Life

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

3 Nasty Celebrity Neighbor Disputes

  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.

3 Reasons Mediation Makes Celebrity Divorces Easier

From Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale’s surprising divorce to Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin’s “conscious uncoupling,” it is well known the rich and famous have high divorce rates. One thing all the players still seem to have in common though? A desire to keep their dirty laundry to themselves. Below are the three reasons private mediation rather than a public day in court can be the right answer for many celebrities.

1. Mediation is quicker and less expensive than full blown litigation.

LA power lawyers are pricey, charging their celeb clients upwards of $750.00 per hour. Even stars with net worths in the hundreds of millions of dollars don’t want to throw out money. So while celebs generally have lawyers throughout mediation, the process is much, much quicker than traditional litigation thanks to less stringent rules regarding documentation, evidence and testimony. This quicker process means that not only do parties save money but they reduce the pain and stress on the family. This is especially when children are involved. Though as of this writing, they are still technically together, it is well known that Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck turned to mediation in order to keep their children’s best interests as top priority when the couple opted for mediation when working out visitation, custody and other matters related to their three children. And, something additional to think about? Maybe the quicker, less contentious atmosphere of mediation, has helped this couple stay together, or at least put their divorce on hold despite announcing their intention to do so more than a year ago.

2. Mediation is private.

Divorce is messy for everyone but with celebrities these matters often involve salacious tales of drugs, cheating, bad judgment, and, not to mention, revelations of financial details. So, it is no surprise that celebrities, perhaps more than average Joes and Janes want to keep these matters private. With the paparazzi on a constant hunt for a juicy story, celebrity couples going through a divorce can harness some sense of security by knowing that mediation is confidential and that by staying out of court their family’s private life remains just that–private. Though other factors were at play, it is thanks to the confidentiality of mediation that the details of Tom Cruise’s three divorces are nowhere to be found. Without that, imagine the details and drama about Mimi, Nicole and Katie’s lives that would be out there in the public domain.

3. Mediation offers a distinct path to settlement.

The goal of mediation is to settle. Trace and Rhonda Atkins divorce is a great example of how mediation can coax a settlement. Their divorce, stemming from Trace’s years of boozing and womanizing began intensely with Rhonda demanding a settlement worth nearly $20 million. But instead of engaging in an aggressive, drawn out legal battle, she soon sought dismissal of the case, and the couple proceeded with mediation. A private compromise was reached and family was spared the trauma of having the world knowing exactly what was going on behind doors at the Atkins’ house.

Meet Two of Bill Cosby’s Accusers | Celeb News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Meet Two of Bill Cosby’s Accusers: Ruehli and Constand

As we all know, the once adored creator and star of The Cosby Show has become one of America’s most despised men. To date, more than 50 women have publicly accused Bill Cosby of rape, sexual assault or attempted assault. His disturbing behavior spanned decades. Now, he has been charged and, in the coming year, will stand trial in a Pennsylvania court. His accusers vary in just about every aspect from age to appearance to socioeconomic background. We could spend days talking about these women, dissecting their lives and interaction with Cosby but, let’s look at two of his accusers as they serve to crystallize so much of what this case is about: the earliest victim, Kristina Ruehli, and the former basketball player, Andrea Constand, whose refusal to back down sparked Ruehli to speak up.

In December 1965, Kristina Ruehli, was a 22-year-old talent agency secretary whom Cosby invited to a cocktail party at his home. When she arrived fashionably late to the party, Ruehli was surprised she was the only one there. She quickly realized there was, in fact, no party but agreed to stay for a cocktail– he was Bill Cosby after all. Ruehli only remembers her first few of sips. When she regained consciousness hours later, she found herself with Cosby in his bedroom; he was attempting to force her to perform oral sex. Ashamed and embarrassed, Ruehli, the beautiful, blue eyed blonde did not report the incident. But in 2005, buoyed by the stories of other victims, Ruehli gained the courage to speak out. Specifically, it was during Andrea Constand’s civil lawsuit that Ruehli exposed what Cosby had done to her. Ruehli, now 73 years old, has since dropped her charges against Cosby. But she did not do so for want of proof or because she felt some latent shame for herself or sympathy for Cosby but rather because she believes her suit against him did what she wanted it to do: shed light on the issue of sexual assault in this country. Can’t fault a woman for that.

