Madonna’s lawyer is laying down the law. Alan Chinula is representing Madge for the adoption of Mercy James. The final decision will be rendered by a Malawian judge on Friday, most likely. But to Chinula, there are no worries. He says “I don’t see any law in Malawi that can stop this adoption” and that Mercy’s uncle “has already signed off the consent forms, and Madonna counter-signed them.” So I guess that’s that. Why even show up for the Friday court date?

Madonna’s lawyer Alan Chinula tells Usmagazine.com he is confident that the judge will allow the singer, 50, to adopt 4-year-old girl Chifundo “Mercy” James at Friday’s hearing.

“I am not sleeping sleepless nights over this,” Chinula tells Us. “I don’t see any law in Malawi that can stop this adoption.”

On Tuesday, a rep for Madonna confirmed for the first time that the singer is adopting the girl, whose unwed 18-year-old mother died soon after she gave birth. Chinula tells Us the girl’s uncle, Peter Baneti, “has already signed off the consent forms, and Madonna counter-signed them.”

“She just has to wait to hear from me when I get the result” on Friday, he says. She is not required to attend the hearing, Chinula adds, “although she can attend if she so chooses.”
Several non-governmental organizations have called the Human Rights Consultative Committee, slamming Madonna’s adoption attempt because the groups feel the child should be taken care of by her own family.

The organizations also accuse the singer of using her wealth and celebrity status to bend Malawi’s adoption laws. (The singer, who adopted David Banda in 2006, has not followed regulations that stipulate that prospective parents must undergo an 18- to 24-month assessment period in Malawi before adopting.)

But Chinula tells Us that law is over 50 years old and “archaic.”

“Laws must be dynamic,” he says. “They must move with current trends.”

From US Magazine

There are several daily updates happening on Madonna throughout the week. Some of them are just tabloid “reports” coming from people who have literally nothing to do with Madonna, Mercy or Malawi. But some stories are interesting, like this one from The Telegraph. Apparently Madge had been e-mailing her friends about the adoption. One of these friends, Ben Fellows, released Madge’s e-mail to The Daily Mirror (although this story is via The Telegraph). Madge told Fellows that she was “going to jump through hoops to get [Mercy]”. Madge also wrote “Let the storm commence.” It’s commencing, Gristle. You don’t have to beg for it quite so much.

[In] an email to her friend Ben Fellows, a British film-maker, she said that the criticism over her plans would not stop the adoption, adding: “Let the storm commence”.

Mr Fellows, who was himself adopted, told the Daily Mirror: “Once Madonna has put her mind to something, she achieves it – and this adoption is no different.”

“She told me she thought it was very important that David had a sister, she had unconditional love to give another child and was going to jump through hoops to get her.”

“She knew exactly what she was walking into. She was well aware that people would start sniping about it. She sent me an email just before she left for Malawi and signed it off ‘Let the storm commence!’”

From The Telegraph

Here’s what I don’t get – why does Madonna drown us in sanctimony about all of her latest issues, when her goal was and is solely to get publicity? If she really wants the attention so badly (and I think by now it’s clear that she does), why pull the bait and switch after the fact? Perhaps I’m not explaining my point very well, so let me take a step back.

Part of the problem I had with Madonna after David Banda’s adoption was that she went on Oprah and defended herself and her actions in a very sanctimonious, holier-than-thou way. She basically said that all she cared about was adopting a needy child, and that nothing else mattered to her. But clearly, all of the publicity and media exposure means a lot to her too, or else she would try to act in a quieter (legal) way that would benefit her children, or the children she’s trying to adopt.

It just feels like she saw all of the attention (so much of it negative) that she got with David Banda’s adoption, and is really trying to willfully mimic so many of the same mistakes with Mercy’s adoption. Her attitude is cavalier, craven and desperate.

Madonna is shown in Malawi on 3/29/09 and 3/30/09. Credit: WENN.com

In May, Angels & Demons, the latest Tom Hanks film, will be released. It’s based on The Da Vinci Code prequel book (of the same name) by Dan Brown, only the film will be set as a sequel to The Da Vinci Code events. Hanks will once again be playing Professor Robert Langdon, and for those who have read the book, Ewan McGregor plays the counsel priest to the murdered pope, which is totally a brilliant character for him.

