These are photos of David Beckham out and about in England with his boys over the weekend. I don’t know which one of the boys seems to be Velcro’d to his dad. Cruz? Perhaps. Even though I wonder how it can be comfortable for David or for Mystery Child Beckham to be carried in that way, I do think these photos are irresistibly cute. David looks hot, and he looks like a great dad. I think he must be a good dad – his kids seem to adore him, and it’s not just a photo-op either. So, David Beckham: great dad, but a womanizing husband? If you believe the rumors, that’s the case. Take for example In Touch Weekly’s cover story (from last year) about David and a hooker named Irma Nici. Nici sold her story to ITW claiming that back in 2007, David hired her for lots of vanilla sex, blow jobs, kissing and some girl-on-girl action. Shortly after the cover story came out, David sued ITW and the hooker. And now the lawsuit against In Touch has just been thrown out! Ouch.

David Beckham’s $25 million libel lawsuit against the publishers of In Touch Weekly was thrown out of court today … but Beckham’s complaint against the woman who claims she had a threesome with the soccer stud is still alive.

Irma Nici alleged in an article last year … she had a series of sexual encounters with Becks for money … one of which was a threesome with another prostitute. David denied these claims.

The judge ruled today that Beckham’s legal team did not prove the publisher acted with malice and therefore threw out the suit. Beckham’s attorney says he’ll appeal.

[From TMZ]

Yeah, with that particular story, In Touch really seemed to be buying the hooker’s story, hook, line and sinker. Was it malicious? Or did they just think they had a good story? Eh. While I think there could have been some “malice” I doubt any judge will turn around the lawsuit on any appeal. However, if David continues to pursue his legal recourses, I can almost guarantee that Radar, Star and other tabloids will continue to dig into David’s extracurricular activities with greater zeal – Radar has already taken the point position on this, publishing several pieces about David’s history of womanizing.

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Yesterday we saw a series of three YouTube videos in which Steve Harvey’s ex wife of 16 years revealed the ways that she discovered that Steve was cheating on her throughout their marriage, including when she was pregnant with their son. When Steve divorced his ex, Mary, he worked to have her evicted from their home, to limit monetary support, and he even took custody of their 12 year-old son. The way Mary told her story was remarkably thoughtful, calm and well spoken. To say that this woman went on a “tirade,” as US Weekly and E! reported it, was a mischaracterization. After all this woman went through, she stated her case very well and with a lot of restraint, especially considering the explicit e-mails and messages she had from Steve’s mistresses to back it up. Mary explained that she was speaking out now because Steve is suing her, as he blames her for the fact that his deal with Oprah for a talkshow fell through.

Now that Steve’s ex has very convincingly stated her case, he’s predictably suing her again and is trying to defame her. I hope the damage has already been done to this assh*le’s career, though.

In a three-part YouTube tirade lasting 25 minutes, Mary Harvey, bashes the Family Feud host for allegedly cheating on her throughout their nearly 10-year marriage and then leaving her high and dry when they divorced in 2005.

“He turned my son against me, had me evicted from our house,” Mary says. “I woke up, and everything was gone.”

And with that, Harvey’s lawyers immediately went to Defcon 5.

“We are appalled and aware of the videos and other fabricated documents…which contained false, misleading, derogatory, disparaging, malicious, explicit and slanderous information about Mr. Harvey, his current wife and others,” attorney Bobbie Edmonds said in a statement Monday.

“The ex-wife is fully aware of the court’s current orders and permanent injunctions which prohibit either party, their lawyers or representatives from discussing and releasing information on the Internet and to the media. We are taking the necessary legal steps to rectify this matter to the full extent of the law and we will be seeking contempt and sanctions against her for such reprehensible and callous disregard for the court orders.”

The estranged exes have a son, Broderick, who was born in 1997. Mary also has an adult son from a previous relationship, and Harvey has three children from his first marriage. Mary was his second wife.

