Do you know how much I love writing about Naomi Campbell? SO much. She’s such an ungrateful snot, such an ungracious diva, so violent and nasty… it’s funny. Granted, if I ever came face-to-face with her (or face-to-hurled-bedazzled-phone), I would run. But from a safe distance, she’s hilarious (and probably a war criminal) So the latest story is that Naomi has just gotten herself sued. The litigious idiots who are about to get a face full of phone? Naomi’s former agent Carole White and the perfume company Moodform Mission (with co-director Chris Owen). There actually seems to be a case here, on both sides, but the details are rather funny. Naomi refused to present at an Australian awards show because the elevator was broken, and she would have had to walk up two flights of stairs. Oh, and this gem: “Chris Owen said Campbell was a nightmare traveling companion on the promotional tour — she was constantly late for meetings, and once even tried to attack him with a bottle.” Love it.

Steps? Naomi Campbell doesn’t do steps. The diva caused a stink when she was supposed to be promoting her perfume line by canceling an appearance because she didn’t want to walk up some stairs, The Post’s Janon Fisher reports.

In an affidavit, Campbell’s former agent Carole White said Campbell backed out of a televised awards show in Australia after finding out the elevator had broken and she’d have to walk up two flights of steps.

“Her failure to show was not only embarrassing, but caused friction with [the] Wella [perfume] people in Australia,” White said of the 2000 event.

White’s co-director at Moodform Mission, Chris Owen, said Campbell was a nightmare traveling companion on the promotional tour — she was constantly late for meetings, and once even tried to attack him with a bottle.

Moodform is suing Campbell for backing out of their 12-year-old perfume deal for such scents as Naomi Campbell, Cat Deluxe, and Cat Deluxe with Kisses.

The brawling beauty is fighting back. In court filings, Campbell said that she considered White “a surrogate mother,” and that she’d sign whatever White put in front of her without reading it — which is how she got roped into a deal she didn’t know much about.

She’s countersuing, saying that Moodform got money it wasn’t entitled to, and that White concealed her role in the company.

“Ms. Campbell is shocked and outraged by the false allegations made by her former agent and cohorts . . . who have made a fortune off of her,” her spokeswoman said.

Moodform maintains Campbell knew what she was getting into.

In asking a judge to throw the case out, White’s lawyer, Daniel Bright, wrote: “The human element that brings the parties before the court is clear: greed, ingratitude and a grotesque sense of entitlement on the part of Campbell that, in her mind, justifies her doing anything she wants to do, including stealing her business partners’ money and then lying about what happened.”

[From Page Six]

Now, I have to admit – it actually does sound like Naomi might have gotten screwed in this business deal. The perfume deal seems hopelessly budget, especially considering that Naomi could have gotten multi-million dollar endorsement contracts with major perfumers rather than a company called “Moodform”. BUT, I do believe that Naomi’s personality is best described as “greed, ingratitude and a grotesque sense of entitlement.” Plus, she attacked someone with a bottle! Survey says: still a C-U-Next-Tuesday.

Naomi on June 7, 2010, in Saint Tropez. Also, in Paris on May 31, 2010. Credit: Bauer-Griffin.

Last week, we heard a lot of news about Kendra Wilkinson’s sex tape. My first thought was that Kendra must be horrified, especially considering how conservative Hank Bassett’s family is, and how she seems to want to be seen as something other than Hef’s blow-up doll. Turns out, not so much. Kendra was trying to sell the sex tape more than a year ago, and she stands to profit from it considerably. Radar has some new information about the sex tape today – apparently, it may feature a gang bang. Maybe. There’s something about “multiple partners” but it’s left open as to whether it’s “multiple partners at the same time” or “Kendra banging a series of dudes over a course of time.”

A document governing the potential sale of Kendra Wilkinson’s sex tape reveals that multiple partners were featured having intimate relations with the reality TV star, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

Kendra is threatening to sue over the release of a sex tape she made when she was 18. Vivid obtained the tape and the porn company says it will soon distribute it. And while Kendra has objected, RadarOnline.com broke the news that the E! star secretly made moves to sell the tape in 2008! Documents obtained exclusively by RadarOnline.com show that Kendra engaged a top Los Angeles law firm in late 2008 to represent her in selling the tape.