I read both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code a few years ago, and even though they’re not “great literature”, they’re both fun, easy reads that don‘t sugar-coat some of the historical shenanigans The Vatican was up to. Both books are huge bestsellers, despite much grumbling from religious groups and, specifically, The Vatican.

When the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code was released in 2006, it got tepid reviews and a semi-organized backlash by the Catholic Church. None of that really mattered though, because the film went on to gross more than $700 million. Some people even thought that with priests sniping at the film and at Dan Brown, the film and books got even more publicity and more people went to see it. Now it looks like The Vatican might be making the same mistake all over again:

Tom Hanks has been busy finishing up the sequel to The Da Vinci Code and may be facing part two of a showdown with the Vatican. The organization, which railed against the first film, may be readying itself to be up at arms against the newest one Angels & Demons.

On Friday, the Vatican’s official newspaper Awenwire ran a story saying the Church “cannot approve” of the film. Another Italian daily La Stampa, echoed the idea saying the Vatican would soon call for a boycott.

However, Archbishop Velasio De Paolis was quoted as warning against a boycott in case it gives the film even more attention, making it that much more popular. Producers of the film were also denied access to film in parts of the Vatican.

The Church’s railing against the first installment didn’t hurt the box office. The Da Vinci Code raked in $760 million. Angels & Demons is set to open on May 15.

From Radar Online

I really believe that The Vatican is so out-of-touch that they would call for a boycott. I suppose there is no one in The Vatican press or media offices who stops and says “Hey, we’re about to give this film millions of dollars of free publicity. Why is that again? For a piece of fiction?”

This news came out just as Pope Benedict was getting hammered internationally for saying that condom use was not the answer in the fight against AIDS and could make the problem worse. The Pope said this Tuesday, while he was traveling to Africa for a formal multi-national visit, and pretty much every HIV/AIDS advocacy group, health organization and national health minister or secretary has bashed him for it. Perhaps this nice, safe, official Vatican boycott against a film is a way of changing the subject away from international disaster.

Photos are stills from Angels & Demons, thanks to Allmoviephoto.

Severe warning on this video: Wolves are shown dead and being killed. Do not watch it if you are sensitive to seeing animals being killed.

Ashley Judd stars in a new video for the Defenders Action Fund, in which she speaks out against the brutal practice of “aerial killing” advocated by Alaskan governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Aerial killing is a practice in which private citizens are issued permits to shoot wolves and even bears from planes and helicopters, with the justification that they’re controlling the predator wolf population and helping save the elk, moose, and caribou that wolves feed on. Animal rights advocates say that the elk, moose and caribou numbers are underestimated and that it is cruel and unnecessary to kill wild animals like this.

Judd’s video is understandably sensational. This story in Salon is a little more measured account of the controversy over aerial killing:

The controversy over Palin’s promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don’t even understand what wolves eat.

it is not hard to find Alaskans who say Palin’s enthusiasm for predator control fits a broader narrative of how she edits science to suit her personal views. She endorses the teaching of creationism in public schools and has questioned whether humans are responsible for global warming.

In 2007, she approved $400,000 to educate the public about the ecological success of shooting wolves and bears from the air. Some of the money went to create a pamphlet distributed in local newspapers, three weeks before the public was to vote on an initiative that would have curtailed aerial killing of wolves by private citizens. “The timing of the state’s propaganda on wolf control was terrible,” wrote the Anchorage Daily News on its editorial page.

“Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science,” says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. “In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way.” The initiative was defeated last month.

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. “On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective,” he says of Palin. “I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments,” he adds about the state’s rationale for gunning down wolves. “In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary.”

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state’s wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on “unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations.” As a result, the “inadequately designed predator control programs” threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears “on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters.”

Apparently Palin wasn’t fazed. Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska’s Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.

The legislation would give Palin’s board “more leeway without any scientific input to do whatever the hell they basically wanted,” Mark Richards, co-chair of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, wrote in an e-mail. The legislation is currently stalled in the Alaska state Senate.

