At this point, I have zero desire to do any kind of background on the sleazy saga, the epic stupidity of the neverending Gosselin drama. If you like reading about them, then you’ve been following their shenanigans. If not, this will all be a pleasant, bewildering surprise to you.

Yesterday, CB reported on In Touch Weekly cover story this week – a piece called “Nanny Admits Affair With John”. The nanny is Stephanie Santoro, and she claimed Jon “seduced” her shortly after he returned from his Paris trip with Hailey Glassman. The basic gist of her tell-all was that they slept together nine times, it wasn’t very good, his seduction technique sucked, and after showing some interest in her for a few days, he then got douchey and paranoid, and treated her like crap. Shocking!

Well, it took Jon less than a day to respond to In Touch’s story, and his lawyer sent his statement (it’s in legalese) to Us Weekly. It’s not really a denial. I think in publicity terms, this is called the “non-denial denial” – that’s where you deny some specific part of a report without actually calling a report total bullsh-t. In this case, Jon calls Santoro’s story “shocking” (my addition: “…and true!”) and then the rest of it is just a threat that Jon is going to sue the hell out of Santoro:

Jon Gosselin’s lawyer is slamming a tabloid story that claims his former nanny Stephanie Santoro slept with Jon nine times at his Pennsylvania home while the kids were sleeping.
“The content of the story is shocking, especially in light of the fact that a non-disclosure agreement purportedly prepared by the production company had been signed by the nanny before she started working with the Gosselin family,” Gosselin’s attorney, Mark J. Heller, tells Usmagazine.com of Santoro’s claims to In Touch.

Santoro says Gosselin asked her for a massage while she was working as a nanny at his home, and the two ended up in a hot tub. According to Santoro, Gosselin told her: “Whatever you do, don’t fall in love with me … because it’s going to be impossible for me not to fall in love with you.”

Us Weekly reported earlier that Gosselin met Santoro when she was a “shooters girl” selling $2 shots at local Pennsylvania hangout Legends Lounge. The two had a sexy sleepover in August.

Santoro isn’t the only woman Gosselin has been linked to since announcing his split from Kate in June.

He recently called Hailey Glassman — the daughter of the plastic surgeon who performed Kate’s free tummy tuck — his “soul mate.” He has also been linked to third grade teacher Deanna Hummel and former tabloid reporter Kate Major.

[From Us Weekly]

I doubt the vague lawsuit threat will ever go anywhere. I mean, I have no problem believing Jon is a big enough a–hole to sue a woman he slept with, who then sold her story. But! I think in the grand scheme of the Gosselin drama, this story isn’t that huge. That being said, the hits keep coming. Stephanie Santoro’s mom Marci gave another interview to Radar, and she’s revealing even more about her daughter’s tryst with Jon (sidenote: if my mom ever gave an interview about my sex life, I would absolutely kill her). Mama Santoro says that Jon told Stephanie she didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant because he had gotten a vasectomy. Mama Santoro says: “I said, ‘Stephanie you don’t need to get pregnant’ and she told me ‘Mom you don’t have to worry about that, he told me he after the sextuplets were born he’d had a vasectomy so I didn’t need to worry about that.’”

Mama Santoro also reveals that after Jon dumped Stephanie, Mama went to Kate Gosselin for a “mom to mom” chat. Gross. Barf. Mama: “She said to me, ‘I’m pretty sure you’re daughter’s a nice girl,’” Santoro recalls of speaking to Kate. “I’m sure she’s not the monster people are making her out to be, but welcome to my world. Anyone who gets involved with Jon Gosselin, this is what happens.’ That’s exactly what she said to me.” Okay, now… I don’t mean to be harsh, but the Santoro women are crazy, yes? Granted, they may be telling the truth, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t batsh-t insane.

Jennifer Aniston’s upcoming film “Love Happens” may not actually come out this weekend, according to Cinematical and TMZ. Two screenwriters for another film called “The Truth” claim that the script for “Love Happens” is just a stolen version of their film, and they’re suing to stop the release. And a piece of the film’s expected profits, which they’ve ballparked at a hysterical and logical $100 million.

Those of you planning a night out at the movies this weekend with Jennifer Aniston and Aaron Eckhart might want to do some extra finger crossing because there’s a small chance love might not happen if two jaded screenwriters get their way. According to TMZ, screenwriters Greg Crowder and Tony Freitas are attempting to block the release of Universal’s Love Happens this weekend because they feel the script for the film was stolen from them. That’s right — if Crowder and Freitas are to be believed, love already happened a few years ago when they handed the VP of Production for Universal a script called The Truth, which, we imagine, was a love story about love happening and then not happening, but thankfully happening again right before the end.