She even formed a company called Home Run Productions, LLC to sell the tape. New documents uncovered by RadarOnline.com show that not only were there multiple sex tapes , as we exclusively reported, but also multiple partners!

And while Kendra has threatened to sue if the tapes are released she has not returned requests for comment about her attempts to secretly sell the tapes and the company she formed in November, 2008 to do so.

While attempting to sell the tapes in 2008 Kendra was already with Philadelphia Eagles’ wide receiver Hank Baskett, who is now her husband. She needed the approval of Playboy’s Hugh Heffner to go through with the deal, as she was starring in her final season of The Girls Next Door.

And while the deal never went through, the documents governing the deal show that the tapes “featured” her in intimate relations with others.

Her outrage at Vivid’s attempt to market the tape now caused her to hire Lavely & Singer, one of L.A.’s top legal firms. But she was represented by a different law firm in 2008 as she secretly tried to sell the tapes.

And despite the fact that she tried to sell the tapes two years ago, one legal expert tells RadarOnline.com that unless she agrees to sell them now she will have a viable lawsuit against any company that distributes them. “She has the right to change her mind and say she doesn’t want them sold now,” one source familiar with the situation told RadarOnline.com. “And if her wishes aren’t honored, she’ll have a great lawsuit.”

[From Radar]

I hate to admit this, but Team Kendra. I do think that she’s allowed to change her mind and do a “nevermind” on the whole deal. At one point she might have thought selling a sex tape would be a good career move, but I honestly don’t think that’s where she is now. But who knows? It could totally be that Kendra is trying to profit from the sex tape in two ways – both from the sale of the tape, and from a lawsuit of settlement with Vivid.

Life & Style claims that Heidi Montag wants to sue the creator of The Hills for sexual harassment stemming from a late March incident on the set of The Hills in which she claims he groped her. On the day in question, Heidi was called out by US Weekly for bringing six bodyguards with her on set and refusing to pose with her costars for a group photo. Heidi’s husband Spencer explained the incident by claiming that Heidi was sick and that she “always travels with a security team.” Now Life & Style claims that Heidi thinks she was continually sexually harassed by her boss and that’s why she brought so many guys with her to work. A “source” is telling Life & Style that Heidi plans to sue, but it doesn’t sound like she’s actually done so yet.

Life & Style can exclusively reveal that an incident at last month’s photo shoot for The Hills sparked Heidi Montag’s plan to sue show creator Adam DiVello for alleged sexual harassment.

It happened the last weekend of March, during a cast photo shoot to promote the sixth and final season of The Hills, an insider close to Heidi tells Life & Style. “Adam came up to her from behind and grabbed her with one hand on her stomach and one hand directly on her butt cheek,” the insider claims. “Heidi had six bodyguards with her. They took his hand off her and moved him away from the situation.”

Heidi refused to go ahead with the photo shoot, a move that got her labeled a diva in online reports. Heidi’s husband, Spencer Pratt, issued a statement on March 29, saying Heidi “was sick and she didn’t even want to go to that photo shoot.”

The insider tells Life & Style that Heidi claims she’d been annoyed with DiVello for a while. “Heidi started bringing security to the set because she felt Adam was getting a little creepy. He was very touchy-feely and she insisted he wouldn’t stop asking her to strip down to a bikini for scenes. Adam wasn’t on set much for six seasons until Heidi got her new boobs. And now he shows up everywhere.”

After the incident, the insider claims, “Heidi and Spencer e-mailed the production team and asked to talk about what happened. But after three weeks they’d gotten no response other than to say Heidi was allowed to bring only one bodyguard on set.

“Heidi’s been in tears about it and really upset because she says she doesn’t feel safe,” the insider continues. “Heidi says she wanted to solve the issue behind closed doors but The Hills just wouldn’t talk about it.”

Another insider says it’s been discussed on set that DiVello may use his position with the show to get close to young women, claiming, “You have to stroke his ego to get a big role on his shows.”

Meanwhile, co-star Lo Bosworth tweeted her take on the matter: “I’ll repeat it: no one is/has ever been assaulted during filming of our show. hey spiedi, do you know the definition of slander? NOT OKAY.”

