Main Menu
Main Menu

Celebrity News

Eva Longoria's Restaurant Sued | Celeb News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Eva Longoria’s Restaurant, Beso, Sued…Again!

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Eva Longoria, Trending

In 2008, entrepreneur/actress Eva Longoria opened Beso, a Latin restaurant located in the heart of Hollywood. Naturally, at the outset it was packed with big celebs such as Brad Pitt, Courtney Cox, and Ryan Seacrest. It was quite a hot spot. It also garnered and continues to garner solid reviews on Yelp, Open Table and Trip Advisor. So, what’s with all the lawsuits? Well, thankfully none of them are for food poisoning. But, not so sure Hollywood elite are going to return there instead of heading straight for Catch, arguably the hottest hot spot of late 2016 and likely 2017!

The most recent suit against Beso, filed on December 20, 2016, is for injury and premises liability and seeks damages in excess of $25,000. Premises liability is a legal term and pretty self explanatory: an injury occurs on someone’s property. In order to win a premises liability case in California the injured party (plaintiff) must prove that the defendant owned, occupied, leased or controlled the property, was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property, the plaintiff was harmed and that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing that harm. In this case, Paul Michael Flores claims that he was struck several times while at Beso, by a Beso employee. Further complicating things for Beso is that the incident occurred during an after party for one of Longoria’s movie, Lowriders; and Flores alleges that violence that night was foreseeable because of actors from East LA gangs were present at the party and Beso knew they would be present. This is not good news for Longoria. Would have been better had a random patron on a random night struck Flores. I’ll keep an eye on this lawsuit but settlement likely assuming Flores’ injuries are real and the evidence supports his claims.

As for Beso’s other lawsuits? The 2010 and 2013 lawsuits also claimed premises liability and injuries one involving a physical altercation and another involving a slip and fall. Those suits were ultimately both resolved and dismissed. In 2011, Beso was hit with another slip and fall lawsuit that has also been resolved. (There’s another 2011 suit that is contract based and named Eva Longoria individually as a defendant but that relates to her failed Las Vegas location under the same name.)

So, whether Longoria and her team (which includes celebrity chef Todd English) can keep fighting these lawsuits and still run a successful establishment in a town overflowing with restaurants and clubs remains to be seen but certainly all this violence is not helping.

Kendall Jenner robbed | celebrity news

Kendall Jenner is the Latest Kardashian to Have Her Jewelry Stolen

Burglaries, Celebrity News, Celebs, Crimes, Criminal Law, Kardashian, Kendall Jenner

Another day, another Kardashian crime victim–thankfully no threat of violence in this one.

Kendall Jenner is reporting that $200,000 worth of jewelry was stolen from her jewelry box in her Hollywood Hills home. While this theft occurred in the midst of the rash of celebrity burglaries at the hands of the knock-knock burglars, it’s not likely the result of that gang of thieves (For more information about the recent knock-knock burglaries, click here).  Most think the culprit is someone Kendall knows or a friend of a friend who has access to her house because there were no signs of forced entry at the property.

On March 15, the 21-year-old hosted a party at her $6.5 million mansion, but for some reason she left her home for about an hour around midnight. Kendall’s security guard was stationed outside of the home but that didn’t prevent the bling stealing. Both a Rolex and Cartier are among Kendall’s missing goods. Apparently, Kendall didn’t realize the items were missing until after 1 AM but she called the police as soon as she did and reported the theft.

Much like her sister, Kim after the Paris burglary, Kendall fired the security guard who was hired to protect her and her house. Can’t imagine either of these guys thought they might be keeping their jobs. Good, swift decision, Kendall. You need someone who can actually do what they’re hired to do.

To date a suspect has not been identified but Jenner’s home has surveillance cameras so police are hopeful the footage will help find whoever is responsible for this crime.

Obviously we do not think Kendall deserved this anymore than Kim did or all the other celebs who have had their property stolen these past few months but police do suggest that celebs stop posting about their lavish lives on social media — it just makes it all too easy for criminals.  

Interestingly, Detective Dunn of the LAPD also suggests that celebs “go public” and describe what has been stolen as it can help recover the items. For example, this has helped recover a stolen Super Bowl ring, among other things.