At the time Universal said the script needed a rewrite, but both writers wanted to be paid for said rewrite and that’s when the deal fell apart. Then, earlier this year the duo submitted the script to another company, who then turned around and accused the writers of stealing the script from the upcoming Aniston/Eckhart vehicle. One imagines Greg and Tony then turned around, looked at each other and said something like, “Wait, did that just happen?”

So, now, these writers want to either block the release of Love Happens this weekend or receive a piece of its profits, which they hilariously estimate at more than $100 million. May as well demand the film’s future Oscar while they’re at it …

[From Cinematical]

I hate romantic comedies for about a million reasons, so my first thought was “Why would these guys want to take credit for this?” And that is not an Aniston slam, that is a romcom slam. Even though Cinematical seems to be taking the angle that these guys are full of it, I didn’t really find any evidence that their claims are clear B.S. All sorts of written work does get stolen. Considering most writers know this, I’m assuming they in some way kept documentation of their meetings and who they sent the script to.

In related Aniston news, she was on “The Tonight Show” last night and gave a fairly bland interview. While she obviously comes across as very nice, she took it a little too far and seemed sort of cheesy and suck uppity. I winced a few times. It wasn’t just what she said but the tone she said it in. Like at the beginning Jennifer comes out to tons of applause, whooping, and hollering from the audience. Conan says “Wow… I get the feeling that happens whenever you walk into a room.” To which Jen replies, “No, I think I just need you to be in the room as well, then it’ll happen!” She told a story about being frightened by Courteney Cox’s giant head on a passing advertisement on a bus. It was okay. Big heads are funny, can’t lie about that.

Jen also mentioned that she wants to open up a Mexican restaurant one day, noting, “I love Mexican food and usually a really great night is had inside a Mexican restaurant.” She mentioned that her dad had a restaurant in New York back in the day and that she used to waitress – which she’d like to take up again once in a while if she opened her own spot. Interestingly, Jen’s former supposed Bradley Cooper competition Renee Zellweger just opened up a New York Mexican restaurant this summer. Hers is in the Hamptons, but close enough. Wonder if that was a little dig perhaps? Maybe Aniston’s letting Renee know the competition isn’t over.

Here’s Jennifer at the “Love Happens” premiere in L.A. last night. Images thanks to Fame Pictures .

I don’t want to report this story, because it’s so clearly a travesty of justice that it makes my blood boil. In April, 2007, Missy Chase Lapine published a book called The Sneaky Chef with recipes for hiding healthy foods into kid-friendly favorites like grilled cheese with sweet potato, and brownies with spinach. Lapine is on the faculty of The New School in NY City and is the former publisher of Eating Well magazine. In October, 2007, Jessica Seinfeld published a book called Deceptively Delicious, also about sneaking foods into kids’ meals. In fact Seinfelds recipes, the concept for her book and many passages are strikingly similar to Lapine’s.

Most of the recipes have the exact same basic ingredients in the same unlikely combinations
Most recipes had the exact basic same ingredients, like “mashed potatoes with hidden cauliflower, grilled cheese with secret sweet potatoes, green eggs made with pureed baby spinach, carrot-laced tacos” and even “avocado in chocolate pudding.” There’s even more cited in Lapine’s legal filing, there’s peanut butter and jelly muffins with carrots, meat sauce with sweet potato, chicken tenders with sweet potato and chocolate chip cookies with white beans. Jessica Seinfeld’s professional background includes a career in marketing before she became Mrs. Jerry Seinfeld, having left her husband of less than a few months for the rich comedian after meeting him at the gym. She swears she loves to cook though.

Publisher admits receiving Lapine’s manuscript first
What’s more is that the publisher of Seinfeld’s book, Harper Collins, admits to receiving a manuscript of Lapine’s book at least twice before Seinfeld’s book was pitched to them by Seinfeld’s agent. Her book agent was Jennifer Rudolph Walsh of The William Morris agency. Walsh was involved in another plagiarism scandal when it came out that her college coed client Kaavya Viswanathan, had plagiarized large portions of her debut novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life. Viswanathan had received a 1/2 million advance for the book.

Judge cites better graphic design and layout of Seinfeld’s book
Lapine sued Seinfeld for copyright infringement in January of last year. After reading Lapine’s filing, I was pretty sure it was slam dunk. A federal judge has now stupidly thrown out the case against Seinfeld, but in her ruling she pretty much admits that she didn’t actually consider the vast similarities in the text or the recipes of the two books and cites the pretty pictures and graphic design in Seinfeld’s book as evidence that it doesn’t infringe on Lapine’s trademark. That’s justice for you. Do you think the Seinfelds made sure they got that specific judge to rule on their case?

