that America is simply not safe enough for this artwork to exist.” Unfortunately though, on March 23, 2017, the artists and FACT announced that police advised them to remove the installation due to dangerous, illegal trespassing.

Despite the intent of the artist to maintain “He Will Not Divide Us” as a peaceful, nonviolent art performance, the fact that it has been rocked at each location as well as the subject of much talk on hate and violence filled sites on the internet is not only sad but very scary.

We at PROOF applaud the artists for their creativity, bravery, and interest in unity–we await the next move for “He Will Not Divide Us.”

 

If you like the celebrity news article you just read, please check out the rest of PROOF—we are chock full of interesting celebrity news articles.

 

Court of Appeals Says It’s Okay for Mayweather to Post About Ex’s Abortion

Celeb News, Celebrities and Domestic Violence, Celebrity Lawsuits, Floyd Mayweather, Shantel Jackson, Shantel Jackson Domestic Violence, Violence Against Women

I do not like Floyd Mayweather. I do not like how he treated a woman he at one time allegedly loved nor do I like how he has treated other women with whom he has had relationships. Floyd Mayweather has a long history of violence against women. He has even served time for it though he has rather unremorsefully said that because there are no pictures of any of these abusive incidents that he should not be compared to O.J. Simpson or Chris Brown.

The topic of this post though isn’t his violence against women but rather addresses a complex legal issue involving the right to privacy and the First Amendment in a matter that went to the California Court of Appeals. It stems from a lawsuit Mayweather’s ex fiance, Shantel Jackson filed in which she sought damages after Mayweather posted on social media that the reason he broke up with her was because she had an abortion.  While Mayweather’s behavior is clearly reprehensible, it did not violate any laws, so says the Court of Appeals in its March 27, 2017, decision (to read full opinion, click here).

The court ruled that Mayweather did not violate Jackson’s privacy because their high-profile relationship was for public consumption and that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information. The bottom line is that celebs who date other celebs have less rights to privacy than regular folks do so basically it’s okay to abortion shame Jackson because she really did have an abortion and because both she and Mayweather were willingly in the public eye. Here in the US, we call that free speech–even if it’s hurtful, even if it’s damaging.  

Mayweather and Jackson’s relationship was far from a fairy tale. In the complaint Jackson filed back in September 2014, she shared details of a very stormy, abusive relationship. She was 21 years old, and an aspiring model when she met him; he was a well known professional boxer. The couple was constantly making up and breaking up. In January 2014, Jackson told Mayweather she had aborted their twin fetuses. He broke up with her after that. A few months later, Jackson attended a basketball game with the rapper Nelly. Jackson posted about Nelly. Mayweather then threatened to post nude images of Jackson if she didn’t take down her posts about Nelly. She refused. Mayweather took to social media and wrote, “the real reason me and Shantel Christine Jackson @MissJackson broke up was because she got an abortion, and I’m totally against killing babies. She killed our twin babies. #ShantelJackson #Floyd Mayweather #TheMoneyTeam #TMT.” Mayweather went even further and posted a sonogram of the twin fetuses. He also discussed her abortion and her cosmetic surgeries on the radio.

Mayweather’s legal team alleged that Jackson’s suit was frivolous. In keeping with California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which helps the courts get rid of frivolous or malicious lawsuits) statute when deciding the issue, Justice Perluss, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven in California looked at whether or not the plaintiff’s claims come from protected activity on an issue of public interest.

Perluss wrote that it was not necessary to figure out if Mayweather’s comments about “killing babies” contributed to the public’s abortion discussion because Jackson and Mayweather “are both high profile individuals who were subject to extensive media scrutiny. As such, Mayweather’s postings and comments concerning his relationship with Jackson, as well as Jackson’s pregnancy, its termination and her cosmetic surgery, were ‘celebrity gossip’ properly considered, under established case law, as statements in connection with an issue of public interest.”

The Justice wrote, “Jackson’s pregnancy, the subsequent termination of that pregnancy — whether by abortion (which she has neither admitted nor denied) or otherwise — and her use of cosmetic surgery to enhance her appearance would, under many circumstances, be considered intensely private information; and its unwanted disclosure might well be offensive to a reasonable person.”

So for many people divulging information like whether or not you had plastic surgery or an abortion would be an invasion of privacy, but the judge went on, “Nonetheless, at a time when entertainment news and celebrity gossip often seem to matter more than serious policy discussions, given Jackson’s high profile and voluntary disclosure on social media of many aspects of her personal life, the publication of those otherwise intimate facts must necessarily be considered newsworthy under the broad definition of that term developed and applied by the Supreme Court and courts of appeal.”

That basically means if you are a celebrity or high-profile person who regularly posts personal things you can’t suddenly decide that you want privacy. If you are active on social media and share with the world personal facts, then you do not have a viable legal leg to stand on if someone posts personal facts about you–as long as they are true.  

On the whole the decision was  a big win for Mayweather, however, Perluss did make sure to say that posting the sonogram (which went viral), “served no legitimate public purpose, even when one includes entertainment news within the zone of protection” and that it was “outside the protection afforded a newsworthy report.” Posting that image went too far and is not protected.

