Lady Gaga is being sued either for $30 or $35 million (depending on which reports you believe) by an ex boyfriend who claims he invented her entire wacky persona, music style, and even came up with the idea for her name. If you believe this guy’s account he was a regular Henry Higgins to a then Jerseylicious unpolished rocker who relied on him for guidance in all areas of her professional life. The story goes that Gaga, then Stefani Germanotta, first met producer Rob Fusari in the Spring of 2006. He claims in his lawsuit that he changed her entire musical approach and image, deemed her “Lady Gaga” and fell in love with her, not necessarily in that order but probably, and that she signed off 20% of her earnings to him. They broke up when she had some difficulties getting signed, and she eventually cut him off.

The language in the lawsuit is poetic and overly-dramatic, and it really makes this guy sound like a complete dick. CNN has the story and some excerpts. (There’s more at the source, including quotations of poetry.)

The story starts with 20-year-old Germanotta riding a bus from Manhattan to Fusari’s studio in Parsippany, New Jersey, to work on music in the spring of 2006.

“Fusari was expecting someone a little more grunge-rocker than the young Italian girl ‘guidette’ that arrived at his doorstep and was worried that he had made a mistake,” the court papers said.

“Fusari then asked her to play one of her songs on the studio piano and within seconds, (he) realized that Germanotta had star potential. The trick would be coaxing it out of her.”

While Fusari thought Germanotta’s songs were brilliant, they lacked commercial appeal, the suit said.

“He pushed her to explore different musical genres,” it said. “Over the course of the next several months, Germanotta commuted from New York to Jersey seven days a week, radically reshaping her approach. They put their focus on writing music and finding a sound for her.”

Fusari takes credit for convincing her “to abandon rock riffs and add dance beats. He demonstrated how the sound of a drum machine would not hurt the integrity of her music.”

The suit claims Fusari created her stage name by accident. A text message intended to read “Radio Ga Ga,” named after the Queen song, was changed by spell check on his cell phone to “Lady Ga Ga,” it said. “Germanotta loved it and ‘Lady Gaga’ was born.”

Their romance grew as they were “working intensely in such close emotional quarters,” it said. Germanotta and her father soon signed a contract with Fusari giving him a 20 percent share of her career, the suit said.

The romance declined after Lady Gaga gained and then lost a record deal with Island Def Jam, it said.

“The couple was now constantly bickering as Germanotta became more and more verbally abusive towards Fusari,” the suit said.

“Fusari wanted to return their relationship to a purely professional level, so in January 2007, he ended their romantic involvement.”

After Lady Gaga got a new recording contract in May 2007 with Interscope, she stopped answering Fusari’s phone calls, it said.

Still, he co-wrote and produced four songs on Lady Gaga’s debut album “The Fame,” including the hit “Paparazzi.”

[From CNN]

I believe that Gaga was kind of rough a few years ago. I’ve seen videos of her performing and while she was talented her personal style and music were nothing like we see now. (Here’s a video search listing of older videos of Gaga.) I don’t know how much of a claim this guy really has to Gaga’s success or image, but one thing strikes me - she seems to have an MO of hooking up with men who are responsible for her style. It might just be a coincidence in that she dates guys she works closely with. She was last linked with her art director, who had an infant son with his live-in girlfriend. Gaga later said she was single and celibate. She also told Cosmo last month that she had a boyfriend who wanted her to fail. “I had a boyfriend who told me I’d never succeed, never be nominated for a Grammy, never have a hit song, and that he hoped I’d fail. I said to him, ‘Someday, when we’re not together, you won’t be able to order a cup of coffee a the f-cking deli without hearing or seeing me.’” It sounds like someone is so pissed that he’s been called out that he’s suing the woman he claims was his protege.

CB sent me this story yesterday, but after the E-Trade debacle (which has a new chapter that I’ll to in a moment), I was slightly Lohan-ed out. Which brings me to a conversation point: the banning of Lindsay on this site. CB and I have talked about it, and the truth is, Lindsay is still totally gossip-worthy, as evidenced by how many hits we consistently get on Lohan posts. She’s a hot mess, yes, but she’s also crazy and arrogant and delusional, and even though it might make me a bad person, I find that I enjoy writing about her shenanigans. She doesn’t have the sheer tragedy of Britney Spears - Lindsay’s downfall isn’t about some chemical imbalance or anything, Lindsay’s problem is The Cult of Entitlement, you know? No one telling her “no”, no one telling her “you can’t pull this sh-t and still have a career.” Except people did say that to Lindsay, and she was too coked up to listen.