The slander case against Jerry Seinfeld by Lapine still stands, though, and the judge threw it down to a state court. She can’t sound too biased now, can she? Seinfeld compared Lapine to a serial killer and called her a wacko when discussing her suit against his wife on The Late Show. Jessica Seinfeld called Lapine jealous and swore she’d never “held the book” in her hands.

A federal judge Thursday tossed out a cookbook author’s claim that comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s wife was a culinary copycat when she came out with her own book explaining how to entice children to eat vegetables.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain threw out the lawsuit brought against the Seinfeld couple by Missy Chase Lapine.

The judge rejected Lapine’s claims against Jessica Seinfeld, saying that the books, both best sellers, were not similar except for their goal of hiding healthy food inside the favorite meals of children.

She called Lapine’s book “a dry, rather text-heavy work” done predominantly in black, gray and shades of brownish-orange. She said Seinfeld’s book was “bright and cheerful, full of different colors and various patterns.” Consumers who looked at each book were unlikely to be confused, the judge said, tossing out trademark infringement claims.

However, the judge declined to rule on Lapine’s claim that Jerry Seinfeld libeled her on David Letterman’s show last year when he noted her three names and joked that people with three names – including James Earl Ray and Mark David Chapman – have turned out to be assassins.

She said those claims did not belong in federal court but should instead be filed in state court, where Lapine’s lawyer, Howard Miller, said he planned to bring them.

“They are still very much alive,” he said of the slander claims, along with claims against News Corp.’s HarperCollins that the publisher misappropriated information from Lapine’s book when it rejected her proposal in February and May 2006. Miller said the decision hasn’t been made on whether to appeal Swain’s rejection of all claims against Jessica Seinfeld.

[From AP via The Huffington Post]

In case you have any doubt that the judge was somehow under the Seinfeld’s thumb, she went and trashed Lapine’s earlier work calling it “dry” and “text heavy.” Oh yeah, it wasn’t plagiarism because Seinfeld hired a graphic designer. Here are some comparisons between the text in the two books, taken from Lapine’s legal filing on The Smoking Gun. These are not the only comparisons, there are other vast similarities:

Multiple wording, organization and concept similarities

Jessica Seinfeld’s infringement consists of copying Lapine’s copyrighted original expression, philosophy, premise, approach explanations, discussions, reflections, organization, methodology and overall look and feel, including (without limitation) the following respects:

Both the Book and the Infringing Work contain introductions written by doctors calling attention to the growing problem of obesity in American children and the difficulties inherent in providing sound nutrition to resistant children, and praising the author for creative, clever and convenient solutions for parents….

Both the Book and the Infringing Work begin with the author’s personal anecdote of mealtime struggles with her own picky eaters. In fact, both works include a story about how one of the author’s children is a picky eater who influenced a non-picky sibling to dislike food. Specifically, within that anecdote:

The Book describes “begging, pleading, threatening and bribing,” as well as “coercing kids to eat what’s on their plates.”

The Infringing Work describes “begging my kids to eat vegetables as well as “coerc[ing] them to eat food they found disgusting.”

Both the Book and the Infringing Work explain that the author is not a professional chef, just a mother who desires to have peace at the dinner table and to feed her children nutritious food. Both works discuss how the author overcame the guilt of tricking her kids into eating healthy food:

The Book states that “this method has brought peace to our family table,” that “[i]n many families, the dinner table because a battleground and meal time is a power struggle,” and that “I couldn’t use logic, but I couldn’t afford to give up either.”

The Infringing Work states: “I just wanted a little peace around the dinner table,” and continues, “I want my kids to associate food and mealtimes with happiness and conversations, not power struggles and strife.” The Infringing Work acknowledges, “[W]e just want to give up.”…

Both the Book and the Infringing Work address arguments against “sneaking” vegetables into children’s dishes and then systematically refute each one.

The Book likens the practice to a form of “loving deceit.”