Though we know it’s not popular to say we feel bad for a Kardashian but we do feel sorry for Kendall. At PROOF we don’t like to see anyone used, taken advantage of or being the victim of a crime just because of who they are. We hope the thief responsible is apprehended and the world soon knows the type of “friend” this person really is.

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

3 Nasty Neighborhood Disputes | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

3 Nasty Celebrity Neighbor Disputes

Ashley Greene, Celebrity News, Daily, Justin Bieber, Life, Minnie Driver, Top Stories
  1. Minnie Driver. Poor Minnie, only in her new house a few months when her neighbors, the Perelmutters, start complaining about use of a shared driveway (usage that had already been resolved in a 2008 lawsuit in which they were involved). The Perelmutters are alleging that Minnie has thrown baby food jars full of black paint at their house, has prevented access to parts of their home, has hurled expletives at them and, according to an Amended Complaint filed August 2, 2016, are suing her for assault, trespass, private, nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Minnie obtained a temporary restraining order against Perelmutter in Spring 2016 based on allegations that he blew smoke in her son’s face and cursed at them. And, in September 2016, filed a cross complaint against the Perelmutters. This one is going to stay pretty ugly. 
    Update: A judge agreed with Minnie Driver and on January 18, 2017, Perelmutter was ordered to knock down the wall he built as well as perform 10 days of community service. Perelmutter has until April 2017 to comply; if he doesn’t, he’s off to jail.

  2. Justin Bieber. Living near the “Sorry” star in theory, sounds like it would be pretty fun but ,most know now that reality of being the Biebs’ neighbor is less than well, neighborly. Kristen Bell and Dax Shepherd compared living next to him like “living in Lebanon” and former NFL wide receiver Keyshawn Johnson called the 19-year-old “entitled,” as he described how Bieber speeds up and down the street, and spits on people in the neighborhood. Finally, in 2015 some neighbors did something about it. Jeffrey and Suzanne Schwartz have sued Bieber and his bodyguards for harassing them and their family, vandalizing their house with eggs and threatening them with anti-Semitic remarks. A trial date has not yet been set.

  3. Ashley Greene. Though she seems to have won the hearts of many as Edward Cullen’s sister, Alice, in Twilight, this Hollywood star is not so beloved by her neighbors or doorman at her former West Hollywood apartment. She was sued by them as a result of a fire allegedly caused by a candle she left lit in the apartment in March 2013. The neighbors specifically alleged negligence, emotional distress, nuisance, breach of contract, and trespass and the doorman claimed he sustained injuries while helping tenants escape the burning building. The tenants also said Ashley never apologized for the starting the fire—not a legally actionable claim but an apology may have gone a long way with some of them. The fire was accidental and one of Ashley’s dogs perished in it. In late 2015, Ashley (or more likely, her insurance company) settled the claim for a confidential amount and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice.
No Grand Theft of Lohan | Celebrity Gossip | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Game Over for Lindsay Lohan in Video Game Case

Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Lindsay Lohan

Lindsay Lohan is no stranger to the judicial system, but this time she was a plaintiff (not a criminal defendant) seeking compensation from Grand Theft Auto V’s  (GTA V) developer, Rockstar Games, and parent company, Take-Two Interactive Software, for featuring a game character, Lacey Jonas, allegedly modeled off of her. Karen Gravano, star of Mob Wives, filed a separate suit against the same defendants, claiming that another game character, Andrea Bottini, resembled her appearance, her voice and her life story.

The basis of both claims were similar: a violation of a New York right-of-publicity law which says that use of a person’s image or voice for advertising or trade purposes is unlawful without consent from the individual.  Both Lohan and Gravano argued there was no prior permission or consent to use what they claimed were their images and/or voice. As for Lohan’s claims, the lawsuit noted two specific images of a “red bikini girl” that are seen on the GTA V box cover and at the start of the game. Ms. Lohan’s legal team contended that the cartoon blonde woman is a rendition of Lohan whose bikini, accessories, hair, and peace sign all resemble her. The lawsuit states “The Plaintiff has been using the peace sign hand gesture for years before and after its use in the video game.” The second image at issue appears on the disc cover and displays a woman being frisked by a police officer. The character is wearing a fedora style hat, sunglasses, daisy dukes and a white tee shirt with words Love First on it. Lohan’s lawyers claimed that the defendant “capitalized on the use of [the Plaintiffs] clothes style” and that there appeared to be an LO on the character’s shirt  which is “subliminally suggesting ‘LO’ for Lohan”.  Not sure how else you can spell LOVE without an “L” and an “O” but Lindsay’s lawyers still made this claim with a straight face. They further argued that a GTA V player avatar, whose mission includes helping a celebrity actress escape the paparazzi, includes identical events to Lohan’s real life (like all the fun times she had at Chateau Marmont where she allegedly racked up more than $45,000 in unpaid bills).