Anyway, the first story is that Lindsay was on a UK talk show with Alan Carr, and Carr asked her a bunch of “uncomfortable questions”. Like, “Are you Arthur or you Martha now? Are you back on the c-ck?” I’ll give Lindsay credit for looking genuinely embarrassed:

Meanwhile, in Lindsay’s-only-problem-is-her-childhood-milkaholism news, Lawyers for both “sides” are speaking out. Mostly, it’s Lindsay’s sketchy lawyer doing the talking, but E-Trade did release a short statement to Esquire: “While E*TRADE doesn’t typically comment on pending litigation, we felt it appropriate given the high level of interest in the E*TRADE Baby. With the E*TRADE Baby, our advertising campaign is meant to be witty and memorable, while effectively communicating the powerful investing tools and services offered by E*TRADE. We believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this case.” Lindsay’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, had much more to say:

Lindsay Lohan’s case against E*Trade is heating up, with both sides trading barbs, denials and accusations over a TV ad about a “milk-a-holic” baby named Lindsay. Since being filed in New York on Monday, the lawsuit has raised more than a few eyebrows. Stephanie Ovadia, Lohan’s lawyer at the forefront of the lawsuit, tells PopEater that skeptics need to look at the “totality of the commercial, taking into account name and characterization.”

If you really want to know when E*Trade (or its ad agency, Grey Group) turned the corner and decided to model the boyfriend-stealing baby after Lohan, Ovadia asserts, all you need to do is look at the ad’s script. “This script is a very important piece,” she tells us. “Because, slowly, all of the pieces are fitting together to make one complete picture.”

That “piece” of the puzzle emerged this week via Esquire magazine, which happened to be embedded with Grey while they were crafting the baby ads. In the original script, dated Aug. 11 of last year, the “other woman/baby” character was named Deborah. In an updated draft six weeks later, the “bimbus” (which was eventually changed to “milk-a-holic”) was changed to Lindsay. Adding confusion to the mix, the name Deborah was still referred to later in the script, but scratched out for the new name.

As we previously reported, Lohan is suing the company for $100 million, insisting they modeled the baby after her. Ovadia insists that because of her stardom, Lohan now has single-name recognition among the general public.

Lohan believes that under New York state law, E*Trade was supposed to ask for her approval before using the name. They want the TV spot off the air and want $50 million in exemplary damages and another $50 million in compensatory damages.

[From PopEater]

Ugh. This lawyer sounds as bad as Lindsay, doesn’t she?

Lindsay in Paris on March 9 & 11, 2010. Credit: ANG/Fame Pictures.

Yesterday, we heard how Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade because they running a commercial in which a talking baby named Lindsay is referred to as a “milkaholic”. Lindsay is suing for $100 million. Because that’s how much this enormous, horrible, terrible “milkaholic” insult is worth to her. And because she’s only known by one name, like Madonna. And Lindsay has practically trademarked that name, right? Yeah.

Anyway, I know some of you want the Lindsay stories to end, but this sh-t just gets even more delusional/funnier. This time the NY Post got an interview with Dina about this lawsuit, and I can’t even describe the hilarity that ensued. Like when Dina says that E-Trade are “little babies” and that they’re “mocking another child who’s just trying to survive Hollywood, basically.” Oh, that “basically” is so important, isn’t it? It’s like Dina saying, “This is worse than the Holocaust… in essence.”

Lindsay Lohan is no “milkaholic,” but she does cry like a baby. The “Mean Girls” star was left sobbing uncontrollably when she saw an E-Trade ad on Super Bowl Sunday about a ditsy, boyfriend-stealing infant named Lindsay she believed was created in her likeness, her irate mom told The Post yesterday.

“She said, ‘Mommy, help me. This is wrong. How can they do this?’ ” Dina Lohan said of a tearful phone call with her 23-year-old daughter after the big game. La Lohan had just set her peepers on an ad for E-trade that features a pair of babies video chatting about a boyfriend-stealing tyke — and became “extremely upset” because she believed the spot was taking a jab at her hard-partying ways.

“They’re little babies doing this, mocking another child who’s just trying to survive Hollywood, basically,” Dina Lohan said.