Mary claims the Original Kings of Comedy funnyman was messing around with his future third wife, Marjorie, behind her back.

“With all the emails and the text messages, the different things that I was finding out about,” she says, referring to the alleged affair, the camera panning to a typed page presented to be a lurid email between Harvey and Marjorie. “I thought the least he could do was make me whole at the end of it. He just left, walked out the door. Once he realized I was going to divorce him…he went [to our apartment in New York], and then [Marjorie] joined him there.”

“Steve never said that he was sorry,” Mary continues. “He had our housekeeper pack his belongings up and forward those belongings to New York.”

She also says that Harvey is suing her in Texas because he blames her for not getting his own show on Oprah Winfrey’s new cable network.

Edmonds, Harvey’s lawyer, concluded: “We are saddened that the ex-wife has resorted to such devious and selfish behavior, with a reckless disregard for their minor son, her adult son and Mr. Harvey’s other children.”

[E! Online]

Mary did tell us how this whole story turned out for her, as E! quotes her above, but that was after 20+ minutes of very clearly stating the background and the reasons she’s going public with her story. She spent a long time talking about her life with Steve and the things they did together, and it was more like she had mixed feelings about it and was trying to explain where she was coming from. It’s predictable to focus on the most sensational things she said, and we do it all the time, but I hope that people take the time to listen to Mary’s story and understand what happened to her. As I said yesterday, it’s an all too common tale and this admirable woman tells it with such grace. There’s no “getting over it” when you lose custody of a child.

These photos of Steve and Mary are from 2004. She looks much better now. Divorcing a cheating dog will do that for you.

Harvey and his latest wife/last jumpoff:

A few months ago, Kim, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian attended the launch of their new credit card (Mastercard) for the whooping sum of $75,000 – just for one appearance of less than an hour. Shortly after the Kardashian credit card launched, it came under wide criticism, not just for the general vapidity of the idea of “The Kardashian credit card” but for the enormous fees, charges, etc, associated with the card. Shortly after that, the Kardashians pulled their support/endorsement of the card, citing “ethical” reasons. Because when you think of “Kardashian” you think of “ethics”. Anyway, now the Kardashians are being sued for this whole mess. The lawsuit? It’s for $75 million. Katastrophe!

The Kardashians have maxed out their good will. More than a month after pulling out of a debit card venture that had attracted nothing but negative attention, the company that licensed Kim, Kourtney and Khloé’s images has sued the sisters, mom Kris Jenner and their company Dash Dolls for $75 million, claiming they breached their contract by abruptly terminating the deal.

Revenue Resource Group’s complaint, filed Thursday in Fresno, Calif. and obtained by E! News, states that the Kardashians had a two-year contract and that RRG has been weathering a bad PR storm since the E! stars pulled out. And why did they do that again?

Upon its launch in November, the Kardashian Prepaid MasterCard was immediately criticized for harboring hefty hidden fees to activate, replace, etc. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, dissed the card, and the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office demanded further disclosure from card issuer University National Bank, accusing the Kardashians of “marketing a dangerous financial fantasty.”

Not wanting to be linked to the alleged shadiness any further, the Kardashians’ attorney sent a notice of termination letter to RRG on Nov. 29. Consumer Union issued a statement applauding the move. And it seemed as if the controversy had blown over…But not everyone was applauding.

“The company waited a month to file hoping this would work out. They didn’t want to sue,” RRG head attorney Scott Rudd tells E! News.

RRG “spent a great deal of time and effort securing the rights to use the Kardashian card,” Rudd says. “RRG is an independent sale organization, which gives it the right to market pre-paid debit card.” The Kardashians walking away has “effectively put this company out of business.”

As for the allegedly prohibitively high fees, Rudd says that the card fees “were in line with other debit cards.”

Team Kardashian is not commenting on the lawsuit at this time. A case management hearing has been called for May 2.