Cosby approached Andrea Constand in 2002 while both were affiliated with Temple University in Philadelphia. He offered to act as her mentor. Who would say no to that? One time while Constand was at Cosby’s house she mentioned that she was feeling anxious. He gave her an herbal pill that he said would help ease that. Ok, maybe that wasn’t the smartest choice by Constand but remember, she was a fan and Cosby was widely known as a fatherly figure, very upstanding. The pill did a lot more than reduce Constand’s anxiety. It made her immobile. She was unable to escape while Cosby undressed her and sexually assaulted her. For years, she kept the assault a secret, but after struggling through nightmares and depression, she finally let it out. She filed a civil lawsuit against Cosby and that matter was resolved via a confidential settlement in 2006. One of the clauses in the settlement? Constand was not to talk about the matter with anyone. But, she cooperated with law enforcement during a subsequent criminal investigation. An investigation that led to Cosby’s arrest. Cosby and his legal team did not make it easy on Constand. He sued her for violating the agreement and demanded that she return the money that he paid her. In July 2016, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno ruled that Constand’s cooperation in the investigation did not violate the nondisclosure provision in the 2006 settlement. Cosby will now stand trial. With regard to proof Cosby’s trial is going to rival that of O.J’s.

Celebrity News | Chris Brown Legal Problems

Learn the Truth About A-List Stars and Our Justice System

Are celebs above the law? Does a privilege exist for them which means they “get away” with conduct that regular, everyday citizens would never? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But if yes, why do they get this special treatment? Is it because they can sing? They can act? No. I believe it has nothing to do with their talent (or their looks!) but rather it is what privilege and celebrity can buy. And that, my friends, is a good lawyer. A good lawyer is creative, can hire experts to poke holes in a case and fully investigate witnesses in order to question their credibility. A good lawyer can raise enough doubt that a jury won’t convict or find for the plaintiff. And a good lawyer is nothing if not expensive. How expensive? Well, lawyer to the stars, Mark Geragos did not amass a net worth of more than 25 million by charging a hundred bucks an hour. Though I don’t know his hourly rate or if he charges by case (it’s likely he does both), I would venture to say his rate is well over $1000 per hour. But, that’s just a drop in the bucket for those on Geragos’ client list which includes Chris Brown, Usher and Nicole Ritchie.

The counter argument to preferential treatment is that scrutiny is at its most intense in high profile cases so those in the system are especially careful. New York based attorney to the stars, Ben Brafman, who has represented P. Diddy and many others, has been known to say that authorities like to use high-profile cases to send a message about obeying the law and thus the system is more stringent with celebrities. I agree with him. The truth is no one in the justice system wants to face public outcry or press hostility for any matter and certainly not one involving a celebrity. In today’s world when celebs instagram from crime scenes or tweet on their way to court and everything seems to be captured on film, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges need to be very careful with every decision they make, witness they call or ruling they issue.

In the end I agree with famed legal scholar and lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, a member of OJ Simpson’s Dream Team, who said, “It is true that the legal system treats celebrities differently from average folks…it could be worse treatment, or it could be better treatment. The coin flips two ways.”

Who Owns Happy Birthday? | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Who Exactly Owns ‘Happy Birthday?’

Singing Happy Birthday to the birthday “girl” or “boy” on his/her special day is as ingrained in us as watching fireworks on the 4th of July–probably even more so. But until recently if you sang it in public (which all of us have!) you risked a $150,000 fine for copyright infringement! Yup. That’s because Warner/Chappell Music (a division of Warner Music Group) maintained it owned the copyright to the 16-word song that was written in 1893 by Mildred and Patty Hill. Warner has never actually gone after an individual for singing it at Chuck E. Cheese but if you’d ask them if legally they thought they could, their answer would be “yes.” This sweet, little song was quite the revenue generator for the music giant. While Warner gave us regular folks a pass they weren’t about to lose a dime from deep pockets. In fact, Warner earned more than $2 million in copyright fees each year as a result of Happy Birthday being sung in a film or television show. And, they demanded payment at every turn and no one in Hollywood seemed to argue with them . . . until Until Good Morning to You Productions Corp. (I love that name, it’s as happy and innocent as Happy Birthday itself, isn’t it?) decided to make a documentary about the song and refused to pay the $1,500 licensing fee.

Good Morning to You Productions Corp. believed the song belonged in the public domain and should therefore be free to anyone who wanted to sing it. So, how does a dispute like this get resolved? A competitive game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey or maybe the one who delivers the final whack to the piñata? Nope. Just like all copyright disputes that can’t be settle amicably, a lawsuit was filed. In this case, a class action suit was brought against Warner contending that their copyright claim for “Happy Birthday” was invalid. The class (that’s a legal phrase that refers to plaintiffs who make up the members of a class action) conceded that the publishing company might own a limited piano arrangement version of the song published in 1935, but that was it. The words, the melody was free to anyone to sing whenever and wherever they pleased. The suit demanded restitution of millions of licensing fees plaintiffs had paid during the prior three years (because of the statute of limitations, the suit could not go back further than that).

And, really good news here!  A federal judge agreed with Good Morning to You and ruled Warner’s copyright claim invalid. They settled the case in 2016 for $14 million and the song moved into the public domain. In case you’re wondering where the money went, it was used to refund those who had paid licensing fees, including Good Morning to You Productions Corp.  And the icing on the cake? Shortly afterward they released their documentary. Happy Birthday: My Campaign to Liberate the People’s Song.