In the ad for the financial-services company, a baby girl is upset with her boyfriend for not calling the previous night. After the boy apologizes, saying he was diversifying his portfolio, the girl asks suspiciously: “And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn’t over?”

“Lindsay?” the boy asks sheepishly before another baby girl pokes her head into the frame and asks, “Milk-a-what?”

Lohan filed a lawsuit in Nassau County on Monday seeking an eye-popping $100 million in damages for her pain and suffering.

“I’m just basically glad I took a stand. I’m not going to let them do this to us anymore,” Dina Lohan said of the “horrible” and “mean” ad.

She said that the ad was clearly aimed at her daughter because unlike other stars, her daughter’s first name is synonymous with the “Herbie Fully Loaded” actress.

“Everyone knows Lindsay, like Cher or Madonna,” Dina Lohan said. But Grey Group, which produced the ad, insists that — unlike Oprah or Cher — Lindsay is a popular baby name. In fact, company spokesman Chris Brown said that someone working on the spot shared the name as well.

Lindsay’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, has requested an injunction to have the ad yanked. E-Trade declined to comment until it could thoroughly examine the court papers.

[From The New York Post]

Jesus, Dina is really the funny one of this family, isn’t she? I wonder if she quoted Lindsay accurately: “Mommy, help me. This is wrong. How can they do this?” ABOUT A COMMERCIAL. Featuring a talking baby. Named Lindsay. For the love of God.

By the way, to any lawyers who may be commenting on this story… won’t Lindsay’s lawyers have to prove not only that “Lindsay” in synonymous with “The Blohan That We Know and Love”, but that “milkaholic” is actually an insult? Worthy of damages?

Dina Lohan in NY on February 23, 2010. Dina & Lindsay on June 4, 2006. Credit: WENN.

These are photos of Lindsay Lohan in Paris yesterday, attending the Kenzo fashion show. She’s wearing fur, by the way. And she continues to look like she’s getting the good sh-t in Paris. Anyway, it looks like the good sh-t might have made her totally delusional (or maybe not), because Lindsay has decided to sue E-Trade, according to a report that seems to have started in the New York Post. Apparently, Lindsay got pissed when she saw a new E-Trade commercial (below), one of those that feature talking babies. Anyway, the boy baby is talking to his girlfriend baby, explaining why he didn’t call her. He’s coming up with excuses (he was on E-Trade last night), and then the girlfriend asks him, “And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn’t over?” It’s pretty funny, actually:

Here’s Gawker’s take on it:

Lindsay Lohan has gone off the deep end of paranoid narcissism. A Super Bowl ad featuring talking babies that refers to a “milkaholic” named “Lindsay” is about her, she says, and she’s suing for $100M.

Lindsay filed suit yesterday, the New York Post reports. Her lawyer explains, “Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit. They used the name Lindsay. They’re using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody’s talking about it and saying it’s Lindsay Lohan.”

“Subliminal message”? Is that a joke? Though it is my job to read and spread gossip, this is the first I’ve heard about the above party baby secretly representing the girl ocasionally known as Blowhan.

Then again, last time I thought Lindsay was punking the press, it turned out she really was starting a leggings brand inspired by Marilyn Monroe that sometimes featues built-in kneepads. Fame does terrible things to young minds.

[From Gawker]

How could a milkaholic baby named Lindsay be an allusion to our own precious Blowhan?!? I thought she didn’t do drugs, right, Lindsay? But seriously, the commercial is so much funnier when you’ve got in your head that the baby is some sort of crackhead avatar. I mean, obviously, it’s a baby, and babies doing crack aren’t funny. Which is funny, because Lindsay is delusional. And it just goes round and round!

Although, I will say this, though - out of all the possible names to use for a “milkaholic” why choose “Lindsay”? Is there something there?

Lindsay Lohan in Paris on March 8, 2010. Credit: WENN.

Jon Gosselin and the TLC network have reached an undisclosed settlement in their lawsuits against each other. TLC originally sued Jon for breaching his contract with the network, which specified that the reality show dad not make public appearances unless they were preapproved. Gosselin countersued, alleging that TLC was blocking him from making a living trading on his bloated pitiful image. There were stories that Jon was offering to let TLC film his children again in exchange for dropping their suit against him. Jon is said to be flat broke and to no longer be able to afford lawyers fees. I would bet that we’ll be seeing the eight smallest Gosselins on TLC again soon:

“TLC has reached a settlement with Jon Gosselin and will be undertaking procedural steps to conclude the litigation,” the network said in a statement Wednesday. “All terms of the settlement are confidential. The whole Gosselin family remain under contract with TLC. ”

A source close to the situation says that the network rules out a return of the hit show, Jon & Kate Plus 8, that made the family household names.