[From E! News]

Ugh, so dumb. It was dumb to agree to this endorsement for a credit card, it was dumb to promote the thing the way they did (like it was a club opening), and it was dumb to pull their endorsement the way they did, which likely was in violation of some sort of signed contract. Now, do I think $75 million sounds reasonable? Not really. It looks more like the family of fleecers is becoming the fleeced.

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Early last month, Disney star Demi Lovato, 18, pulled out of a tour with the Jonas Brothers after an altercation at an airport with a female backup dancer. Apparently Demi punched the girl in the face for allegedly snitching on her for partying. Demi was quickly whisked off for “treatment,” with her people insisting that it was for emotional issues and was not a drug rehab. There were stories that Demi was seen doing cocaine at parties before all this went down and we’ve heard rumors for some time that she’s been doing drugs.

Now we’re hearing that the victim, dancer Alex Welch, is consulting a plastic surgeon about her injuries and is seeking a settlement from Demi. Her lawyer tells Radar Online that “Alex is seeking a settlement, an apology from Demi and a donation made to a charity of her choice.” If no settlement is reached, Welch plans to sue sometime next week. It looks like that won’t be necessary, because Welch’s lawyer tells Radar that the parties are close to reaching a settlement.

Welch has granted interviews to People Magazine and Inside Edition. She told People that Demi still hasn’t apologized, and she confirmed earlier details of the attack – that Demi accused her of snitching and punched her in the face for it. According to Welch, she isn’t the one who told on Demi for partying and she was shocked when Demi just strolled up to her on the plane, punched her in the face and walked away:

“We were on the plane with the Jonases having this awesome time and I didn’t get a call or text from Demi or a ‘hey, you got a problem with me,’ nothing. And she walks up and punches me and literally walked away and got in her seat.” – People

“Demi walked up to me and she just punched me. It was like the definition of a sucker punch!”…

“Of course there was like a shock thing about it, because I wasn’t expecting it, I had no idea why.

“It happened so fast, that’s why no one could react. It was one of those things were I was sitting there, she walked up, just punched me really hard and walked away as fast as she could,” says Welch. “My face, it immediately swelled up we put ice on it the whole ride back.”

“Did she say anything before or after hitting you?” asks [Inside Edition's] Moret.

“No I didn’t hear anything from her,” says Welch.

Dramatic photos show the bruises on Welch’s face, allegedly inflicted by Lovato. Welch says Lovato believed she’d been leaking stories about the troubled star, but Welch says that never happened.

She says, “We were friends, we were really good friends. I think that’s one of the hard things, is to think that a friend would do that.” – Inside Edition

[From People and Inside Edition]

I get why this girl wants a settlement, and I get why she’s talking to the press – to put the pressure on Demi’s people. It just seems so predictable though. Demi should face the consequences for punching this girl, whatever that may be, and I don’t blame Welch for suing. I would like to see Welch press criminal charges for assault as well. It might be complicated given that this went down on a private airplane, however. It’s unclear whether the plane was in the air at the time, but it sounds like it was.

Capri Anderson, the porn star/escort who locked herself in the bathroom while Charlie Sheen went on a drug-fueled rampage at the Plaza Hotel in New York City last month, has granted an interview to ABC that will air on Nightline tonight. She also was interviewed on Good Morning America by George Stephanopoulos this morning, accompanied by her lawyer. ABC has some advance details and they’re in no way favorable to Charlie. Anderson comes across as genuinely upset in the clips I’ve seen of her interview. She says that Sheen choked her, that she locked herself in the bathroom for her own safety, and that she feared for her life. Anderson admits that she was hired to escort Sheen to dinner (which contradicts earlier reports on TMZ that she wasn’t a hooker) and breaks down crying at one point. It seems convincing and will hopefully go far to derail the career of an abuser who has consistently escaped facing consequences for his actions. Here’s part of ABC’s report with advance details. We’ll cover her GMA interview in a moment.