[From Life & Style, received via e-mail]

I wouldn’t put it past Heidi to make something like this up. Or at least Spencer might make it up and ask Heidi to go along with it. However, all we have for now is hearsay in Life & Style. Heidi and Spencer haven’t said anything about this, although of course I suspect them of going to Life & Style with this story. As much as it pained me, I went to Heidi and Spencer’s respective Twitter accounts and they haven’t said anything about this yet. They’re sure to chime in once they wake up this morning. It’s suspicious, though, that Spencer was barred from the set for six weeks for screaming at a female producer and now we’re hearing these sexual harassment claims.

Oh, and sexual harassment is wrong and we should take these allegations seriously despite who they’re coming from etc., but I have to say something snarky about how Heidi probably couldn’t have even felt it if someone groped her on the boobs or stomach. That sh*t is pure plastic.

Yesterday we heard that 90s action star Steven Seagal was being sued for sexual harassment and sexual trafficking by a former personal assistant who claims that he lured her to New Orleans under false pretenses. 23 year-old Kayden Nguyen claims she answered an ad on Craig’s List for a secretarial job, only to be asked to accompany Seagal to his house in New Orleans, where he promptly sexually abused her. The story was compelling and convincing, and while some details sounded over-the-top many of us were willing to believe them. Seagal’s lawyer countered that the story was fabricated and claimed that Nguyen was fired for drug abuse. Some of you wondered why Nguyen didn’t go to the police with her story immediately and why she waited almost two months to file a civil, not a criminal complaint.

New information is out about Seagal’s accuser that puts her story into a much different light. Nguyen was on the Tyra Banks show last year bragging about how she was a “lipstick lesbian” who used men. Now, I’ve heard of at least three different stories of people being misled into appearances on Tyra’s show and either being humiliated or fed fake stories to read on air. (Here’s some coverage we did of that in the past.) It’s possible that Nguyen answered an ad to appear on Tyra’s show and was tricked into giving false statements. She looked pretty proud of herself though and like she was completely comfortable. It doesn’t look good for her when TMZ runs video that shows her bragging on television about manipulating people.

The woman accusing Steven Seagal of treating her like a “sex toy” once appeared on an episode of “The Tyra Banks Show” — where she claimed to be a “lipstick lesbian,” who can “trick” men.

Back in 2009, Kayden Nguyen appeared in an episode titled “The Gay Kingdom” — in which she bragged, “I can use my sex appeal to get any girl that I want and trick any guy to getting what I want.”

As TMZ first reported, Kayden filed a lawsuit against Seagal claiming she took a job as his executive assistant … but was instead treated like a sex servant.

Kayden’s episode was taped on January 29, 2009 — roughly one year before her alleged sexual encounters with Steven Seagal.

[From TMZ]

Meanwhile Radar Online has a professional photoshoot of Nyugen in a sexy bikini. It looks like this case just got a lot less cut and dried. This is pure speculation, but maybe Nyugen knew what she was getting into and then decided to shake down Seagal for some money for her trouble. It’s also possible that she was just a secretary all along. Or she could be telling the truth. She just got a whole less credible though.

90s action star Steven Seagal is being sued for sexual harassment and human trafficking by a 23 year-old model who claims she responded to a job posting on Craig’s List for an executive assistant. Once she was chosen for the job, she was flown to a remote home in New Orleans where Seagal was filming his reality show. At home with Seagal, she alleges that she was subjected to several unwanted sexual advances and was forced to watch while Seagal and another assistant had sex in front of her. What’s more is that Seagal, 58, lived in the home with his wife, infant, a nanny and three other employees, one an executive assistant and the other a 19 year-old Russian model who the complainant claims was there just to meet his sexual needs. While Seagal’s lawyer says the lawsuit is fabricated and that the woman never told anyone about Seagal’s harassment, the lawsuit has her informing two different supervisors in Seagal’s company.

The lawsuit was brought by his former personal assistant, Kayden Nguyen, who is a 23-year-old former model.

The legal documents say Segal “treated Ms. Nguyen as his sex toy.”

Nguyen is suing for sexual harassment, illegal trafficking of females for sex, failure to prevent sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and false representation about employment.