In March,  a New York judge denied Defendants’ motion dismiss the case. They appealed that decision and, on September 1, 2016, an appellate panel of 5 judges, who combined the Lohan and Gravano matters as they addressed the same legal issues, dismissed the lawsuits, saying “…this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of advertising or trade.” Basically this means that even if the depictions of the characters did resemble Lohan and Gravano the right of publicity law on which the claims were based was not applicable and did not provide legal protection. The judges found that the game lacked direct name references and exact facial features of Gravano and Lohan and that it had its own unique story, characters, dialogue, and environment.  All of that combined with the player’s ability to choose how to proceed in the game, render it a work of fiction and satire and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Who knew Lindsay Lohan would play a role in the development of constitutional law??

Well, looks like it’s Game Over for Lohan and Gravano—unless they appeal; and I don’t think that’s likely.

Top Criminal Lawyer Elizabeth New Jersey | Teresa Guidice Mug Shot | Celebrity Criminal News | PROOF with Jill stanley

Teresa and Joe Giudice Thought They Were Above the Law

Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Criminal Law, Joe Guidice, Real Housewives of New Jersey, Teresa Guidice

Teresa and Joe Giudice of Real Housewives of New Jersey notoriety (notice I don’t say fame) bragged constantly on air and social media about their family, their money and their material possessions. To many, they were brash, rude and offensive so in 2013 when they faced a federal multi-count indictment detailing white collar crimes ranging from conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud to making false statements on loan applications, to bankruptcy fraud, among other things, there was not a great deal of empathy for the showy duo. (Note that Joe faced additional charges for failing to file tax returns from 2004-2008.)

Teresa and Joe pleaded not guilty to the charges in the federal indictment and so solid (delusional?) was Teresa’s belief in her innocence that her lawyer stated that they were looking forward to vindication. As we all well know, that vindication was not to come because on March 4, 2014, Teresa and Joe struck a plea deal with prosecutors. They each pleaded guilty to various counts of fraud; Joe’s plea included a count for failing to file tax returns.

Borneo_testimonial2

On October 2, 2014, the mother of four was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.  Joe was sentenced to 41 months, followed by possible deportation to Italy, where he was born (his parents moved him to the Garden State when he was a year old). In addition the couple was ordered to pay $414,000 in restitution.

From the bench, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, who presided over the case, said to Teresa, “For a moment I thought about probation but I think a period of confinement is absolutely necessary in this case.” The judge added, “I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law. I need to send a message. In the eyes of the law, it doesn’t matter who you are. There are consequences to pay.”

And pay they have … Teresa went off first and began her sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut on January 5, 2015. She was released two months early on the morning of December 23, 2015. Respected Elizabeth New Jersey criminal lawyer, Michael Borneo, said the following about Teresa’s sentence: “Judges typically have tremendous discretion when sentencing a criminal defendant. It amazes me how often clients show disrespect to the court and learn this lesson the hard way. By all accounts, Teresa Giudice could have avoided prison. Her poor attitude tilted the scales of justice against her.”

Joe is a different story and is currently serving his 41-month sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey. Note that this matter isn’t Joe’s first run-in with the law nor his first criminal conviction. In November 2013, he stood trial on charges that in 2010 he used his brother’s marriage and birth certificates to illegally obtain a driver’s license. Joe’s license had been suspended as a result of a DUI earlier that year and apparently he thought this was a good way to get a new one! All that waiting around at DMV for nothing.  Joe was convicted, his license was revoked for 12 months, and he was sentenced to 20 days of community service.

Many of us had hoped that being convicted of a crime, publicly humiliated, and shipped off to prison forcing her to be away from her beloved daughters (despite her many shortcomings it is obvious that Teresa is committed to her family and loves her girls very much) would have changed Teresa but it appears it did not. Teresa maintains her innocence and ignorance about the charges levied against her. She still posts pictures of herself and her girls on Instagram which depict a lavish style–one of fancy clothes, jewelry, and just plain over abundance. Prison may be a reality check for many but not for this Jersey reality queen.