The ugly back-and-forth between the network and Gosselin included a lawsuit filed by TLC against Gosselin for alleged breach of contract. It claimed that by making paid and unpaid TV appearances without the cable network’s permission he was in violation of his agreement with the channel.

Later, Gosselin filed a $5-million counterclaim, saying that the network had damaged his career by preventing him from working with other media outlets. Gosselin had also forbidden the network from filming his eight children with Kate Gosselin.

[From People]

Daddy douche might not have to keep swindling dumb rich girls hoping to get their photos in People Magazine. I doubt there are any left for the taking anyway, especially now that the news is out that he’s not only a complete loser, but a tiny endowed one as well. (Not that it matters, but it doesn’t help when the guy has nothing else going for him.) Look for Jon Gosselin making a living hosting “celebrity” boxing tournaments and strip club openings. It beats showing up to sit in a cubicle to surf the web all day. (It’s an honest living. I’ve done it.)

Two weekends ago, the News of the World published a scandalous story about Brad and Angelina “consulting a divorce lawyer” to split up their assets and work on a custody agreement ahead of their big breakup. This story jumped internationally very quickly, and many, many, many people freaked out, both the Brangelina lovers and haters. It was a weird situation, because the report didn’t seem to have any more merit than all of the random Star Magazine and In Touch Weekly stories that have Brad and Angelina breaking up every single week. Still, it touched off a big media war, one that Brad and Angelina are still doing some damage control on. And now it’s not just some friendly photo-ops to let everyone know they’re fine - it was just announced that Brad and Angelina are suing! This is seriously the first time they’ve ever sued, so it’s a big deal:

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are suing a London tabloid for claiming that they were planning to split.

The couple’s lawyer Keith Schillings tells BBC News that Pitt, 46, and Jolie, 34, have begun legal proceedings against the News of The World tabloid, which reported Jan. 24 that the two had agreed to divide their assets and made arrangements for the custody of their six children, Maddox, 8, Pax, 6, Zahara, 5, Shiloh, 3, and twins Vivienne and Knox, 18 months.

Schillings tells the BBC that the tabloid report contained “false and intrusive allegations” and that the paper failed to meet a demand for a retraction and apology for the article which was “widely republished by mainstream news outlets.”

Schillings says Sorrell Trope, a Los Angeles divorce lawyer identified by some publications as advising the two, denied claims that he had been in contact with the couple. “I have had no contact from… Angelina Jolie and / or Brad Pitt,” Trope said in a statement. “I have never met… your clients or had any involvement with either of them. The foregoing is true with respect to all other members of this firm.”

A spokesperson for the News Of The World has yet to comment.

Pitt and Jolie, who are not married, packed on the PDA Sunday during an appearance at the Super Bowl in Miami. They took their eldest son, Maddox, to the big game.

[From Us Weekly]

I’m going to put all of my cards on the table: I like Brad and Angelina, together and separately. I think they’re good people, I think they put up with a lot of crap from the media, and I think they’re generally pretty smart about how they handle their public personas. All that being said, one of their dumbest moves as a couple was to have no publicist together or separately, and to have no media consultant or anyone like that. They should have had someone on their staff dealing with the media fulltime ever since 2006, when Brad let go of his long-time publicist. Having someone on permanent standby would have helped a lot throughout the trials and tribulations the tabloids seem to have Brangelina going through every week. And now that they’re taken on lawyers and are actually suing one publication for one story, it just strikes me as too little too late. Why this story and not the others? I don’t get it.

Oh, and why not sue Ian Halperin while they’re at it? That guy needs to be taken down.

Brad and Angelina at the LA premiere of ‘Inglourious Basterds’ on August 10, 2009.

Jon Gosselin has a piss poor position in TLC’s lawsuit against him for breach of contract and he knows it. Gosselin is reportedly trying to offer a bent olive branch to the network. Radar Online reports that he’s willing to let his children be filmed again if they’ll drop the lawsuit against him. Gosselin has been blocked from making paid appearances not approved by TLC, effectively cutting off his only source of income. He’s had to take up with various well off 20-something women to make ends meet and I would bet that his latest relationship is either on the rocks or already over. The only card Gosselin has left to play is to admit he was wrong by blocking TLC. This is probably a last ditch effort for him to try and save face and attorney’s fees.

