Stylish Celebrity Escapism
Contributing Writers
Nov 30
'07
Lohan tells accuser to put up or shut up

91785438.jpg

First things first: I never support Lindsay Lohan. Lindsay Lohan could somehow turn into the Virgin Mary, and I’d still have a really big problem with her. I think I might be going to a special level of Hell just for saying that. But if someone should be such a giant prick as to make me support Lindsay Lohan, I’m pretty sure that person is destined for a special level of Hell too. Probably one where “Herbie Fully Loaded” plays on a loop.

Lohan’s car hit busboy Raymundo Ortega’s van on October 4, 2005. Lohan had just finishing having lunch at the Ivy. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s ruled the incident to be Ortega’s fault for making an illegal U-turn directly in front of Lohan. They also ruled that alcohol was not a factor in the crash. It seems pretty clear that Ortega say dollar signs on impact. But he didn’t do anything for two years, until Lohan went to rehab for the second time. Then he filed a negligence suit on June 14, 2007 against both her and the Ivy (who he believes served her alcohol even though she was underage) for $200,000. His argument seems to be that because Lohan has alcohol problems now, she must have had them then. While that could very well be true, I can’t imagine how someone could prove that. More specifically, I can’t imagine how he could prove that Lohan was drunk at that moment two years ago, especially when the sheriff’s deputies said she wasn’t. It seems like he’s trying to take advantage of the situation.

Lindsay finally countersued the guy, since she paid for all the repairs to her car herself – which she didn’t have to do, since the crash was ruled Ortega’s fault. [I just want to note that I’m seething right now because I’m actually feeling something close to empathy for Lindsay Lohan, and that makes me HATE Raymundo Ortega with the fire of a thousand suns]. Anyway, Ortega has been dragging Lohan in and out of court almost weekly, promising that he has some evidence that will prove she was drunk that day. But he’s failed to produce it or comply with any of the judge’s orders to turn over paperwork pertaining to his evidence.

According to court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Lohan’s camp is requesting that a judge order the Los Angeles-based busboy to provide proof that Lohan, contrary to the CHP’s report, had been drinking on Oct. 4, 2005, before she smacked into Ortega’s van with her Mercedes.

The 21-year-old starlet’s lawyers also request in their latest filing that the judge conclude that Ortega’s allegations are false because the plaintiff has ignored their repeated requests to turn over the documents he claims to have that prove his assertions. Ortega’s lawyer has said that they have witnesses who will support their side of the story.

[From E! News]

I’m not inclined to believe Lindsay Lohan is innocent of anything. The sky could suddenly turn green and rain hedgehogs, and I’d be certain her drinking was somehow involved. But something tells me Ortega’s “witnesses” are a load of crap. This whole thing sounds like it’s filled with opportunists. And they need to be stopped, not to make Lindsay’s life better, but so that no one feels inclined to cut her a break out of sympathy.

The judge also ruled against Lindsay’s request not to have her deposition taped. Her lawyer argued that the press would try to get a hold of the tape, which would go for tens of thousands of dollars. But that’s more than most of Lohan’s movies rake in anymore. Really, it can only help.

Picture note by Jaybird: Here’s Lindsey Lohan leaving Byron salon on November 28th. She then went to the Staples Center for a Lakers game. Images thanks to Splash Photos.

91785431.jpg

Written by JayBird

Posted in Car accidents, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Legal Issues, Lindsay Lohan

On-Page Comments are closed.

Add a comment in pop-up window
(for posts before 4/21/08)
On April 21, 2008, comments were moved from the pop-up Haloscan format onto the page. Older posts still use the Haloscan comments for discussions, and you are welcome to comment there. All new posts use on-page commenting.

Recent Comments:
  • Baholicious: Kaiser, some estimates can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance. org/scientolnbr.htm
  • I choose me: He’s joking. He couldn’t possibly be serious.
  • tigerlille: I suspect that his remark was facetious. That is more his style.
  • Matthew: Creepy interview…Cooper was staring at him like a pork chop he wanted to eat. Very gay..
  • vdantev: I know you go where the money is but da-hamn that’s a step below county fairs.
  • Ghost Tours: I saw Brad Last Night Going Into The Gov Nichols Street House so Yeah They Are back In The French...
  • vdantev: 8O Oops !! :oops: I stand corrected then, I just lost patience with monotonously clicking throw page after...
  • Codzilla: Dante: Actually, “Bound” is on the list (we subscribe to EW and this issue came out last week),...
 
 

Celebitchy is a celebrity gossip site written by several independent authors. The opinions of the authors are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Celebitchy, LLC. All information on this site is for entertainment purposes only. Articles are based on rumor, conjecture, and published information in other sources. Celebitchy, LLC makes no claims that content is valid, accurate, or true. Celebitchy, LLC and the authors contributing to it will not be held liable for damages resulting from errors, omissions or falsehoods published on this site. It is not the site or the contributing authors' intention to defame or malign any particular group, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual. Celebitchy, LLC is not responsible for content on linked or quoted sources. All comments made by visitors to the blog are the responsibility of their respective authors and are only sporadically monitored. Celebitchy, LLC will not be held liable for comments in any way.