I do give great credit to Judge Salas for allowing Joe and Teresa to serve their sentences at different times so that one parent could be home with the children while the other was “locked up”. The kids didn’t ask for this drama in their lives and having both parents gone at the same time would have been very traumatic for them.

If you enjoyed reading about the criminal mess these New Jersey “celebs” created for themselves, please visit the rest of PROOF for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.

Delta2

Top Criminal Lawyer Elizabeth NJ

[Category: Teresa Giudice | New Jersey | Top Criminal Lawyer Elizabeth NJ]

Mariah Carey New Year's Eve Meltdown | Celeb Legal Gossip | PROOF with Jill Stanley

There Could Be Legal Ramifications in the Mariah Carey New Year’s Eve Debacle

Celebrities, Celebrity News, Celebs, Mariah Carey

Depending on the language of the contract, Mariah could sue Dick Clark Productions for breach of contract for failing to provide what she needed or even reasonably expected in order for her to perform properly thus causing her to suffer damage to her reputation. On the flip side, Dick Clark Productions may also have a breach of contract claim because Mariah, being a very experienced singer, should have been able to work through the “technical glitches” in a more professional way and one in which fulfilled the requirements mandated by the contract.

The finger pointing has already begun with Mariah’s camp saying Dick Clark Productions engaged in acts of sabotage against her and Dick Clark Productions camp saying it was Mariah’s decision not to do a sound check herself, and, the sound was just fine — ear piece or not.

With more than 2 million people in Times Square on New Year’s Eve, millions more watching at home, and the millions Mariah likely received for her performance, there’s a lot at stake here. But how about a shout out for the dancers? They seemed to handle it all in stride!

Tupac and the Truth: Journalist Sues Lions Gat for Copyright Infringement

Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Tupac and the Truth

PROOF readers you likely know by now, I love intellectual property cases and this one about the new Tupac movie is topping my charts (Bad pun. I’m a sucker for them and until you all complain, I’m not sure I’ll be able to stop making them). Here’s what’s going on and it’s really quite interesting from both a storytelling and a legal perspective.

In a recently filed lawsuit, journalist Kevin Powell claims that portions of the Tupac Shakur biopic, All Eyez On Me, were directly inspired by several cover stories Powell penned for VIBE magazine prior to the rapper’s death. Powell is suing the writers and producers of the movie, including Lions Gate Films, for copyright infringement. He said the following in a statement posted on his Facebook page, “After viewing the movie twice in the past few days, it is clear that my exclusive Vibe cover stories on Tupac Shakur (when he was alive), were lifted, without proper credit or compensation of any kind to me, and used in ALL EYEZ ON ME.”

The film purports to be a biopic telling the story of a real man’s life, so if you’re wondering how Powell can claim copyright infringement to a story that’s not his in the first place, this is where things get interesting. One of the central claims in the recently filed lawsuit is that Powell recognized a central character from his own articles, a character that he fabricated. Yes, made up!  “The name and character of ‘Nigel’ in the Original Work was specifically created by the Plaintiff without the authority or encouragement of Tupac Shakur,“  says Powell’s lawyer, Keith White. “This made-up character was copied and pasted into Defendant’s film to play the same central character and role in the Infringing Work as he did in the Original Work.” (FYI: the infringing work is All Eyez on Me and the original work are Powell’s articles).

According to White, Nigel was an “embellishment” of a real person, Jacques “Haitian Jack” Agnant, a music executive said to be influential in Tupac’s life. In his articles, Powell referred to the exec only by Nigel, the fictitious name. To be clear: no person in Tupac’s life was named Nigel!  Perhaps because Powell referred to Nigel in interviews that the name Haitian Jack (the real person) and Nigel (the made up person) became conflated in popular culture before this film was made and released. However, if that’s the case, then Lions Gate should have made this connection very clear or called the character by his proper name, Haitian Jack, or even better should have asked Powell for the authority to use the name Nigel and discussed appropriate compensation and/or recognition for that use. Interesting that in a recent interview with actor Cory Hardrict, who plays Nigel in All Eyez On Me, he refers to his character as Haitian Jack but on IMDB Cory is listed as playing the character of Nigel. There’s not a mention of anyone named Jacques Agnant or Haitian Jack anywhere on the entire IMDB cast list for the movie. PROOF is curious to know how they referred to Cory’s character on set or in the script or when the actors was discussing the character with the director.  