The Infringing Work likens the practice to a form of “[l]oving [d]eception.”…

Both the Book and the Infringing Work recommend steaming the vegetables, pureeing them in a food processor, packaging them in 1/4 cup baggies and then freezing them for later use:

The Book states: “[Y]ou will find the Make-Ahead… are your best friends… once you have these purees and blends in your refrigerator or freezer, simply grab a spoonful and mix it into the recipes as called for.” The Book claims that with respect to “…the scratch recipes, you’ll spend less than thirty minutes for each one.”…

The Infringing Work states: “You will quickly learn to prepare, cook, puree, and portion the purees. Then the purees will be available to use when they’re called for, just like any other ingredient in my recipes.” The Infringing Work claims that “…the recipes… are doable in thirty minutes or less…”

[From Lapine's legal filing, accessible onThe Smoking Gun]

Now what are the odds that both books would have the same flow of ideas, same wording, and same ingredients in most of the recipes?

Only one author got to go on Oprah to pitch her book, and she thanked her by sending $20,000 in high end shoes to the media mogul. “Thanks for helping making my cut and paste book a best seller, Oprah!” I wonder what kind of thanks that judge is going to get.

Update: Thanks so much to author Missy Chase Lapine for stopping by and commenting on this story. I’ve e-mailed with her in the past and am certain it’s her. Lapine lets us know that her suit against publisher Harper Collins is still pending and that her suit against the Seinfelds for defamation is also going forward:

Thank you, Celebitchy, for your support and fair reporting.
This was a big procedural setback in my plagiarism suit against the Seinfelds. I’m up against very powerful opponents.
The court did not dismiss my defamation claim against Jerry Seinfeld or my claims against the publisher, Harper Collins. It is not a joke that Jerry Seinfeld used national television to paint me in the minds of millions of people as a “wacko” and an “assassin.” There is no defense of a sense of humor that can justify this. I will continue to pursue these claims in NY state court for the harm the Seinfeld’s caused me and my family. Thank you all for your continued support.

Jessica Seinfeld is shown out on 4/7/09. Credit: WENN.com

Obama dancing on Ellen last fall to Beyonce’s “Crazy In Love.” Less than one minute is played out of a nearly four minute song. This is one of the longest clips played on Ellen

In a move that shows how heavy-handed and out of touch the music industry is, multiple record companies are suing Ellen Degeneres for thousands of copyright infringements and unpaid licensing fees involving the brief music clips she plays on her show. Ellen’s people say they didn’t “roll that way,” but they may have a better defense. The clips Ellen plays are quick and may fall under the terms of “Fair Use.”

Some of the world’s largest recording companies are suing “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” claiming producers violated their copyrights by playing more than 1,000 songs without permission.

Many of the songs were played during the “dance over” segment of the show, when DeGeneres dances from the stage to the interview area, often through the audience.

According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn’t obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn’t “roll that way.”

“As sophisticated consumers of music, Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully,” the suit states.

Scott Rowe, spokesman for the show’s Telepictures Productions, wrote in an e-mailed statement that the company has been working with the record labels for months to resolve the issue and remains willing to resolve it on “amicable and reasonable terms.”

Rowe said the issue does not involve DeGeneres, who on Wednesday was named as the fourth judge on TV’s “American Idol,” and whom Rowe calls “a tremendous music enthusiast and advocate.”

The suit claims the daytime talk show has used copyrighted music without permission since its inception, including “recordings by virtually every major current artist of popular music.” It claims the show routinely used some of the most popular songs of the day, which the record labels don’t license for daytime television at any price.

Other songs cited in the lawsuit include Michael Jackson’s “Thriller”; The Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations” and Will Smith’s “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It.”

The suit calls the segment and the music played by the show’s own disc jockey “signature elements of the show.”

Plaintiffs include Arista Music, Atlantic Recording Corp., Capitol Records, Motown Record Company, Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records America and Warner Bros. Records.

The suit does not specify the dollar amount it seeks in damages.

[From AP via The Huffington Post]

As a commenter Jim on Gawker points out, one of the longest clips Ellen has ever played was on Obama’s appearance when he was campaigning for President, above, and it was less than one minute. Ellen’s show plays typically less than 30 seconds of a song and it can be argued that it falls under fair use. What’s more is that it certainly helps promote music and artists. Ellen features so many musicians from those record labels on her show. You would think that they would try to work out an agreement with the show instead of suing. On the other hand, this may be a last ditch effort after record companies tried to work out something with the show and got rebuffed.

What took the record companies so long to file this suit? Ellen has been on the air for six years.

Did you hear about how music companies are also also suing coffee houses and small music venues in Florida for licensing fees when live artists perform cover songs?