In the ABC News exclusive interviews, Anderson will explain how she was hired to escort Sheen to dinner that night and how the night progressed to a violent end behind the Plaza’s closed doors.

“He was, from the beginning of the night, very loud and he had no hesitations when it came to using derogatory language or cuss words,” she says in the “Nightline” interview, adding that “towards the latter half of the night, it got really bad. He started yelling racial slurs.

“But it wasn’t until he put his hands around my neck that I really thought to myself, you have gotten yourself in a bad, bad situation.”

Anderson goes on to say that she was locked in the bathroom, fearing for her life, describing her reactions to press reports about Sheen’s children staying on the same hotel floor.

“I’m not going to stand down and be completely walked over, mistreated. My whole life has been changed.” she said.

“I think that this story and this treatment sends a message in itself and this is clearly something that’s not right. It’s not right to hurt people. It’s not right to scare people. It’s not right to carry on with such disregard for the people around you.”

Charlie Sheen’s lawyer Yale Galanter released a statement in response to Anderson’s allegations.

“Ms. Capri never made any allegation of wrongful conduct on the part of Mr. Sheen the night of the incident. She has posted on her website that she was ‘fine’ after the incident but if you wanted to see more of her enter the web site for money,” Galanter said. “We will defend this lawsuit vigorously and will never pay her a dime. These allegations against Mr. Sheen are completely false, and are an blatant attempt to cash in on his celebrity.”

Tune in Monday morning to Good Morning America” (7:00-9:00 a.m., ET) or Monday night to “Nightline” (11:35pm ET/ PT) to hear Anderson’s full account.

[From ABC News]

This sounds exactly like the earlier incident where Charlie choked and threatened to kill his estranged wife. I love how Anderson confirms the story that Charlie was spewing racial slurs for no reason whatsoever. He also has a prior instance of using the “N” word in a very confusing context in a voicemail that he left for Denise Richards in 2005.

Charlie issued an earlier response to the media coverage of this incident, and said “If a guy has one bad night, everybody goes insane & panics.” He also told Radar “The story is totally overblown and overplayed as far as the reality of the scenario.” Now that we know that the reality is as bad if not worse than the media made it out to be, what is he going to do? He’s going to smear Anderson’s reputation, just like he did with his ex, Brooke Mueller. You can bet on it.

ABC has aired Capri’s interview, (you can watch part of it on Radar Online) and she describes how the night unfolded and how Charlie did lines of something before taking off her dress. She said that Charlie “put his hands around her neck” and as soon as she started to resist he went after her and trashed the room. He picked something up that she describes as an “envelope opener” or a “knife” and at that point she fled to the bathroom with her cellphone. Charlie was supposed to pay her $3,500 just for dinner, not sex, and he never paid her according to Capri. She plans to file a criminal complaint against him today and will sue him in civil court. Anderson alleges that Charlie offered her $20,000 to keep quiet after the incident, which she refused.

A couple of days ago, Radar Online posted video of Dancing with the Stars hostess Brooke Burke getting super pissy in a videotaped deposition regarding potentially stolen goods purchased by her and her boyfriend, David Charvet. We didn’t report it at the time because the story seemed somewhat vague to me and I wasn’t sure if there was interest in it. Brooke and David are being questioned as part of a civil lawsuit in which a high end appliances store is suing a former employee for stealing and fencing their inventory. These two bought about $70,000 worth of appliances for their new home from the employee, who instructed them to write out checks directly to her. They’re claiming they had no idea the goods were stolen, but they only paid about 1/2 the value on the items. The lawyer for the plaintiff insists tahat Charvet and Brooke knew exactly what was going on. Charvet’s brother-in-law is a friend of the accused employee’s boyfriend, who is said to have introduced Charvet to her. Here’s more from Radar, which has quotes from the plaintiff’s lawyer:

Brooke Burke’s live-in boyfriend –former Baywatch star David Charvet — knew he was buying stolen goods from a high-end design store, charges the attorney representing the victimized store.

