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

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

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

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

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

[From Rolling Stone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From E! Online]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From The Daily Beast]

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

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

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

A taxpayer has filed suit against Michael Jackson’s estate for making the city of Los Angeles foot the bill for the late singer’s $3.3 million public funeral this July. The people of Los Angeles will have to get in line. There are currently over $20 million in claims against the estate from various creditors.

City officials explained during a press conference ahead of Jackson’s memorial that they would pay for the event using taypayer money budgeted for unexpected events. They also asked for donations to help offset the costs. The Jackson estate should have paid for the whole thing, or at least a significant portion of it, but since the city ended up footing the bill someone has inevitably filed a lawsuit.

An alleged do-gooder has filed a creditor’s claim against the Michael Jackson estate, on behalf of the City of Angels.

Jose Freddie Vallejos claims it was illegal for Los Angeles city fathers to underwrite the Michael Jackson memorial last July to the tune of $3.3 million.

Vallejos claims the memorial benefited the estate so the estate should pay the full bill.

He filed the claim as a taxpayer for the City of L.A.

[From TMZ]

Before Jackson’s memorial, the City of LA was so broke they almost canceled a parade for the Lakers ahead of the NBA championship win this summer. Some officials initially said that they wouldn’t be able to afford the parade, but eventually caved after the Lakers took home the title. The memorial was a huge media event and was simulcast around the world. Maybe the press attention offset the cost somewhat, but there are still bills to be paid and things are pretty tight lately.

Photo credit: WENN.com

In 2006, there was a lot of buzz over the fact that private investigator Anthony Pellicano was facing charges on federal racketeering and wiretapping charges. Pellicano represented high profile celebrity clients like Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He also did work for Tom Cruise during his divorce from Nicole Kidman, allegedly tapping Kidman’s phones like all of his other targets. People wondered if we were about to hear the sordid details in the Cruise/Kidman divorce, but the most salacious details we heard during Pellicano’s 2008 trial involved comedian Chris Rock and a fake rape charge. (I truly believe that charge was false, you can read more about it in these two stories.)

Pellicano regularly scammed celebrities by planting stories in the tabloids and then contacting the celebrities directly to offer his services at a steep fee. He had contacts in the police and phone departments who helped him run illegal wiretaps and background searches. In 2008, he was convicted of wiretapping and conspiracy to commit wiretapping and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Tom Cruise, his lawyer Betram Fields, and Anthony Pellicano are now being sued by a magazine editor who claims his phone was illegally tapped by Pellicano at Cruise’s request. The former editor of Bold Magazine, Michael Davis Sapir, claimed in 2001 that he had a tape of Tom Cruise engaged in some same-sex lovin. (I don’t think the gay rumors have much merit, although I initially believed them. I think Pellicano duped Cruise with earlier gay rumors so he would hire him. You can read these three stories in order for background, with attention to the last update on the last story.)

Cruise sued the editor and they settled for an undisclosed amount, with Sapir stating that the tape never existed. Cruise also allegedly hired Anthony Pellicano to run some counter intelligence on Sapir. Now Sapir is suing back for the alleged surveillance. He wants $5 million, or $5,000 for each one of the 1,000-something conversations he claims were taped without his knowledge.

Anthony Pellicano’s misdeeds are the gift that keeps on giving to the Hollywood elite.

Tom Cruise is the latest—and biggest—name to be sucked into the fray. The star was sued Friday for $5 million by a real mensch who claims that he was spied on by Cruise and his attorney with the help of Pellicano, years before the celebrity detective was convicted of numerous counts of racketeering, wiretapping and other abuses of P.I. power.

The reason the plaintiff believes he was targeted: his ultimately discredited claim that he had a tape of Cruise engaged in some same-sex action.
Michael Davis Sapir, the former editor of Bold magazine, was tagged in a $100 million defamation suit in June 2001 by the Mission: Impossible star over the alleged video, which Bold says it got a hold of after pubbing a $500,000 reward offer for “videotape evidence that Cruise was gay.”

The case was settled that November for an undisclosed amount, with both parties stating that Cruise was not on any tape in Bold’s possession.
But now Sapir claims that Pellicano, acting on orders from Cruise and his major-player attorney, Bert Fields, wiretapped his phone while the suit was still active.
His allegations include invasion of privacy, disclosure of confidential information and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[From E! Online]

I read through the lawsuit (on E! Online and TMZ) and the best detail is the password that Pellicano allegedly used to access the encrypted digital recordings of Sapir, which were kept on an iMac: “Bold c*cksucker omerta.”

I love how Cruise’s heavy-handed ways just keep coming back to remind us about the gay rumors. After digging into the allegations a few years ago, I really don’t think Cruise is gay or that he had gay encounters. Pellicano probably set Cruise up with fake gay allegations so he could secure his business, as he often did with his clients. Cruise’s lawyer Fields denies hiring Pellicano for this case, though, and says “We did not even hire Pellicano to work on the Sapir case.” The lawsuit claims a file was found by the FBI in Pellicano’s office called “Michael Davis,” however. I wouldn’t doubt that Cruise hired Pellicano and went for the jugular. If he didn’t, he probably sicced some Scientology goons on the case. I’d love to see Cruise pony up a million or two for Sapir’s trouble.