As a further note, the same attorneys who won the Happy Birthday case have filed similar lawsuits for “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land is Your Land.” No final decisions yet on those songs but a New York judge recently ruled that the “We Shall Overcome” lawsuit can move forward.  I expect the outcome to be the same as with Happy Birthday. Don’t ya just love a happy ending?

6 of the Hottest LA Restaurants Where You Can See Celebs and Their Legal Teams

In Los Angeles, spotting celebrities are as numerous as juice bars and spin classes. But if you really want to increase your odds of seeing a star with his/her hired gun, head to one of these five hot restaurants:

  1. Gjelina. At this funky Venice restaurant, the food is just as attractive as the people eating it. Gjelina eludes trendiness – perhaps because it doesn’t even have its name on the outside. The impressive menu is California fare at its finest, highlighting seasonal vegetables and artisanal pizzas. This hotspot has attracted A-list celebrities like Natalie Portman and Prince Harry. So relax on the patio with a bottle of Napa Cab, and don’t forget to save room for the butterscotch pot de crème.
  2. Chateau Marmont. This famed hotel in the Hollywood hills was designed to mimic the beautiful Chateau d’Amboise in France. After its opening in 1927, Chateau Marmont became a Hollywood staple. It maintains an old world sense of glamour that regularly attracts celebs such as Lady Gaga and James Franco. Expect to encounter a crowd of paparazzi as you push your way to the picturesque palm tree ringed patio.
  3. Farmshop. This farm-to-table restaurant is located in the Brentwood Country Mart, a high end shopping destination packed with boutiques and dining options. The barn themed mart is nice enough for date night and casual enough for a day with the kids. Join celebrities like Reese Witherspoon and Patrick Dempsey at this casual yet sophisticated restaurant, and be sure to head next door for a scoop of ice cream at Sweet Rose Creamery after.
  4. Culina at the Four Seasons Beverly Hills. From the breathtaking, flower-filled lobby to the Frette linens on the beds, the Four Seasons Beverly Hills maintains an elegant atmosphere that the rich and famous can’t seem to get enough of. But even those who cannot afford rooms starting at $500 per night can follow the lead of Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom and head to Culina for a see-and-be-seen experience at the hotel’s modern Italian restaurant.
  5. The Ivy. Ah the iconic Ivy. The Ivy has attracted celebs like George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez for years with its charming cottage-like décor and upscale American comfort food. Sit on the tree-covered patio for brunch and enjoy freshly baked scones while the valet fights away the paparazzi.
  6. Le Village. Tucked into the Trancas Country Mart in west Malibu this chic restaurant is worth the drive. The kitchen, which serves up American fare, is watched over by the keen eyes of the quintessential French owners, Francois and Marie Clausse. And, who better to keep a secret than the French? You are sure to see celebrity legal tete-a-tetes in this new Malibu spot.
Celebs Under the Influence | Celebrity News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Here’s Why You Don’t See Celebs Under the Influence Getting Jail Time

The number of celebrities who drive while intoxicated is high – no pun intended. That’s because, as I keep saying, at the end of the day, they’re human, and they drive drunk about as much as the rest of the population. The numbers are staggering. According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving. And the State Department reports that in 2011, 1.2 million were arrested for driving under the influence or alcohol or narcotics. But, with regard to drunk driving and the justice system that is where the similarities between celebs and mere mortals end. Why is it that famous people seem to have an easier time “beating” these charges? One main reason: money. Celebs have the financial ability to hire really good lawyers. Can I say that any louder? Money=Rock star Representation. The truth is there’s a difference between a really good lawyer and an average one. As Jesse Lorona, a lawyer known for successfully fighting DUI charges says, “Having the benefit of an aggressive DUI lawyer is critical. The state is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt … the defendant is not required to prove innocence. Our goal is to make sure that when the state fails, our clients are not wrongly convicted. There are many, many ways to defeat a DUI charge.”

Mr. Lorona is correct and if you have the funds to retain these tough, savvy advocates to fight on your behalf, your odds of getting an acquittal or a sweetheart plea deal definitely go up. And, in most states in order to prevail in a DUI/DWI case, it helps to hire an expert witness—which costs money! Generally, this is a toxicologist who will find holes in the government’s case regarding any alcohol level testing that was done. They’ll analyze the test and delve deep into figuring out if the test was performed properly, how much time passed between when it was performed and when the celeb was actually behind the wheel, and if the results were in fact read and interpreted accurately. If the hired witness can help weaken the government’s case, the easier is to get off or get a better plea deal.

DUI lawyer Jess Lorona

Yep. Stars, they’re just like us. Sorry, at PROOF we tell it the way it is.

NB to all: How ‘bout we all just uber or have our assistants drive us where we need to go. Or better yet, just party at home and stay put.

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

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.

Scroll to Top