Yesterday former Miss California and Miss USA runner up Carrie Prejean filed a probably frivolous lawsuit against the Miss California pageant for making the details of her eventual firing public. Prejean claimed that her title was stripped because of her answer at the Miss USA pageant against gay marriage, and solely for that. Miss California Pageant directors made a clear and compelling case that Prejean was skipping out on her responsibilities, including refusing to communicate with them and missing event appearances. In case you were wondering if there was any reason to believe Carrie’s side of the story over the Miss California pageant, just read some of these very rude, very dismissive e-mails she sent to pageant director Keith Lewis. Those e-mails, in which she wrote things like “Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice.” and “What are u gonna do fire me for volunteering for the special olympics hahaha ur crazy No I am doing this appearance,” were dated after she was given a second chance with Miss California, courtesy of Donald Trump. The comb-over king was initially so blinded by her pretty face that he was unable to see that spiteful things spewing out of it.

The other Miss California pageant director, Shanna Moakler, resigned her position when Carrie was first forgiven by Donald Trump. Moakler has issued a response through her lawyer to Carrie’s lawsuit, essentially saying that the girl made her bed and will have to lay in it. I love how blunt Moakler is in this statement, saying “Ms. Prejean’s unfortunate and bigoted statements are responsible for any public humiliation or damages to her reputation that she has claimed to have suffered.”

Fallen beauty queen Carrie Prejean sued the Miss California USA pageant and co-executive director Shanna Moakler on Monday alleging religious discrimination, drawing a sharp rebuke from Moakler’s camp.

“On Ms. Moakler’s behalf, I can say unequivocally that Ms. Prejean’s lawsuit is without merit,” says Mel Avanzado, Moakler’s lawyer.

“More importantly, as everyone who watched or read her public statements is well aware, Ms. Prejean’s unfortunate and bigoted statements are responsible for any public humiliation or damages to her reputation that she has claimed to have suffered,” Avanzado added. “Ms. Moakler strenuously denies that she did anything wrong and looks forward to proving that in a court of law.”

Prejean was fired in June by pageant officials who cited missed scheduled appearances. But an attorney for Prejean says his client was ousted because of her anti-gay marriage stance. In April, during the Miss USA pageant, she stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Prejean, 22, is also suing for libel and slander, and also names co-executive director Keith Lewis and publicist Roger Neal in the lawsuit.

[From People]

As Kaiser noted yesterday, Prejean’s lawsuit isn’t going anywhere. There’s way too much evidence that she violated her contract over and over again. Having watched Moakler and Lewis’ impassioned press conference detailing the ways that Prejean had violated her contract – with several sets of nude photos she failed to disclose, with a public endorsement of an outside agency, and by failing to get in contact with them for weeks, I have to say there’s little chance this lawsuit will go forward. This woman just wants to get her name in the press again, and she’s succeeding, but she’s also continuing to show what a self-centered creature she is. It’s all about her and how she was wronged. I hope she’s saddled with legal bills from both sides, and maybe that will give her something to really whine about.

Shanna Moakler, Carrie Prejean and Keith Lewis are shown on 5/12/09. Credit: WENN.com

Former Miss California (and Perez Hilton bête noire) Carrie Prejean is so mad! She’s so mad she’s going to throw a little temper tantrum through the California court system. She’s going to wail and cry and stomp her feet, and if that doesn’t work, she’ll probably drop to the floor of Wal-Mart and start rolling around, sobbing loudly. As you might have guessed, no one was paying attention to Carrie Prejean anymore, and she’s decided to sue the Miss California pageant. The charges include libel, infliction of emotional distress (she got a boo-boo on her psyche) and religious discrimination.

This is happening after most of us forgot about the insanity that is this whack-job’s martyr complex. After she got dissed by the pageant committee for being an insolent, unprofessional, lazy, hypocritical liar, her ass was saved by Donald Trump, who called her “strong, tough, smart and very beautiful.” Less than a month later (the second week of June), Carrie was fired, for good this time. When Carrie made some vague lawsuit threats when she was first fired, the Miss California pageant struck back quickly, giving a laundry list of reasons for why Carrie had not fulfilled her contract. They accused Carrie of “churlish insolent misbehavior,” “intolerable misbehavior,“ and “hostile communications.” They also had a record of Carrie turning down 39 pageant related appearances in one month. Of course, Carrie still thought she was persecuted and “set up” because of her conservative views. And now she’s got “evidence”:

Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has filed a complaint against pageant officials, Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, RadarOnline.com has learned.

The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, cites damages to Prejean including libel, public disclosure of private facts, religious discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

“To us it’s outrageous what happened,” Prejean’s attorney, Charles S. LiMandri, told RadarOnline.com exclusively. “There’s no doubt in our minds, that if she had answered that question at the Miss USA pageant differently she’d probably still be Miss USA right now, but she’d definitely still be Miss California.”