The appellate court also addressed Mayweather’s statement that he ended his relationship with Jackson due to the abortion and whether any damage resulted from it. The court wrote, “Given that Jackson has not contested the truth of Mayweather’s declaration that she had an abortion, the statement that Mayweather ended his relationship with Jackson for that reason does not appear to be defamatory. On its face, the allegedly false part of the posts (the cause of the breakup) did not expose Jackson to contempt, ridicule or other reputational injury. Indeed, the evidence Jackson presented of negative public reaction and the emotional distress she suffered as a result of Mayweather’s May 1, 2014 posts focused on the abortion of the twin fetuses, not Mayweather’s role in, or reasons for, ending the couple’s relationship.”

The main take away from the Court’s 37 page opinion, is that celebs who date celebs and who routinely put their personal life out there for public consumption have reduced rights to privacy And, as long as what is said is true, there is no cause of action on which to base a lawsuit.

The world can now go back to pretending that Mayweather isn’t a bad guy and is just a loving dad who throws elaborate birthday parties for his 16 year old son and is known as one of “boxing’s greatest money makers.” Seems like that’s all most people care about anyway.  Shame.

At PROOF there’s nothing we like to do more than to share celebrity news; and we love sharing that celebrity news with you! Browse the site and see what hits you.

celebrity News | celebrity Gossip

5 of the Most Horrific On Set Accidents

Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Entertainment Industry, Lawsuits, Negligence Lawsuits, Workers' Compensation

Just as with any workplace, injuries occur on movie sets. Sometimes things go very, very wrong there and serious injury or even death of an actor or crew member results. When injuries occur on set, the cast or crew member may be able to pursue a claim–whether it’s a third party claim based on someone else’s negligence or a workers comp claim in which fault is not a factor. Josh Turim, a leading workers’ compensation lawyer, has made this point very clear: “A film’s cast and crew are entitled to the same kind of protections employees from all industries are entitled to if injured on the job. The only difference is that, if injured, they might make national news while that is seldom the case with other on the job injuries”

Celebrity News | Celebrity Gossip

To further illustrate entertainment industry perils, we’re going through five of the biggest on set accidents of all time.

One of the most controversial on set accidents in recent years occurred on February 20, 2014, the first day of filming “Midnight Rider.”  The crew was on an active railroad trestle bridge in Wayne County, Georgia. A second camera assistant, Sarah Jones, was killed when she was struck by a CSX freight train. Seven other crew members were also hurt, one of them seriously.

This situation was so egregious that the producer, Randall Miller, the writer Jody Savin, executive producer Jay Sedrish, and first assistant director Hillary Schwartz were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespass, as well as being cited by OSHA for “serious” and “willful” safety violations (OSHA stands for Occupational Safety and Health Administration and is part of the US Department of Labor. As a government agency, OSHA’s job is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for workers). On March 9, 2015, Miller pled guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing; he was sentenced to 10 years (He is only expected to serve two years. This is not because he is a famous Hollywood person but rather because this is fairly typical in this type of situation). Sedrish also pled guilty and was convicted of felony involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing. He was sentenced to ten years of probation. The charges against Savin, who is married to Miller, were dropped as part of the plea agreement with her husband. Very interesting deal Miller and Savin’s lawyers worked out.  It should also be noted that the victim’s family reached a settlement on the civil suit with Miller, Savin, and Sedrish, among others.

The death of Brandon Lee is perhaps the most famous on set death of an actor of all time. On March 31, 1993, Lee, who was the son of the famous martial artist Bruce Lee, was shooting the movie “The Crow,” in Wilmington, North Carolina. In one of the last scenes, Lee’s character was to be shot and killed. Unbeknownst to anyone on set, a real bullet, was lodged in the barrel of the gun being used in the scene. When the blank cartridge was loaded, the real bullet remained so that when the blank was fired, the real bullet came out as well. While filming the scene, Lee was shot in the abdomen and died from his injuries.

Probably the most brutal onset death is one that took place back in the ‘80s on the set of “The Twilight Zone” movie. The film called for an explosion to occur under a helicopter that was flying. The helicopter, however, did not fly high enough to get out of reach of the explosion and was affected by it. The helicopter spun out of control, decapitating two people and crushing another. Two children (Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen) died , as did one adult (Vic Morrow). After this shocking incident, much of Hollywood avoided using helicopters for stunts until CGI (computer generated imagery) came around.

Another on set death death occurred during the filming of the movie “Jumper” back in 2007.  To create exterior set pieces, the crew used a mixture of sand, dirt and ice. Sadly, when set designer, David Ritchie was removing part of the set, a large piece of the mixture fell on him. He was crushed instantly.

Given all the magic on the sets of the “Harry Potter” franchise, there were relatively few injuries.. One of the worst accidents, however, took place during filming of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 1.” Daniel Radcliffe’s stunt double, David Holmes, was filming a scene in which he was thrown against a wall. The stunt did not go as planned and Holmes was thrown too hard. He fractured his neck and suffered other serious injuries that led him to be paralyzed from the neck down.

All of these onset accidents make it clear that a Hollywood workplace is not different from any other workplace–real injuries can and do occur.  Even the experts in Tinseltown are not immune from major mistakes with major consequences.

 

Scroll to Top