[From Salon.com]

The Defenders Action Fund has launched EyeOnPalin.com, a website to focus on Palin’s voting record and what they call her “extreme anti-conservation agenda.” Now that Palin is out of the spotlight, they want to continue to highlight the way she’s hurting Alaska’s wildlife with her policies.

This is not the first time vegetarian Judd has spoken out against Palin. Last September, she said that “A woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders” due to McCain’s poor voting recording in the Senate on reproductive rights.

Spike Lee is one of those people that provides good sound bites, but definitely can drum up a controversy here and there. Recently he spoke with Joe Scarborough (who’s also good at creating controversies), and he said he believed God was responsible for the outcome of the presidential election.

File this one under the “I can’t believe he just said that on television.”

Controversial filmmaker Spike Lee revealed he thought the economic difficulties that are presently plaguing the country were ordained by God to help get Barack Obama elected president. Lee appeared on MSNBC’s Jan. 10 “Morning Joe” and, in an interview with co-host Joe Scarborough, he made the revelation.

“I’ve always believed, and it seems naive, that God’s had a hand in America,” Scarborough said. “And I get a real sense you feel that God has had a real hand in this.”

“So many things have happened – all of a sudden, the economy goes south at that moment, and then McCain,” Lee replied. “There were so many things. It was almost a movement that had to be ordained, I think.”

[From Business and Media via Fark]

Lee’s statements are a good example of the old saying, “Intelligent people will disagree.” There are certainly those who will agree with his statements and feel like the election results came straight from God. And there are those that think it’s an arrogant notion. Spike Lee is certainly not the only person to claim God has a hand in politics. According to British reports, Bush told Palestinian officials in a closed meeting that God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Though to be fair, Bush didn’t say it directly to the public.

Spike Lee recently got into a feud with Clint Eastwood, claiming there were a lack of black soldiers in Eastwood’s World War II films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. He’s a man who speaks his mind and isn’t afraid of controversy.

Here’s Spike Lee at on Friday for the screening of ‘Passing Strange.’ Images thanks to WENN.

Nicole Kidman’s new film Australia, despite sitting comfortably in the box office top ten, is not delivering all the actress might have hoped for. Now it seems that in publicizing her film she’s offended the Aboriginal people of Australia by playing the didgeridoo on German show “Wetten, Das.” Women are not permitted to play the traditional instrument under Aboriginal custom.

Baz Luhrmann’s epic Australia and its star Nicole Kidman have angered Aboriginal groups after the actress tried to play a didgeridoo on a German television show at the weekend.

The light-hearted stunt flouted Aboriginal custom in many parts of Australia, where women are forbidden to play the instrument.

It followed an earlier Australia faux pas when a tourism ad associated with the film promoted a sacred site without Aboriginal permission.

Kidman blew feebly into a didgeridoo during a promotional appearance on Wetten, Dass …?, a high-rating German program known for its high jinks.

Sydney Morning Herald

I know that Aboriginal culture was taught in schools when I was a child in Australia (it still is), but Nicole is in her 40s, I’m not sure that her education in the 1970s would have focused so much on indigenous culture. She might not have been aware of the fact women should not play didgeridoo – in fact, not all tribes follow that tradition.

Aboriginal leaders in Australia pointed out that Nicole should have known from her experience on the film Australia, and that she will now have to suffer the consequences. Some Aboriginal people think that playing the instrument makes women infertile, and that Kidman will have the same fate.

Richard Green, an award-winning actor, screenwriter and Dharug language teacher, said he was disgusted.

“People are going to see Nicole playing it and think it’s all right. It bastardises our culture. I will guarantee she has no more children. It’s not meant to be played by women as it will make them barren.”

The didgeridoo, or yirdaki, is said by some to make women infertile, and Mr Green said he feared other women would imitate Kidman without realising its dangers.

Sydney Morning Herald

So, consider yourself warned if you are hoping for children. Although, I have never heard of this myself, and I wonder if this comment is to hurt Nicole directly, after she recently said she’d like more children. Particularly as Richard says “I will guarantee she has no more children” making it personal.