In a statement obtained by RadarOnline.com, Limandri explained: “Over the past two months we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis. We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage. Keith Lewis has refused to clear her good name or even to admit any wrongdoing. Therefore, Carrie Prejean is left with no alternative but to take her case to court where she expects to be fully vindicated.”

A comment call to Shanna Moakler’s rep was not returned.

[From Radar]

Is it just me or does Carrie’s lawyer make it sound like the idea of proving that Carrie might have a legal leg to stand on is really, really difficult? I think it’s the way he says “…we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract…” (emphasis mine). Look, if you want to know what a liar this girl is, just see all of the crap she’s said over the past six months. She’s insane. And as far as the religious discrimination stuff… good Lord! Get off the cross, people need the wood. It’s an insult to the genuine religious persecution that goes on in the world.

Amy Winehouse’s mother is worried about rumors that she’s begging Blaaaake to take her back. In fact she’s so frustrated with all of Amy’s issues and poor decisions that she says if Amy and Blake reconcile, she – and Amy’s whole family – will have to basically cut her out of their lives. Not completely, as Janice says they’d never turn their backs on her entirely, but they’d have to “step back” from her.

Amy Winehouse’s family have threatened to “step back” from her life if she reunites with Blake Fielder-Civil. The controversial singer’s mother Janis Winehouse is devastated by reports Amy has been in touch with her ex-husband, and insisted she will pull back from her daughter’s life if the pair get back together.

She said: “The family will just say, ‘enough is enough.’ We’d never turn our backs on Amy, but there’d have to come a point where we step back…. I’m not sure how much more I could go through. Amy knows what we think of Blake so I suppose she’s hiding it.” Janis and Amy’s father Mitch both blame Blake for her descent into drug addiction.

Her family are concerned that rekindling her relationship with Blake – and Amy is believed to have asked him to give their marriage another chance – could cause her to spiral out of control again.
Janis told ‘Closer’ magazine: “Amy’s done so well getting healthy again. We all hope it’s not true they’re back in touch, but Amy is like a child. She says, ‘I love Blake, I love him’, and it’s hard to talk her out of it. She’s bad for her. Who knows what will happen? Amy says she wants a baby but it’s just talk. Amy doesn’t weigh enough to get pregnant.”

[From Bild]

That thing about Amy wanting to have a baby has been around for a long time. She seems like the sort who might impulsively decide to get pregnant, so I really hope Janice is right and Amy’s too thin to actually do it. Normally I’d hope she could put on some weight, but in this case it might actually be a good thing.

If Amy’s trying to reconcile with Blaaake, she’s got a funny way of going about it. She’s suing Blake’s mom Georgette for selling a love letter Amy wrote him while he was in prison. And not for chump change either – Amy’s asking for £50,000. According to The Sun, Georgette stole the letter from Blake. Nonetheless, I doubt that suing his mum is going to endear her to Blake.

TROUBLED AMY WINEHOUSE is suing her former mother-in-law for selling one of her love letters. The steamy note was written for Amy’s then-husband BLAKE FIELDER-CIVIL while he was jailed for assault and perverting justice.

Blake’s mum Georgette flogged it.

Now Amy, 25, is suing for copyright infringement and wants £50,000 compensation. Georgette previously accused the Back to Black singer of turning her son to drugs.

No date has been set for a hearing. But a pal said: “Amy was furious the private letter was used to make money.”

[From the Sun]

I had to look it up, but according to Wikipedia “flog” is British slang for steal or sell. And in this case it’s both! I think of all the people in the Amy Winehouse/Blake Civil-Fielder drama, the one I hate the most is Georgette. She is just one of those ridiculously blind mothers that absolutely refuses to admit her child is anything other than an angel sent from heaven. He could inject heroin right in front of her and Georgette would tell you he’s actually baking cookies. So I really love that she’s getting sued. And I’m obviously massively biased here, but it seems like Amy might have a case. Obviously she gave away some rights when she gave the letter to Blake, but I doubt that transfers into Georgette being allowed to steal and sell the letter. I hope.

Yay, more drama!

Here’s Amy on stage with Pete Doherty at the V festival in Chelmsford, UK, this weekend. She wasn’t performing with him, she just broke through security and ran on stage. And then pulled up her shirt and touched her stomach. Like we all do. Images thanks to INF Photo.