The Dancing with the Stars host was deposed in a lawsuit brought by EuroConcepts versus Zalfa “Zee” Halaby, a former store employee.

RadarOnline.com broke the story Monday that Burke was heavily questioned about buying and receiving stolen merchandise. Her deposition is on video and you can see it here.

In a new exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com, Sanford Passman, attorney for the plaintiffs in the civil suit, said he believes Charvet knew he was buying stolen goods.

“I absolutely believe that Charvet knew what was going on,” Passman told RadarOnline.com. “As for whether Brooke knew, who knows? She very well may have turned over all the financial dealings to David but my problem with that is that she went to EuroConcepts, she had Halaby into her house on more than one occasion.

“Maybe David was running the show but how she couldn’t have found out I find hard to believe.”

Burke and Charvet have two children together. Checks from one of Burke’s accounts were made out directly to Halaby instead of to the store in 2007. Halaby was also paid in cash. In her deposition Burke reveals that Charvet sometimes has the ability to authorize checks from her account and also strongly contends she had no idea that Halaby was allegedly cheating her employer.

In the civil complaint another person accused of purchasing stolen goods is Charvet’s brother-in-law Daniel Kessouss.

“Our position is that Halaby had this thing going on for some time and that she had a romantic relationship with one of the defendants, Naftali Amiel,” Passman told RadarOnline.com. “Amiel introduced David Charvet to Halaby and also knows another one of the defendants, Charvet’s brother in law, Daniel Kessous.

“I think it was one of those situations where one person told another person about the great deal they could get with this woman.”

According to Passman, there is also a related criminal case and he theorizes that he can get Halaby to tell all about who knew what.

“If the investigation continues, Halaby will most likely cop a plea deal on her criminal matter, she’ll lose her 5th amendment right and I will put her on the witness stand in the civil trial and she’ll spill her guts,” Passman told RadarOnline.com.

Passman says he tried twice to schedule a site inspection of Charvet’s Malibu home, (which he shares with Burke) but the couple continue to cancel.

He charges that they purchased an outdoor stainless steel gas BBQ, fridge, freezer, microwave and a six burner range from Halaby.

“We wanted to take pictures of the merchandise they had installed in their home so we could match it with the serial numbers of what they bought. But they keep canceling,” Passman told RadarOnline.com.

Burke and Charvet allegedly bought roughly $70,000 worth of appliances and, in the deal of a lifetime, only paid about half of that price. According to the complaint, Burke and Charvet paid Halaby directly for the merchandise with a check and in some cases, cash. EuroConcepts never saw a penny of the money.

“Our job now is to find out how deeply Brooke Burke and David Charvet are ensnared in this,” Passman said.

[From Radar Online]

As far as celebrity scandals go, this one is relatively minor but it’s still interesting. Brooke was really annoyed in that deposition so I’m inclined to think she had no idea about this and is fed up with being blamed for it. If her boyfriend knew he could still face some legal charges. It seems suspicious that these two aren’t letting the lawyer get the serial numbers off the appliances they purchased. I used to see Brooke as this kind of sunny happy-go-lucky person but now that I’ve seen this deposition I’m getting the impression that her whole media persona is an act. This could do some minor damage to her reputation.

Caitlin Sanchez, the teen who formerly voiced the Dora The Explorer cartoon character starting in 2007, has filed a lawsuit against Nickelodeon alleging that the network bilked her out of millions of dollars. The suite claims that Sanchez’s parents were pressured to sign a 14 page contract within about 20 minutes without the presence of a lawyer. According to the Sanchez family, they were told that if they didn’t sign the contract immediately the position would go to another girl. Sanchez was paid around $5,000 an episode, but was allegedly stiffed out of hundreds of hours of pay and given just $40 a day to travel around the world promoting the show. Here’s more:

Caitlin Sanchez, 14, who voiced Dora on Nickelodeon’s Dora the Explorer beginning in 2007, and her parents are suing the network, claiming they were pressured into signing a complicated contract and then cheated out of millions of dollars, reports New York’s Daily News.