The document also claims that “Mr. Seagal has been keeping two young female Russian ‘Attendants’ on staff who were available for his sexual needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

But Seagal’s top-notch lawyer Marty Singer fired back in ferocious manner. He released this statement to RadarOnline.com:

“The lawsuit filed by Kayden Nguyen against Steven Seagal is a ridiculous and absurd claim by a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired. The claims in her lawsuit are a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth. Steven Seagal’s attorney Marty Singer stated that “I am extremely confident this meritless lawsuit will be dismissed. Ms. Nguyen filed her lawsuit without even notifying Steven Seagal or his representatives of her alleged claims because she was aware that claims could be asserted against her based on her own conduct. Her lawsuit is nothing more than a preemptive strike by a disgruntled ex-employee.”

Singer charged Nguyen with illegal activity.

Nguyen claims that she was required “to watch as “Sasha” (Russian attendant) and Mr. Seagal performed sex acts on each other.”

Segal was working as a Reserve Deputy Chief of the Sheriff’s Office in the community of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, something he documented in his A & E reality TV show Steven Seagal: Lawman.

He used Craigslist to hire an executive/personal assistant who could also be on his reality show.

Nguyen was hired in Los Angeles, but then flown to New Orleans to live in Seagal’s house for the show.

On her first night of work, Seagal allegedly engaged in physical and sexual assault by “pushing his hands under her shirt and attemping to fondle her bare breast,” and “forcing her head against his bare chest.”

Then she claims the next morning things got even worse. He allegedly “forcibly held her legs apart.” Then “forced his hand down her pants…” The document goes into graphic detail that isn’t suitable for all audiences.

Then the suit alleges a third physical assault took place a few hours later, where “Seagal forcibly lifted Ms. Nguyen’s blouse, forced his head on her bare chest and attempted to suck her breasts and nipples. He stopped only when she ran.”

After only a few days of work, Nguyen left the house on Sunday, February 28, 2010.

Seagal, who practices Tibetan Buddhism, has six children from three different mothers.

[From Radar Online]

The legal documents for this case are available on TMZ and Radar, and they’re kind of fascinating. The fact that anyone could get away with that level of sexual abuse is sickening. One detail that isn’t in the quoted text above is that fact that the woman fled the home late one night with the excuse that she needed to meet with visiting family. Nguyen left all her possessions there, including her laptop, clothing, and makeup. When she asked for her stuff back, she was told that she would have to sign a legal document stating that she promised not to sue for sexual harassment! She refused, and still does not have any of her things. Of course it’s possible that all of this is made up by someone hoping for a fat settlement. Some of the details seem over the top. It looks pretty bad for Seagal, though, and I was convinced.

Nicollette Sheridan has filed a lawsuit against Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry and ABC for $20 million. Sheridan alleges that Cherry hit her on the face during an argument on set in September 2008. According to Sheridan’s lawsuit, her character’s death last season was in retaliation for complaining about the incident.

Former “Desperate Housewives” co-star Nicollette Sheridan has filed a lawsuit so over-the-top it seems perfect for Wisteria Lane.

The actress has sued ABC Entertainment Group, ABC Studios, Touchstone Television and series creator Marc Cherry for $20 million, claiming that she was physically assaulted by Cherry and fired when she complained about it.

The complaint was filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court by attorneys Mark Baute and Patrick Maloney.

Sheridan alleges Cherry struck her in the head in September 2008 on the set of the hit ABC series. “After she complained to her employer about Cherry’s improper behavior, Cherry arranged to have Sheridan terminated from the show, resulting in her losing millions in future earnings,” the complaint says.

ABC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. UPDATE: ABC Studios just gave us the following statement: “While we have yet to see the actual complaint, we investigated similar claims made by Ms. Sheridan last year and found them to be without merit.” Cherry could not be reached.

Sheridan says Cherry punched her in the head during production on the the series’ fifth season. He allegedly apologized but then arranged for her character, Edie Britt, to be killed off the show. Sheridan claims that she informed ABC about the whole mess, but producers did nothing.

The seven-count complaint alleges causes of action for wrongful termination; assault and battery; gender violence; discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and age; retaliatory termination; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Some other allegations from the complaint:

Sheridan says the assault went down like this: “On September 24, 2008, during a rehearsal for the show, when Sheridan questioned Cherry about something that was in the script, Cherry took her aside and forcefully hit her with his hand across her face and head.”