It is kind of a bummer for Powell to have to admit to this Nigel embellishment as some might consider that a lapse in journalistic integrity but the lawsuit cites several additional claims of infringement including, but not limited to, that in the film there is a focus on the ongoing relationship between Tupac and a journalist, (Apparently, no other project about Tupac has this as a featured relationship.) and also that the film concentrates on a sequence of arrests between 1991 and 1993 and that the pacing and coverage of these arrests is exactly like that of Powell’s. To the full complaint and all of the allegations, click here.

We do know that the filmmakers were well aware of Powell’s articles (this is kind of a given in that anyone doing even cursory research of Tupac’s life would have come across Powell’s Vibe articles; they were very widely read) as the lawsuit references an interview by one of the film’s producers, LT Hutton, in which Hutton admits that “all of the interviews” that Tupac gave were used to inform the film.This statement is pretty telling in that it confirms that Powell’s work was referenced for the film. To what degree they were referenced and whether that rises to the level of infringement is what a jury is going to have to decide.

Powell seeks compensation from the film’s box office sales, requests that the film be pulled from movie theaters (Specifically, he wants the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further broadcast of the film) and wants defendants to destroy all copies of the movie, among other things.


Note that despite poor reviews and complaints voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith (via Twitter) and 50 Cent (via Instagram) about various aspects of the film, All Eyez on Me brought in $27 million during its first weekend in national theaters. One thing about this complex intellectual property case is clear however: Powell’s claims are not small ones and the matter is not going to go away quietly. That’s just not the kind of person Kevin Powell is.

MIscha Barton sex tape | celebrity news

A Small Victory for Mischa Barton in Revenge Porn Case

Celebrities, Celebrity News, Celebs, Celebs and Restraining Orders, Evidence, Mischa Barton, Restraining Order

Victory for Mischa Barton who has received a restraining order against two ex boyfriends, Jon Zacharias and Adam Shaw, two lovely fellows who not only filmed her without her consent or knowledge but also have been shopping around a sex tape of her without her consent or knowledge. The 31-year-old alleges that the tapes were made with hidden cameras.

The court has ordered her ex boyfriends to stay an undisclosed distance away from her and not contact her. The order also stops anyone who is considering trafficking the video.

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the former “O.C.” star. She was recently hospitalized for a mental evaluation and now this “revenge porn” situation.

In an emotional press conference, Barton’s lawyer, Lisa Bloom  (daughter of PROOF favorite and famed civil rights lawyer, Gloria Allred), stated that YouPorn, RedTube and Porn.com were all considering making offers on the video which features the actress in sexually explicit situations with a man she briefly dated.  The tapes have been shopped around for an asking price of $500,000.

Bloom emphasized a specific portion of the court’s ruling: This individual and his agents may not sell, distribute, give away, or show any naked pictures or video of any type of Mischa Barton. The orders are very clear about what happens to violators, whether those are agents shopping the images or the men who took them– failure to obey the court order can result in jail or prison.

We at PROOF are especially inspired by Bloom’s creative and intelligent argument that because Mischa dated the man, release of the tapes is a form of domestic abuse and Mischa is therefore protected by California’s domestic violence laws.

Barton also spoke at the press conference, saying, “This is a painful situation and my absolute worst fear was realised when I learned that someone I loved and trusted was filming my most intimate and private moments, without my consent with hidden cameras.”

We applaud Mischa, Lisa Bloom and the court for taking this situation seriously. And, we know we say this all the time here on PROOF about being a celebrity but really think about Mischa’s words at that press conference and then imagine that someone you loved and trusted betrayed you, used you in this way. Surely fame is not worth that. Stay healthy and keep fighting, Mischa. We, like your lawyer and the court, are on your side!

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

Kardashians Makeup Line Lawsuit | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Celebrity Makeup Lines: Everyone’s Getting Sued

Beauty, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Fashion, Katy Perry, Khloe Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian

Some of the most successful celebrity makeup lines are being hit hard with lawsuits – and big dollar ones at that. Let’s hope these celebrities have been wearing their waterproof mascara! Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian are facing a $180 million lawsuit regarding an alleged breach of contract over their Kardashian Beauty line. Hillair Capital Management is suing the Kardashian women for failing to promote the line. Hillair came to the rescue of Kardashian Beauty in July 2014 when the former distributor, Boldface, was experience financial struggles. Hillair agreed to (heavily) fund Kardashian Beauty as long as the Kardashian sisters actively promoted the products via social media.