Jon Gosselin will allow TLC to film his children again if the network drops its lawsuit against him, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

The former Jon & Kate Plus 8 star is facing an expensive trial as TLC pursues its breach of contract claim against him. The prestigious law firm Williams & Connolly is representing TLC and won a preliminary injunction against Gosselin, prohibiting him from engaging in behavior that violates the non-compete clause in his contract.

Now Jon is ready to make a deal, RadarOnline.com has learned. He’s hoping to get TLC to drop the lawsuit by allowing them permission to film his children again.

But don’t expect the return of Jon & Kate Plus 8. One source with knowledge of the situation told RadarOnline.com that the network would NEVER take Jon back. “You can be sure that if the kids come back to TLC it will be only with Kate, not with Jon. And there’s no guarantee that will happen either.”

TLC is convinced they can make their new project with Kate work even though they have not revealed what the show’s format will be.

It is possible that Kate Plus 8 could return as several specials, rather than a regular series.

But all the talk right now about settlement is coming from Jon, who is clearly getting the worst of the situation in the litigation. He’s been restricted from making money off his reality TV fame and is no longer receiving a TLC paycheck. His trial is scheduled to being in the Spring.

Jon’s attorney Mark Heller told RadarOnline.com: “You haven’t seen the last of Jon Gosselin.”

[From Radar Online]

Of course we haven’t seen the last of Jon Gosselin. If this lawsuit is ever dropped he’s going to show up at any event that will have him. He’ll ask for cash and get denied and will end up on the F-list celebrity boxing circuit like his turncoat BFF, Michael Lohan. At least his wife and kids will have money coming in again and won’t have to worry about the child support their deadbeat dad isn’t paying.

There’s also news that Kate Gosselin will be back on The View as a guest host on March 11. Kate’s potential talkshow deal with Paula Deen fell through and she’s probably worried about her next gig. Maybe she’ll be back on TLC with her kids soon. There’s still a lot of interest in this family despite the fact that they may seem played out to us.

The Aerosmith saga is taking yet another ugly turn. Even though front man Steven Tyler finally did the right thing and got himself into rehab for substance abuse, it looks like the rest of Aerosmith doesn’t want to wait around for him to get better and return to the band. Maybe ther were miffed by Steven’s pre-rehab rantings about taking a two-year hiatus to work on “Brand Tyler.” Rolling Stone reported that Joe Perry and the rest of the guys have been approaching other singers, including Lenny Kravitz and former Bad Company front man Paul Rodgers about replacing Tyler. This prompted Tyler to call his new manager from rehab, who issued a scathing letter threatening legal action if Aerosmith records or tours without him. The gloves are off!

Steven Tyler’s new manager has sent a letter to Aerosmith’s management threatening legal action if the band makes good on their promise to tour with a new singer, Billboard reports. In the letter, manager Skip Miller asserts that Tyler is synonymous with Aerosmith: “Can you imagine the manager of the Rolling Stones calling for the replacement of Mick Jagger?” Miller writes. “Steven is Aerosmith, along with the others. He’s the guy the public knows. He’s the singer.”

As Rolling Stone previously reported, prior to entering rehab for an addiction to prescription pain medicine, Tyler vowed to stay in Aerosmith, saying in a statement, “I wish to set the record straight and say that I have read reports of a rumored two-year hiatus and want to be clear that this is completely false and I will enthusiastically be writing, recording and performing with Aerosmith as soon as things are handled.” Miller’s letter reiterated Tyler’s sentiment, noting, “Steven Tyler does not want lawsuits. We do not want to go in that direction. The direction we want is Aerosmith, with Steven Tyler, touring in Europe, touring Latin America, releasing a new album… This is the direction it’s all intended to go,” Billboard reports.

Tyler has made a few unexpected public appearances while in rehab, first singing at a local pub’s karaoke night and then surprising Home Depot shoppers with an impromptu performance over the hardware store’s loudspeaker system. His bandmates, meanwhile, are rumored to have asked vocalists like Billy Idol, Lenny Kravitz (who declined) and Paul Rodgers to fill in for Tyler on the road while the frontman works on “Brand Tyler.”