She says she was “physically and emotionally injured, humiliated and stunned by Cherry’s sudden physical violence and stated, ‘you just hit me in the head, that is not okay. THAT IS NOT OKAY!’ ”

Sheridan says Cherry’s abusive behavior was well-known on the set: “After an incident where Sheridan’s co-star on the show Teri Hatcher went above Cherry’s head to speak to ABC executives, Cherry told Sheridan, ‘I hope Teri Hatcher gets hit by a car and dies.’ ”

Sheridan, whose character was killed off near the end of Season 5, also says her compensation for the show was $175,000 an episode for her fifth year, $200,000 for her sixth season and $250,000 for her seventh. She claims she stood to earn millions if she hadn’t been fired.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

If this is as cut and dried as Sheridan claims then of course she’s entitled to compensation. I’m not sure $20 million is at all warranted, but if she’s telling the truth and she was fired for complaining about physical abuse from a supervisor then she has a right to sue. That’s a big if though, and given the things we’ve heard about Sheridan I wouldn’t put it past her to either exaggerate, misrepresent, or make up something like this in order to get a big cash settlement. I’m thinking we haven’t heard about this until now because Sheridan was hoping that ABC would settle her claim with seven figures or more. Maybe when they refused to give in she decided to make this public.

Last year, Sheridan made some bitchy comments about Cherry. She said that he had personal issues that led him to kill off her character. “I think whoever Edie represented in Marc’s life was somebody he didn’t like. And he had a very difficult time distinguishing between fact and fiction.” Cherry claimed that he axed Sheridan’s character in order to cut costs, but he also gave her a backhanded compliment, and said she “performed the aging, neighborhood tramp better than anyone has ever done before.” Given the expense involved with defending the network against Sheridan’s lawsuit, it may have been cheaper to keep her on.

Nicollette Sheridan is shown outside the Ivy on 3/11/10. Credit: Fame Pictures

Heather Mills is being sued by a former nanny, Sara Trumble, who claims that Mills forced her to work under degrading conditions and discriminated against her after she took time off for maternity leave. We first heard that Trumble was suing Mills for an undisclosed amount back in December, 2008. At that time, the buzz was over Trumble’s claim that Mills forced her to give her a naked spray tan once a week and that she had to come in to work at 7:30 am every morning to blow dry her boss’s hair. Having failed to reach a settlement, the case is now in court. More details are coming out about Trumble’s work conditions and they’re in no way favorable to Mills. It’s not like we expected anything else from this woman, who has also been sued by her former PR rep and was called “explosive,” and “vile” by the judge presiding over her divorce with Paul McCartney.

HEATHER Mills’ former nanny told yesterday how she was reduced to tears by the diva-like demands of the Dancing on Ice star.

Sara Trumble, 26, described to an employment tribunal how Sir Paul McCartney’s ex-wife left her a “rude” voicemail rant on Mothers’ Day.

It insisted that she make herself available to work – even though she was on maternity leave and had been through a difficult pregnancy.

Sara also claimed she was treated in a “humiliating and demeaning” way in a row over a birthday party – and FORCED to record an interview praising her boss, dubbed Mucca for her sordid porn past.

She also said suspicious Mills, 42, even GRILLED her over whether a new male pal had flirted with her.

Sara, who finally quit after she was replaced as a nanny and given cleaning duties, is claiming damages on grounds of discrimination over maternity leave, sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Mills, mum to Sir Paul’s six-year-old girl Beatrice, was left fuming as Sara gave evidence to a panel of three in Ashford, Kent.

She shook her head and hissed “no, no” when Nick Fairweather, representing Sara, urged the tribunal to accept evidence Mills was a known “liar”, referring to her High Court divorce ruling. They dismissed it as “not relevant” to the case.

[From The Sun]

Even if Trumble successfully sues Mills, she might have trouble collecting a settlement. Mills admitted earlier this year that she’s squandered just about all of her $50 million divorce settlement from Paul McCartney. She wasted a fortune in less than two years by maintaining about six different properties and throwing lavish parties and vacations for her entire entourage. A relatively small amount went to charity, which Mills of course exaggerated. How many of her “friends” are going to stick around now that the money is trickling down to nothing?

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

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.