We all know these famous sisters run the social media world – Kim herself can reach nearly 80 million Instagram followers or nearly 50 million Twitter followers with a single post. But the number of promotional Kardashian Beauty posts, on the other hand, isn’t looking so hot. Hillair claims that the sisters not only failed on social media, but also failed to stand by their products and even spoke out against the line in an attempt to abandon Hillair and secure more money with different investors. And, in a very related matter, the Kardashians filed their own lawsuit against another cosmetic company, Haven Beauty, claiming that the company unjustly used the Kardashian name to promote and sell beauty products. So many products; so many problems.

The uber talented Katy Perry recently launched a beauty line in collaboration with CoverGirl. Hard Candy, a rival cosmetic company is shouting, “copycat” with regard to Perry’s logo on that CoverGirl packaging and has filed a lawsuit claiming that the small heart that appears on Perry’s products is the same one that Hard Candy has been using on their lipstick. Hard Candy wants Perry’s products to be banned from sale and also demands a share of the profits that have already been made. The matter is nowhere near resolving so PROOF will await the legal fireworks from the sidelines and keep you posted.

Manis, Minis and Mistakes: What Celebs Need to Know About Courtroom Attire

Beauty, Britney Spears, Celeb News, Celebrity News, Daily, Fashion, Life, Lindsay Lohan, Videos, Watch

Whether it’s a drunk driving charge, shoplifting, a custody battle, or something else, celebs are in court all the time. Some get the right advice (and actually follow it!) and show up to court as if he/she were an eager college grad going on his/her first job interview; others not so much.  You probably know whom I am talking about. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are the sure-fire “winners” here.  Rather than face their legal troubles with grace and respect, these celebs have made some pretty poor choices and sadly made a bit of a mockery of our system.

To be fair, not all of Lindsay’s courtroom attire choices have been bad. She has actually looked pretty appropriate a few times.  Let’s face it though, she has had more opportunities than most to do the right thing. And, the bulk of her choices? Not good. If were her lawyer, I would have stashed an LBD in my briefcase, dragged her into the ladies room and made her change each and every time she showed up looking like she was ready for a night of LA clubbing rather than a day in court. The following are the choices that bother me the most. First, without a doubt, that white, skin-hugging Kimberly Ovitz mini dress. Nothing says responsible law-abiding adult like a hot party dress, right? Next, would have to be that “colorful” manicure with the obscene message on her middle finger. Was the F*** U meant for the judge, the system as a whole, or for someone else? Either way, completely inappropriate. If she had just kept her hands below counsel table, she would have been fine, It’s not as if she has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or anything! And those oh so close looks. The gray pants suit. Classy until Lindsay decided not to button her blouse.  That nice beige blazer? Just fine but not when completed with short shorts and booties. Ugh. I’m getting annoyed just thinking about this because they are all such easy fixes and sometimes you just gotta follow the rules. You don’t have to like them, Lindsay, you just have to follow them, especially when there’s something in it for you.

Britney. Oh, Britney.  Gosh, there was just so much going on for her personally during the time she was seemingly in and out of court that I can almost excuse some of her choices. But only just almost. That black backless dress for one hearing and lacy, white frock for another? No.  I think Britney wants to do the right thing, show respect for the system, as evidenced by some of her better choices but she just doesn’t have the right people telling her what to do in ways that make her want to listen to them. Again, if her lawyers could have been one step ahead of her and brought her something respectable to wear, I  am sure  she would have worn it. Britney has really cleaned up her life up since those days of the shaved head and umbrella rage.  She’s a good girl so I don’t think we’ll be seeing her in court too often anymore, but if we do, I bet she’ll look just fine. Stay classy, Brit.

Are Aaron Hernandez Tattoos Evidence? | Celeb News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Aaron Hernandez Murder Conviction Vacated

Aaron Hernandez Murder, Athletes, Celebrity News, Celebs, Crimes

When former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez died on April 19, 2017 he was a convicted murderer, now, less than a month later, that conviction has been wiped from his record.