Miller has asked for a February 9th meeting to discuss the future of Aerosmith with all five members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band and asserted that their public singer search constitutes “acts and conduct to the harm and detriment of your own client, Aerosmith, and our client who is one of its members.”

[From Rolling Stone]

Look. Aerosmith was a great band once upon a time. They wrote some timeless songs, and they made a crapload of money. I’d rather see the band break up than hire someone like Billy Idol to come in and sing “Dream On.” Are you kidding me? I say, let Steven Tyler get his head together, and if they all still feel like playing together, great. If not, then kiss Aerosmith good night and move on. Not to feed Tyler’s ego or anything, but he’s absolutely right. Aerosmith isn’t Aerosmith without him- just like Queen wasn’t Queen without Freddie Mercury.

Steven Tyler in New York on November 9, 2009, and in Vegas on July 24, 2009. Credit: WENN.

Yesterday we heard Brittany Murphy’s widower, Simon Monjack, mouthing off to The Daily Beast about how he was going to sue Warner Brothers for her death. Brittany passed away just two weeks after she was let go from the Happy Feet sequel, according to Monjack, who blames Warner Brothers for her death. There’s still no official cause of death from the coroner. Brittany suffered from a heart condition, mitral valve prolapse and she was also hypoglycemic. She appeared underweight at the time of her death and was rumored to have been on drugs due to her behavior. Monjack denies that his wife was on any illegal drug, and claims that she only took prescription medication for extreme period cramps. He said that other prescription medication found at her bedside was his. Sadly, we’ll see if that’s true when the toxicology reports come back.

Meanwhile Warner Brothers has issued a blunt statement denying any wrongdoing. They state that Brittany didn’t even have a contract with them for Happy Feet 2.

Warner Bros. is none too pleased with Simon Monjack’s extraordinarily damning accusation that the studio’s decision to pink-slip Brittany Murphy pretty much directly caused her death.
Go figure.

“Any claim that Warner Bros. Pictures was somehow responsible for Brittany Murphy’s tragic death is demonstrably false, reprehensible and defamatory,” they hit back in a statement.

“Despite press reports to the contrary, Warner Bros. Pictures and Ms. Murphy never entered into any deal for Happy Feet 2, and thus, there was no contract to cancel.”

Well, Monjack warned that a lawsuit was on its way. He may have been more right than he knew.

[From E! Online]

Warner Brothers is going to put the hurt on this guy if he even says another word about how they’re the cause of Brittany’s death. It’s understandable that he would be upset and want to blame someone, but obviously this is some sort of money grab. Maybe he was hoping for a settlement, but Warner Brothers is not going to play that game. Given Monjack’s long history of bad debts, lawsuits and questionable business practices, he’s not doing his already poor reputation any favors by threatening to sue.

I’m not really sure how I feel about Brittany Murphy’s widower, Simon Monjack. He’s accused of all sorts of wrongdoings and has been sued multiple times for bad debts and business deals gone wrong. It’s obvious that the guy loved Brittany, and I truly doubt that he had anything to do with her tragic death late last year at the age of 32. Still, the more Monjack talks the guiltier he looks. Monjack seems to have an excuse for everything and in this recent interview with The Daily Beast he makes a lot of suspicious, over-the-top statements about how he bought Brittany a lot of luxury goods and how he was paying for everything. The guy was unemployed, he has only 2 credits on IMDB, and was being sued for not paying a credit card and for nonpayment of rent (among other things). He said he made millions from his “photography… a wonderful hobby that I hope to take up as a career.” So he made all that money from photography and still considers it a hobby? He never says outright that he was supporting Brittany, but he insinuates it, and that’s sketchy. Again, I really don’t believe he had a hand in Brittany’s demise, but I do get a whiff of con man from him.

Plus, Monjack is suing Warner Brothers for the wrongful death of his wife. Brittany was fired from a voice role in the Happy Feet sequel just two weeks before she died. As far as I can find out, there’s no official cause of death yet so isn’t it premature to sue for wrongful death? Brittany had a heart condition, mitral valve prolapse, and hypoglycemia. (Not diabetes as has been reported.) She suffered from either the flu or a bad cold before she died. The way this guy is defending himself, sharing sexy pictures of Brittany he took, and suing Warner Brothers definitely makes it seem like he’s not on the up and up. Here are some highlights from The Daily Beast, where you can read more at the source:

Monjack is suing Warner Brothers for canning Brittany from Happy Feet 2
The Daily Beast has learned that Simon Monjack, the much-maligned husband of Brittany Murphy, is only days away from filing a wrongful-death action against Warner Brothers, claiming that the studio is responsible for the unexpected death of the 32-year-old actress last December. “They killed her,” he told me. Although the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office hasn’t released a final cause of death, Monjack and Brittany’s mother, Sharon, who also spoke to me, are convinced that the once-promising star died of a heart attack from the stress caused by Warner Brother’s canceling of a contract just two weeks before she died. Murphy was excited to have begun production on the sequel to the animated hit Happy Feet, but when she was fired by Warner Brothers, Monjack says, “She was devastated.”