Magician David Copperfield was accused of sexually assaulting a then 20 year-old aspiring model in 2007. The woman claims that Copperfield tricked her into going to his estate in the Bahamas, claiming that she would be attending an industry party. When she got there, it was only Copperfield and her and she claims brutally raped and assaulted her in several separate incidents. The victim did everything right – she reported the attacks to the authorities, didn’t shower afterwards and had a rape kit performed when she returned home to Seattle. The FBI are still investigating this case and deciding if they have enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges. It’s a federal case as the rape took place in the Bahamas. The victim is suing Copperfield for damages, and he’s predictably attacking her character:

A woman who claims David Copperfield sexually assaulted and threatened her in 2007 has just filed a federal lawsuit against him.

The woman — a 22-year-old fashion model — alleges the assault took place while she was a guest on his private island in the Bahamas back in 2007, this according to the lawsuit obtained by The Seattle Times.

In the suit, the woman alleges she met David during one of his shows back in January of 2007 — then was invited to his island in July of the same year. The suit says after she watched a movie in David’s room, he “attacked [her] and sexually assaulted her” and threatened to kill her if she didn’t go along.

The lawsuit alleges David assaulted her two more times before she left the island. She reported the alleged assaults to Seattle police, who turned it over to the FBI.

Copperfield’s lawyers have already responded to the lawsuit with a long, brutal statement — here are a few of the highlights:

“This woman, who filed the lawsuit, has a history of lying … She has lied to law enforcement before and, as a result, had innocent people arrested based on a false accusation … she is incapable of telling the truth.

This lawsuit is extortion for money, plain and simple. Unfortunately, false claims like this only hurt the women who really have been abused, women who really need our help.”

[From TMZ]

TMZ uncovered a detailed document in 2007 in which Copperfield instructed his staff on ways to pull attractive women out of his audience and get their contact information, even going so far as to explain how to handle boyfriends and husbands. At the end of the “meet and greet,” the staff is instructed to tell the woman “Do you know that David has recently bought some islands in the Bahamas? Well they are BEAUTIFUL and we are doing a lot of project [sic] for these islands: Ads, TV, radio and many other promotions. So we like [sic] to keep in touch with you in case there is a job in the future we think you would be interested in.” The women are asked detailed information as to whether they’re single and where they’re staying.

The story on the Seattle Times’ website is much more detailed if you’d like to read it. It includes the allegations on how Copperfield attacked this woman. This makes me incredibly upset, especially considering Copperfield’s obnoxious response about “women who really need our help.” Yes people are innocent until proven guilty, but again read Copperfield’s detailed, super-creepy instructions to his staff on how to hand pick attractive women from the audience and trick them into going to the Bahamas with him and you tell me if you would leave your daughter/wife/girlfriend alone with him.

I bet this woman waited until the statute of limitations was nearly out because she was hoping that the criminal case would proceed. When it remained stalled, she decided on a civil suit. I hope that the Feds have enough evidence on Copperfield to level criminal charges and -if these allegations are true- that the victim receives a significant portion of his estate. I find this man loathsome.

Copperfield is shown at a press conference on 8/8/09 in Sydney. Credit: WENN.com

Twilight author Stephenie Meyer has been sued for copyright infringement by an author who claims that significant portions of Meyer’s fourth and as-of-yet final book in the series, Breaking Dawn, published in August, 2008 were lifted from a story she posted online in 2003. Last week TMZ published the cease and desist from the author, Jordan Scott, which detailed the similarities between the two books, including plot structure and some minor dialogue. (Here’s a spoiler filled link to TMZ’s coverage of the author’s case against Meyer. Please be warned that TMZ’s article and the PDF legal document pretty much ruin the fourth Twilight book/movie. If you haven’t read the book and are planning to or don’t want to ruin the movie, don’t read it. I waited to read the legal document until I finished the book later last week.)

Scott just officially filed suit against Meyer yesterday and is asking for damages and requesting that all existing copies of Breaking Dawn be impounded. Good luck on that one.

The author of the “Twilight” series is being sued by a woman who claims the 4th installment is a rip-off of her work.

Jordan Scott claims in her lawsuit, filed today in federal court, that she began writing a novel “in the vampire genre” when she was just 15 — back in 2003. The novel was published in 2006 and called “The Nocturne.”

Scott claims the 4th installment of Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series lifted her work. She says Meyer’s book — “Breaking Dawn” is a “significant literary departure from [her] early books…” She says it seems the book is “written by a teenager.” Yes, Scott was a teenager when she wrote “The Nocturne.”

Scott claims the two books “show striking, articulable and substantial similarities in the … plot lines, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, sequence of events, ideas and other similarities.”

Scott is asking for damages, and that the court impound the “Breaking Dawn” books that are being sold.