The idea of playing a musical instrument making you barren is obviously one that western culture would find difficult to grasp, but the Aboriginals of Australia have many cultural stories about how the land was formed, and traditions that explain human behaviour. It really is an interesting culture if you get the chance to learn about it, but difficult to study as all the different tribes living in Australia have their own belief system.

It’s a shame that Nicole’s film has attracted more negative attention – this was meant to be make or break territory for the actress, who seems to be getting most of the bad press.

Photos are stills from “Wetten, Das” and feature singer Anastacia, host Thomas Gottschalk, and Hugh Jackman. Credit: WENN

Russell Brand has finally crossed the line. Brand and TV presenter Jonathan Ross made four phone calls to Fawlty Towers’ star Andrew Sachs’ answering machine on a Radio 2 broadcast that got more and more offensive as they progressed. It began with Ross blurting out that Brand had slept with Sachs’ granddaughter, Satanic Sluts’ performer Georgina Baillie, 23, and continued with repeated calls to apologize that went in completely the opposite direction. Ofcom, the watchdog of British broadcasting, has received over 10,000 complaints, which is an extraordinary number for a radio show.

The BBC, which produces the show, is in danger of being fined £250,000 for allowing the show to air. There’s been a public demand for the firing of Jonathan Ross, who earns £6million a year from the BBC for his various hosting duties.

I’ve listened to the entire broadcast, which can be found below, and even as a Brand fan there were a number of times I cringed. My first inclination was to think that Jonathan Ross was peer pressured into this lapse in judgement, but after hearing it out, it simply appears that these two dumbasses shouldn’t be anywhere near a mic, or other people for that matter, when they’re together. It was like listening to high school boys egg each other on.

So, it was offensive, they more than crossed the line many times, and they embarrassed and humiliated a gentleman and his not so genteel granddaughter, and disciplinary action should be taken by the BBC, Ofcom, the listening public, whomever. But seriously, doesn’t the Prime Minister have more important things to do?

Mr Brown startled observers by breaking into an emergency economic meeting with French president Nicolas Sarkozy to comment on the BBC scandal.

He said in a statement: ‘This is clearly inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour, as is now widely recognised.’

Tory leader David Cameron asked how the BBC had ever allowed the programme to be broadcast. In the Commons, Tory MP Nigel Evans and Labour’s Andrew Mackinlay tabled an early-day motion condemning the abusive calls as ‘base, vulgar’ and likely to diminish the reputation of the BBC.

Mr Evans suggested that the police should launch an investigation. ‘I would sack both comedians,’ he said. ‘Who do they have to offend, and in what manner do they have to offend people, before the BBC takes action?’

Scotland Yard said later it could not act unless it received a complaint from an injured party.
In an act of belated contrition, both Ross and Brand sent flowers to Mr Sachs’s house. Ross was said to have delivered them personally.

[From Daily Mail]

It’s hard for me to imagine President Bush, or any President, stopping an economic meeting of all things, at this worldwide financially threatening time, to comment on the shenanigans of a couple of morons on the radio! And a motion in the Commons condemning the pair and calling on Scotland Yard? The silliest part of this political inclusion is that Gordon Brown is making them both even more famous, across the globe, than they ever were before. Jonathan Ross is thanking all of you in his head, and Russell Brand, well, he probably still doesn’t see the problem.

Andrew Sachs has been quietly dignified through this, saying that he only wanted an apology from the duo for his granddaughter. His granndaughter, Georgina Baillie, also know as Voluptua of the burlesque group the Satanic Sluts, had admitted to a sexual relationship, but has rightly asked for an apology for the disrespect shown to both her and her grandfather.

Here’s the video, which is definitely not for work.

Header image thanks to Telegraph.co.uk.

Jamie Lynn Spears is in all sorts of hot water again, though whether or not she deserves to be is highly debatable. According to the National Enquirer in a follow-up to their story last week, Spears definitely is pregnant again, despite the family’s denials. The magazine says they got the information from a Spears family member who isn’t backing down from his/her claims. However they also haven’t named the person, so it’s still hard to say. It’s certainly not impossible, but it seems to early to rush to judgment yet.