On the rumors that he was drunk on set
“Every story needs a villain, and everyone has decided it is me,” Monjack says. “The reports about the Puerto Rican set are fantasy. I was never, ever drunk there. What I did do was demand they follow union rules and after she had worked 12-hour days, six days a week, that she get the breaks she was entitled to. I was ‘difficult’ because I was the enforcer to protect Brittany. She was far too nice to stand up to directors and producers who wanted her to work to exhaustion.”

On his bad debts
He says he had earned a doctorate from UCLA in philosophical aesthetics, specializing in deconstructionism and post-expressionism. He also boasts that he made a small fortune in trading currencies and having the good luck of buying over 100 paintings from a group of then-unknown British artists, including Damien Hirst, Sarah Lucas, and Michael Yandy, among others. Although Monjack was described invariably in the press after Brittany’s death as a writer, producer, and director of tiny films, he says that was never how he earned his money. “My photography, it’s a wonderful hobby that I hope to take up as a career.”

What about the charges about him? Litigious? “I am tough. I litigate when somebody does something wrong to me. That’s one of the reasons I make enemies.”

Did he owe a bank half a million? “Yes, I had guaranteed a person’s overdraft, and they ran up $500,000, and I paid it.”

What of actress Jaime Pressly, who says that after Brittany married, the two actresses stopped speaking? “She was never even a friend of Brittany, and she had never met me. Not once.”

On his airplane illness
The rumors that his November 29 hospital admission, right after he stepped off a plane, was drug-related? “It was a mild heart attack. Nothing to do with drugs. But why should facts get in the way of a good story?”

On the charges that he sued his way to a Factory Girl credit: That guy is jealous!
And the strong charges by Factory Girl director George Hickenlooper, who said that Monjack was “a con man and a bad guy” who had “sued his way onto the project for a title.” “Hickenlooper is a liar. I sued my way into credit over plagiarism. He’s a hack who’s never grossed over a few million on a movie. He lives in some awful flat in Hollywood, and I drive three cars and had a gorgeous wife. Failure breeds jealously.”

On how he bought Brittany millions in designer goods
“I spent over a million on her engagement rings,” he told me. “And probably $3 million on clothes.”
“$3.5 million,” interrupts Sharon, standing nearby and listening to the conversation.

“When Brittany died, she had 60 pieces of unworn Louis Vuitton. The dog had Louis Vuitton. This was all me. We kept our money separate. When I took Brittany out shopping, I paid for everything.” Their sprawling, multimillion dollar home, where they lived together with Sharon, was his.

On how Brittany was suffering when he met her
“Brittany’s films had grossed $100 million before she met me,” he says. “But her career had ended before then.” Her acclaimed roles in Clueless (1995) and Girl, Interrupted (1999) were years before Monjack arrived. A performance that many insiders thought might revive her career, Don’t Say a Word, had the bad luck of being released the week of the 9/11 attacks. “She had gone through four or five agents by the time we met,” Monjack says, “and she had made a lot of indies that went straight to video. She hadn’t earned millions in years, and when we met she was struggling financially, from a series of bad investments. She trusted some people who she shouldn’t have. There are people in Hollywood living off of young successful boys and girls and getting them to invest in things they shouldn’t.”

[From The Daily Beast]

So if the sprawling Beverly Hills home was his, why were pretty reliable outlets like TMZ reporting that it was in Brittany’s name and that she left everything to her mom? There were also stories that Brittany was broke when she died and owed more than her home was worth.

Something doesn’t add up here. I was ready to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until he added all that crap about how he spent millions on designer clothes for Brittany and how the guy who called him a con man was just jealous. He talks just like a con man.

Brittany Murphy and Simon Monjack are shown in 2007 and 2008. Credit: WENN.com