[From TMZ]

I read through the legal document a couple of times, and I have to say that if I was on a jury for this case – not that it’s ever likely to go to a jury trial – I wouldn’t be able to rule in Scott’s favor given the evidence that’s presented. I can believe that Scott feels that Meyer ripped off her story, and there are some very strong plot parallels between the two books and even some similar wording. I don’t think it’s a frivolous lawsuit, but they don’t present enough evidence to prove a case. Some of the wording is similar, but not strikingly so. The common character dialogue isn’t exceptionally unique. Two weaker examples are that both books have lead characters who call their male partners “love,” as in “my love,” and another scene in which one of the leads marvels over their partner’s beauty, as if that’s significant. The things that the author claims are the same plot points are very common human experiences adapted to the vampire world. There are some things that seem too alike for coincidence, but I’m not going to get into the specifics as I don’t want to spoil it for anyone. I haven’t decided either way and the case is not strong, but not completely without merit.

Minor past spoiler for True Blood below
Many of you have pointed out that the Southern Vampire Mysteries, which were published well ahead of Meyer’s Twilight series and are the books on which the HBO show True Blood is based, have many commonalities with Meyer’s books as well. There’s a mind-reader, a character named Sam who plays the second “more of a friend” love interest and has incredibly similar powers to Sam in the Twilight books, and the vampires have skin glows and sparkles. (I’m almost done with the first novel in the series, Dead Until Dark, and it’s a lot of fun. Thanks to Bodhi and Laura for recommending it! I’m also watching the first season of “True Blood” now and love it.) Maybe many of these concepts are similar in the vampire genre. I’ve never really delved into it before except for Ann Rice and it’s been over 15 year since I’ve read any of her books.

Meyer didn’t come up with Twilight in a vacuum, but whether her similar ideas venture into the realm of plagiarism remains to be seen.

Stephenie Meyer is shown at the premiere of Twilight on 11/17/08. Credit: WENN.com

George Clooney hates the paparazzi for good reason. He was one of the first people to speak out against photographers and tabloids for their role in the accident that caused Princess Diana’s death in 1997. Clooney was boycotted for a while by some tabloids for that. He hasn’t harped on the paparazzi since, but he did explain in late 2007 that the paparazzi were committing illegal, dangerous acts in an attempt to provoke celebrities. He clearly stated that they he didn’t mind them taking photos, but that it went way beyond that and their actions were putting people’s lives in danger. “What they’re doing is illegal. It’s high-speed chases and they’re competing with each other. They’re not trying to catch me doing something stupid, they’re trying to create me doing something stupid.”

Clooney lives next to Britney Spears’ previous residence when he’s stateside, (where she had her breakdown in January, 2008) and he’s explained that he finds the paparazzi out of hand. They regularly camp out near his Lake Como, Italy estate, and he’s pulled some minor stunts to deter them – like reportedly installing an egg throwing machine and renting tables to fuel the rumor that Brad and Angelina were getting married.

Now the paparazzi have stepped way out of line, though. Someone breached his property in Italy and took pictures of a 13 year-old guest topless as she was changing inside his home. Some magazines reportedly published the pictures, and Clooney is understandably taking legal action:

George Clooney is gearing up for a legal war in Italy — claiming invasive paparazzi climbed over the wall of his Italian home and shot a topless photo of a 13-year-old girl changing in one of his guest rooms.

The photographer also took shots of Clooney and his girlfriend Elisabetta Canalis enjoying private moments in the yard of his estate.

The photos were published in two magazines — and in a statement to TMZ, Clooney says he’s gunning to sue both the mags and the photog who took the pictures.

“We’re suing two magazines AND a photographer. I don’t know about the law in the United States but in Italy it’s illegal for photographers to climb over my wall and to take long lens pictures of a 13-year-old girl in her bedroom.

I draw the line of privacy at that.”

–George Clooney

[From TMZ]

That’s really disgusting that someone would think that’s ok. I haven’t seen these photos, but they’re probably far away and blurry. Maybe the photographers mistakenly believed they were pictures of Clooney’s girlfriend, not an underage guest.

Maybe this terrible breach of privacy will help Clooney shake off some of the paparazzi that are constantly stalking him. He does have some high profile celebrity friends visit – Matt Damon an Don Cheadle were at Clooney’s estate last week – and you can understand the paparazzi’s motivation, but pictures shouldn’t be allowed on private property.

George Clooney is shown on 7/10/09 taking a tour of the earthquake hit town, St. Eusanio, in Italy. Credit: Fame Pictures