Despite anonymous public denials, a Spears family member has come forward and confirmed that 17-year-old Jamie Lynn IS pregnant again! What’s more, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned that Casey Aldridge, the baby’s father, erupted in anger when he found out. Jamie Lynn had been keeping the pregnancy secret and Casey learned about it through media reports after The ENQUIRER broke the story earlier this week.

Now, a close family member has revealed exclusively that the Spears family is in an uproar and Jamie Lynn is being pressured to abort the baby. The anonymous public denials of Jamie Lynn’s pregnancy, says the family member, are simply buying the Spears family time until they decide what to do.

“Jamie Lynn’s mom is furious about the pregnancy,” the family member told an ENQUIRER source. “And she’s livid the news leaked out, especially during her book tour. Lynne doesn’t want to talk about it publicly until they sort this out. Jamie Lynn is being pressured by people very close to her to abort. But no decision has been made yet. Casey is furious. Jamie Lynn hadn’t told him about the pregnancy. He learned about it in the media and then confronted her and she told him it was true. Lynne and Jamie Lynn have been arguing nonstop by phone.”

[From the National Enquirer via Perez Hilton]

The National Enquirer is clearly sticking to their story. A lot of people haven’t noticed the gradual change, but they are actually pretty accurate in terms of celebrity news. It’s not like Star where it’s safest to assume 98% of the story is fabricated. Like I said it’s definitely too soon to even make an educated guess, but it’s pretty obvious that the Spears’ family rebuttals aren’t holding a lot of weight.

Here Jamie Lynn at her local Walmart before going to a friend’s house yesterday. Images thanks to Bauer-Griffin.

Will Smith has spent a good deal of time defending his Scientology-based school from claims that it’s… a Scientology school. You could see how people might think that. This weekend Smith repeated that although the school has some Scientology-based teaching methods, he himself is not a Scientologist.

Unlike a lot of other celebrities, Smith actually seemed a little open and willing to talk about it. He also confirmed that he spoke with the anti-Scientology group Anonymous – and even the group seems to be slightly less skeptical about Smith.

This year, news broke that Will had funded a school in suburban Los Angeles that used one of Scientology’s study programs. It seemed like Will and Jada were making a statement. But they didn’t actually make a statement.

Monday night, I ran into Mr. and Mrs. Smith at the premiere of “Lakeview Terrace,” which Will has produced with partner James Lassiter. Jada was there, too. And here’s the thing about Will and Jada: they are immensely likable. They are incredibly gracious … I told him I’d heard he’d given a press conference to the group called Anonymous, which protests Scientology.

“Not exactly a press conference, but I did talk to them,” he said. Mind you, Will had just gone to the buffet and was carrying a plate of food. This was up at the swanky new Empire Hotel rooftop following the premiere of “Lakeview,” which stars Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington. So, what’s the story? Is Will a Scientologist? “I am not,” he told me. The school is using one of Scientology’s teaching tools, but Will said, “You can take different parts of things you like and put them all together.”

This is similar to what he told the Anonymous people (who remain, I presume, unknown). In their recent press release, the group said, “We appreciate Will’s interest in our efforts and his openness in speaking with us directly. It shows his concern both as a parent and educator.

“Anonymous is hopeful that NVLA will take the great strides necessary to correct for the deficiencies in Scientology’s Study Tech, or abandon them altogether. We will be keeping an eye on the situation to make sure that NVLA lives up to the goals Will Smith has for it, which include keeping the Church of Scientology out of the classrooms.”

[From Fox News via the Huffington Post]

I’m not sure if I buy that reasoning, but I think it says a lot about Will Smith that he actually spoke to Anonymous. I have yet to hear about anyone else doing that. I’ve never been able to figure out where Will stands on the Scientology issue. If he’s such a fan of it, why doesn’t he join the cult? Some people say he has, but again – if he had, why lie about it? Sure, it’s not good for his career, but it’s debatable whether it’d be significantly worse than the associations he already has with them.