On May 9, 2017, in Fall River, Massachusetts, Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh vacated Hernandez’ first-degree murder conviction resulting from the 2013 death of Odin L. Lloyd, citing a centuries-old law that states that convictions can be vacated if the defendant is in the process of appealing.

State prosecutors opposed the conviction being vacated and have vowed to take the case to the state Supreme Court. They argue that the law, which dates back to colonial times, was precisely the reason that Hernandez committed suicide.

Bristol Assistant District Attorney Patrick Bomberg said, “This is not a defendant who has arrived at the killing of himself by happenstance.” He and fellow prosecutors argued that Hernandez knew about the law and committed suicide to clear his legal standing, which could benefit his heirs. Some experts have speculated that a vacated conviction would enable his heirs to collect an almost $6 million contract from the Patriots that had been withheld when he was arrested.

But that argument didn’t sway the judge, who ruled, “This court cannot know why Hernandez may have chosen to end his life and declines to infer an intent by Hernandez to relinquish his appellate rights or an intent to interfere with the course of justice from his reported suicide, a tragic act that may have complex and myriad causes.”

Naturally, Odin Lloyd’s family members were not pleased with the court’s ruling. They openly wept in court and his mother Ursula Ward told reporters of Hernandez, “In our book, he’s guilty, and he’s going to always be guilty.” Ms. Ward, we at PROOF agree with you. But, know that he wasn’t found innocent by a jury or a judge the vacating of his conviction is simply what some would refer to as legal technicality. And although we know it doesn’t feel good or fair, unfortunately it happens in the law. Perhaps the prosecution will win the appeal and the conviction will be reinstated. In the meantime, pursuing the civil case against Hernandez’ estate may ultimately bring some sense of peace or justice.

And, as far as the civil case against Hernandez’ estate, it is and should go on. While it certainly would have been beneficial to have been able to admit into evidence Hernandez’ criminal conviction (it would have taken care of a lot of proof issues) the burden of proof in a civil matter is much lower than in a criminal matter which most know is beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, proving the underlying act–that Hernandez murdered Lloyd–will not be as difficult as it were at the criminal level. Put plainly, if there was enough proof to obtain a criminal conviction, then if that same proof is presented and understood correctly by the jury in the civil case, it should be more than sufficient to support the finding that Hernandez caused Lloyd’s wrongful death.

In fact PROOF readers, you recall that OJ was acquitted at the criminal level but was found liable at the civil level.

Another potential positive side effect of the conviction being set aside is if the 6 million from the NFL becomes available then it could potentially be used to satisfy a judgment that the jury in the civil matter awards to the Lloyd family

And another twist in the Hernandez saga? His attorneys aren’t wholly convinced that his death was a suicide or if it were, that it couldn’t have been prevented. Hernandez was found hanging from a window in his jail cell with a bedsheet around his neck, and though the state says there was no wrongdoing and it was a suicide, Hernandez’ legal team, led by Jose Baez, is conducting its own investigation into his death. It is not unlikely that Hernandez’s family will file a lawsuit if they think officials didn’t do enough to prevent his death or if they created a condition which allowed his death to occur.

If there is one thing that can be said about the Hernandez matter it is that it is tragic all around.

Nick Cannon Sued Over App | Celebrity News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Nick Cannon Sued for Stealing Unsuccessful App Idea

America's Got Talent, California, Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Legal, Los Angeles, Nick Cannon

Nick Cannon may have just quit “America’s Got Talent” because he felt he was mistreated by the show (he said he felt silenced, controlled, and treated like a piece of property) – but he has even more drama ahead of him: he’s facing a lawsuit on an entirely unrelated matter.

Enrico Taylor is suing Cannon for allegedly stealing his idea for a talent discovery app. Taylor is seeking $1.75 million in damages.

 

In court documents, Taylor claims he met Nick in early 2015 and hoped to get Mariah Carey’s ex interested in his new app. The disgruntled app-maker says he told Cannon that he was working with rapper Birdman, who is the co-founder of Cash Money Records, to create a digital talent search app called “I Discover Stars.” Taylor claims that Cannon said he liked the idea but then Taylor never heard back from him about it. Five months later Cannon launched his own digital talent search app, N’credible.