The suit claims Sanchez was woefully underpaid, not compensated for hundreds of hours of recording, and forced to promote the show for a “meager travel stipend of $40 a day.”

Sanchez’s lawyer, John Balestriere, tells the paper she was cheated out of “millions, perhaps tens of millions” of dollars after being pressured to sign an “unconscionable” 14-page contract that the family had just 22 minutes to review without a lawyer’s help.

“I’ve never seen as convoluted and inscrutable contract as I’ve seen here,” Balestriere says.

The suit charges that Nickelodeon, MTV Networks and Viacom International “used Caitlin, unjustly enriching themselves of millions of dollars in profits from the series and branded products, which Caitlin performed and promoted.”

David Bittler, a spokesman for Nickelodeon, called the claims “baseless.”

“Unfortunately, Caitlin’s voice changed and she was no longer able to portray the Dora character, as happened with the actress who originated the role,” Bittler said in a statement Thursday. “Caitlin’s contract was extensively negotiated through her agent and in compliance with her union. She was well-compensated for her work and for personal appearances. We have enjoyed working with Caitlin on Dora the Explorer these past three years, and we did in fact offer her a contract for other work with us.”

[From People]

Sanchez was the second voice of Dora. Did the first actress who voiced the part get stiffed too? The original Dora, who started with the show on its premiere in 2000 and was the voice of Dora for 10 years, was a now 19 year-old named Kathleen Herles. I found an interview with her after she left the show, and she had a lot of positive things to say about her experiences as Dora. That doesn’t mean that Sanchez wasn’t scammed or that her parents weren’t strongarmed into an unfair contract, just that the original Dora doesn’t seem to share her experiences. Still, it’s a multi-billion dollar franchise and it seems like the voice actresses should be compensated accordingly. If Herles didn’t get a cut of the profits, and she probably didn’t, she got screwed too.

Paris Hilton has settled a 2007 lawsuit against Hallmark for using her image and trademarked “that’s hot” phrase without proper licensing. The birthday card, shown here, featured Paris’ head on a cartoon body on the outside and a cartoon image of her clutching a chihuahua behind bars on the inside. Paris went to jail in June, 2007. She trademarked her “that’s hot” phrase in February of that year, and her suit maintained that Hallmark “wrongfully utilized [her] name and identity and, therefore damaging her rights of privacy and publicity, her exclusive property rights and her personal rights in and to the use of her name and likeness.”

In other words, Hallmark made a card of Paris back when she was actually hot following her high profile jail stint and failed to pay her for it. They finally settled with her for an undisclosed sum. Here’s E! Online’s report:

Call it a hallmark decision for Paris Hilton.

The celebutante has resolved a lawsuit filed against the folks at Hallmark claiming the greeting-card company violated her privacy and publicity rights by using likeness and “That’s Hot” signature line without her permission.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed but Hilton had asked for at least $500,000 in damages.

Hallmark had contended the card was a parody protected under the First Amendment and fair-use laws, but that argument was shot down by a federal appeals court, paving the way for a December trial.

And on the bright side for Paris, any news not involving her cocaine bust has to be good, right?

[From E! Online]

I don’t blame Paris for suing Hallmark and this was an infringement on her right to make money by slapping her name on everything from cheap weaves to shoddy clothing. This really reminds me of three years ago when she went to jail and we used to talk about her several times a week. At one point we called a moratorium on Paris, Britney and Lohan stories, calling ourselves LohitneyParis free for the first week of July, 2007. Now we only talk about these fools when they get in serious trouble. Is it any wonder that 2 out of 3 of them have been in jail at this point? Britney may have been involuntarily hospitalized but at least she’s avoided getting a DUI.

Images via The Smoking Gun.