Either way, it does speak better of Smith that he spoke with Anonymous and doesn’t get all haughty about Scientology like BFF Tom Cruise.

Here’s Will, Jada , and Caleb Pinkett at the New York Premiere of ‘Lakeview Terrace’ yesterday. Images thanks to WENN.

Oscar winning actress Helen Mirren, 63, sparked a lot of debate with her comments on date rape, which were part of a longer interview with GQ Magazine. She said that she had been date raped twice as a young girl and that she doesn’t think women can take men to court for date rape in situations where it gets as far as them being in the same room naked together. At least that’s what other outlets claim she said. So far everyone has been going on excerpts from the interview because it’s only in the print edition of the magazine and there are just specific quotes online.

Mirren claims her quotes are accurate but that they need to be taken in context. Maybe she should have one of her people type that shit up and post it somewhere, because not a lot of people outside the UK are going to be motivated or able to find the British edition of GQ. As it is, I think Mirren’s comments may have dented her sterling reputation a little:

“Helen Mirren does not dispute the accuracy of statements attributed to her in an upcoming GQ article,” read a statement released Tuesday by Mirren’s publicist, Stan Rosenfield.
“She merely asks that people read the article in its entirety before drawing conclusions. If they do that, she says, their conclusions will likely be far less sweeping and sensational than those drawn by some in the popular press. She does not wish to qualify any of her remarks. She just wants to avoid having them presented in inflammatory language.”

The queen of salty award-show chatter needn’t fear—her lingo is entertaining enough on its own.

[From E! Online]

I showed the Daily Mail’s account of Mirren’s comments to a friend of mine and her mouth went open and she thought her statements were outrageous. She theorized that Mirren is still trying to deal with what she went through and that she’s still suffering the emotional pain and guilt after being raped twice. I would be inclined to believe that Mirren wasn’t being as broad sweeping about date rape as it sounded, but she did say “it [date rape] is one of the many subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them,” and that she didn’t think Mike Tyson was a rapist! It was like she was claiming that women should just deal with it. It was the Mike Tyson part that really got me, because the guy is known as a violent multiple ear-biting convict. Just because a woman went up to his hotel room doesn’t mean she owed it to him.

If I can find British GQ I’ll read what she said though, and if my mind is changed I’ll tell you why. I’m not holding my breath though.

Helen Mirren is shown christening a cruise ship on 4/16/08. I am aware that this is an unfortunate photo choice given the subject. Credit: James Newell / WENN

Protesters gathered outside of Angelina Jolie’s hospital in Nice Monday night to decry the intense media focus on the couple and their new babies. They were incensed by mayor Christian Estrosi’s effusive praise for Brad and Angelina in light of his lack of response to the recent murder of a young man. The family is trying to get the remains of the victim released in time to have a traditional Islamic funeral, which dictates that burial rites take place as soon as possible.

It’s a conflict as old as the media – why do we give so much coverage to celebrities when there are people dying and starving in the world? It’s particularly painful for this young man’s family, who have to see the story of their murdered son, brother and cousin quickly fade from the headlines and aren’t even given his body to bury while it’s big news that Angelina gave birth there.

They probably can’t even get a meeting with the mayor and while they were desperately trying to plead for their dead relative’s body Estrosi went on TV holding Knox’s birth certificate and talking about how proud he was that Brangelina picked Nice. As someone who works to bring attention to the plight of refugees and children of war, Angelina probably empathizes with the protesters. She thought she picked a nice safe place to give birth, but there’s no escaping controversy when you’re that famous. Maybe the mayor will think twice about snubbing victim’s families now that these people were able to get some attention for their cause.

Update: I have no idea if the mayor specifically snubbed this family or didn’t meet with them, and I overstated that in order to make the title short and make a point. From the Access Hollywood report above, and on reports from X17 photographers, the protesters wanted attention to their cause which received little or no media coverage especially compared to the Brangelina twins. They were especially incensed that the mayor put so much focus on the celebrity story while they were anxiously trying to get the stabbing victim’s body released for burial.

Thanks to BreitBart for the video and to Megan for the tip.