Allegedly, Cannon’s app was intended to be an extension of his management and music company, N’credible Artists, and was for comedians, singers and rappers to audition for the former “America’s Got Talent Host” without him actually having to physically be at the audition. Sounds like a good idea, right?  Apparently though wannabe superstars didn’t flock to it. Taylor is claiming that not only did Cannon steal his idea, but also says that because Cannon’s app was a total bust, Taylor can’t get his own app off the ground – and now he wants $1.75 million as a compensation. That is quite a circuitous legal argument and not sure how persuasive it is going to be in a court of law. Think about: Taylor is seeking big bucks for an unsuccessful idea?!

bieb

We at PROOF are looking forward to seeing the evidence that comes out in this matter but if we were advising Cannon (which we are not–and here comes the PROOF legal disclaimer: nothing on PROOF should be construed as giving legal advice or the creation of an attorney client relationship) we would not recommend settling at this point. 

Discussing celebrity news is what we enjoy most at PROOF. Please visit the rest of our site for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.

Delta2

Kanye Settles With Lloyd’s of London for Cancelled Tour, So Much for their Countersuit

Celebrity News, Celebs, Kanye West

Update: Kanye West has settled his lawsuit against Lloyd’s of London for an undisclosed amount. Despite the insurer’s tough talk, in light of the settlement, naturally the counterclaim will not be pursued further. PROOF’s original post about the countersuit is below:

Insurer Lloyd’s of London has responded to Kanye West’s $10 million lawsuit with a countersuit; they don’t believe they need to pay a dime for Kanye’s claim stemming from his canceled Saint Pablo tour.

Kanye’s production company, Very Good Productions, sued Lloyd’s on August 1, claiming that the insurer was dragging its feet on Kanye’s claim for damages resulting from his cancelled 2016 tour dates.

 

Kanye suffered a very public mental breakdown in November of 2016, when a rambling and incoherent performance at a November 19, 2016 concert in Sacramento, California led to the tour being canceled and him being hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. He spent 8 days at UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center, and according to his suit, he is still under the care of the primary physician who treated him there.

On November 23, only four days after the initial public meltdown, Very Good filed a claim with Lloyd’s, after claiming to have paid the company “hundreds of thousands” of dollars for its insurance services.

Despite three other insurance companies paying the claim promptly, Very Good claims that Lloyd’s dragged its feet and required the production company to jump through a number of hoops, and eight months went by with no decision on the claim. They allege that Lloyd’s implied “that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim.” They also accuse Lloyd’s of planting confidential information with the press, violating a non-disclosure agreement. Moreover, Very Good claims that an independent doctor hired by Lloyd’s to evaluate West concurred that he was medically unable to complete the tour. This evidence is key.

On August 29, Lloyd’s filed a countersuit, claiming that there are “irregularities” in Kanye’s medical history, and accusing Very Good of not being cooperative. They also allege that Kanye could have prevented the breakdown and pointed to insurance exclusions based on pre-existing psychological conditions, use of illegal substances and incorrect use of prescription drugs, though they did not specify in detail what triggered the claim denial. So Kanye has a fight on his hands.  That’s the key then for Kanye–he is going to have to identify, collect and present that strong evidence in his favor so that he can refutes Lloyd’s claims and their benefits denial.

This isn’t the first time that an insurance company has denied a star’s tour cancellation claim. In 2005 Britney Spears canceled her Onyx Hotel due to a knee injury that required surgery, and submitted a claim for approximately $10 million. Seems fair right? Well, not so fast. The insurance company claimed that her knee was initially injured on the set of a 1999 music video shoot, and said Spears didn’t disclose it on her insurance application so they denied her claim.

Likewise, a 2008 Linkin Park tour was cancelled due to the back injury of its lead singer, the late Chester Bennington, but the insurance company, also Lloyd’s of London, refused to pay, alleging Bennington failed to disclose other health problems on his medical history.

Concerts are big money and cancelled concerts lead to big damages that’s why insurance is underwritten in the first place. Given what we know about Kanye and Lloyd’s we don’t expect either party to go away quietly. And though we sometimes are not on Kanye’s side (loyalty to T Swift, maybe?) we have to say on this one we are–if he has the medical evidence to support the cancellation he is entitled to be compensated.

And so it goes, Kanye West gets the insurance money he is due. Given what many of us knew about West and his behavior at the time, this is probably the right decision. But, more than anything, Kanye clearly had the evidentiary proof he needed.

Scroll to Top