Unlikely nearly everyone else who mumbles about lawsuits when a tabloid claims they’re having an affair, David Beckham has follow-through. I admire that. After In Touch Weekly reported this past week that David had hired a hooker six times back in 2007 to have some hot vanilla sex, David has now filed a lawsuit for libel, slander and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” against In Touch. Not only if Beckham suing ITW – he’s also suing the hooker (former hooker?) Irma Nici.

Lawyers for David Beckham have filed a lawsuit against In Touch Weekly after running a cover this week claiming that he had wild sex with hookers.

In the suit – filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court – he accuses the tabloid of libel, slander and intentionally causing emotional distress.

The suit also names 26-year-old Irma Nici, who is quoted as saying she was a call girl who slept with Beckham five times in 2007. She also says he had sex with a second prostitute.

In Touch has yet to comment.

Earlier this week, Beckham’s rep told UsMagazine.com the allegations “are completely untrue and totally ridiculous, as the magazine was clearly told before publication. Sadly we live in a world where a magazine can print lies and believe they can get away with it.”

David, 35, and Victoria, 36, who have been wed for 11 years, have three sons, Brooklyn, 11, Romeo, 8, and Cruz, 5.

[From Us Weekly]

I have mixed feelings about this… on one side, I really believed In Touch’s story, and I still kind of believe it. I definitely think David has cheated on Victoria many times in the past, and that Victoria pretty much turns a blind eye because they’re pretty much a corporation at this point, and because they probably still love each other a lot, and because they’ve got three kids and they both seem like great parents. So, in that way, I think ITW is just digging around a marriage between two people who have their own set of rules as far as fidelity goes, and that’s perhaps not fair. So… basically, I believe In Touch had every right to publish their story – they had a solid, named source and two named confirmation sources after all – but I also admire David Beckham for having the balls to take on a tabloid.

Demi Moore, who regularly posts photos of herself in a bikini and with her family and friends on Twitter, is suing an Australian gossip magazine for publishing candid photos she took with her daughters at a photobooth set up at an Oscars party she co-hosted in 2008. She’s taken the case to court and will appear at a trial in Melbourne later this week.

Demi Moore is scheduled to personally appear in a Melbourne court next week for a legal battle over photographs published in a gossip magazine.
It is understood Moore will fly to Melbourne to give evidence in the Federal Court on Tuesday.

Moore is suing New Idea for printing a series of black and white snaps including herself, her daughter Rumer Willis, Orlando Bloom, P Diddy, Cameron Diaz and Amanda De Cadenet taken at an Oscars after party in 2008.

The photos show the celebrities hamming it up together in photo booth-style snaps.

The post-Oscars bash, organised by Moore and Madonna, was held at the Los Angeles home of the Material Girl’s manager Guy Oseary on February 24, 2008.

Moore lodged a claim in 2008 stating the magazine breached her copyright when it published the pictures on the front cover and on two pages inside its March 8 edition without her permission.

She says she has suffered loss and damage as a result of the publication.

According to the statement of claim, Moore spoke to event organiser Jeffrey Best at the party and the pair agreed that by paying for the photographs Moore would be assigned the copyright.

The trial before Justice John Middleton is expected to run for four-days beginning on Monday.

Other witnesses will give videolink evidence from Los Angeles.

[From News.com.au]

The photos in question can be seen in this video, and there’s nothing particularly incriminating about them at all. There are some cute snaps of Rumor pulling faces, although Moore looks strange. She must be seething that she couldn’t personally approve the photos and never got paid for them. I’m surprised she didn’t either drop this lawsuit or settle it out of court. It’s been over two years, after all. This is typical behavior from her, though. At least this gives her a distraction from all the news and evidence that her husband is cheating on her.

Both Demi and Ashton have cooled down their tweets since the news broke about Ashton’s maybe-affair, which he didn’t directly deny. Are they going to work through it or will they split up, I wonder.

Thanks Smartie for the tip! Send tips to info-at-celebitchy.com

Photos from 8/27/10. Credit: WENN.com