In related Tom Cruise news, the trailer for his upcoming film Knight & Day with Cameron Diaz has come out. It’s not out until July, and shooting just wrapped last week, but there’s a trailer already. It looks like a pretty solid action movie and I actually laughed in spots.

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz are shown on 12/17/09, “posing for pictures before preparing to leave Spain after filming their new movie ‘Knight and Day’” on 12/17/09. Credit: WENN.com. Tom is also shown partying at an Irish bar with wife Katie Holmes and Cameron Diaz in Seville, Spain for Katie’s 31st birthday later that night. (Katie’s birthday is 12/18/09.) Credit: Target/Fame Pictures

Country singer Garth Brooks is suing his hometown hospital for reneging on their promise to use his 1/2 million dollar donation to fund a new building named after his late mom. Brooks has filed a $500,000 breach of contract lawsuit against Integris Canadian Valley Regional hospital in Yukon, Oklahoma for not using his 2005 gift as agreed on. The hospital never put up the building to be named after Brooks’ mom, who died of cancer ten years ago, and Brooks is said to be “heartbroken” over it.

Unanswered Prayers” singer Garth Brooks says that his quest to make his mother’s name “More Than a Memory” at an Oklahoma hospital has gone unfulfilled – and he’s suing the medical center for $500,000 as a result.

Four years ago, the recently out-of-retirement country crooner says, he gave Integris Canadian Valley Regional hospital in Yukon, Okla., the half million dollars to finance a building that would bear the name of his mother, Colleen Brooks, who died of cancer in 1999.

But, according to a court filing by Brooks, 47, the hospital never included the promised building in a $27 million expansion project, leaving CVR in breach of contract, TMZ reports.

“Garth’s heart is broken over this,” a source close to Brooks tells PEOPLE.

A hospital spokesman tells TMZ that there’s been a misunderstanding, and that they’re hoping for a “swift and amicable end.”

Not likely. Brooks’s rep tells PEOPLE: “This deals with his mother, the home town and the people he grew up with and is deeply personal.”

[From People]

I understand why Brooks is suing the hospital. Some people are going to say that he gave them the money and shouldn’t have a say in how it’s used. If officials promised to name a building after his mom and never did it then he should call them on it. It’s not like Brooks is being stingy or this is his only good deed lately. Brooks started his own charity in 1999, Teammates for Kids, which involves professional athletes donating money based on their game performance. According to their website, Teammates for Kids has raised $75 million for children’s charities thanks to professional baseball, football, soccer, basketball and hockey players. Garth has also donated over a million of his own money to wildlife charities, and he performed four concerts last year to benefit California wildfire victims.

Brooks, 47, recently came out of retirement after eight years to perform a long-running stint in Vegas. Brooks has three daughters from his first marriage: Taylor, 17, August, 15, and Allie, 13. His second wife, singer Tricia Yearwood, 45, said in an interview on The View in 2007 that she found Brooks’ children intimidating at first but that she soon warmed up to them and that she loves having them around. “You fall in love with them. You learn why people have kids.” That’s really sweet.

Shown are Tricia Yearwood and Garth Brooks at his announcement that he’ll be coming out of retirement to perform in Vegas. 10/15/09. Credit: Judy Eddy/WENN.com

Yikes. This is a little human interest story I read in Page Six this morning, and it freaked me out a little. It seems Owen Wilson was recently in Café Habana in Manhattan, and he became quite taken with the waitress, Monica Mateo. So he asked her out – only to be refused. Simple story, right? “Hollywood Hunk Gets Shut Down”. Not so much. It seems that Mateo’s boss got freaked out and tried to force her to go out with Owen Wilson, telling her “You know what coffee means in Hollywood, right? . . . Don’t screw this up. Owen’s a good customer.” Yikes. Is he a manager or a pimp?

Turning down Owen Wilson for a date was bad for the career of a waitress at Cafe Habana, she claims.

Monica Mateo is suing the eco-friendly NoLIta eatery, claiming her hours were slashed after she rejected an offer by the “Butterscotch Stallion” to take her out for coffee, The Post’s Bruce Golding reports.

Mateo claims in a Manhattan federal court filing that restaurant manager Leslie Meenan went ballistic after learning of the snub, saying: “You know what coffee means in Hollywood, right? . . . Don’t screw this up. Owen’s a good customer.”

Mateo’s lawyer, Maimon Kirschenbaum, said the 30-something server already had a boyfriend and “had no interest” in the “Wedding Crashers” star, who once dated Kate Hudson. Cafe Habana owner Sean Meenan, Leslie’s brother, couldn’t be reached, and Wilson’s rep didn’t return our e-mails for comment.

[From Page Six]

That’s just gross. But, you know what? This isn’t Owen Wilson’s fault. I seriously doubt Owen went over to the manager and was like “That waitress won’t go out with me, she needs to be fired!” Owen probably didn’t know anything about it, and from what little I know about him, he seems like the kind of guy who would be horrified that some waitress lost her job over his advances. And yes, she wasn’t really fired, her hours were “slashed”. That’s the way some bosses handle it, and I do think the two things were related. Gross.

Owen Wilson in Washington for the ‘Night at the Museum 2’ premiere on May 14, 2009. Credit: WENN.

Remember when Tiger Woods was just some boring guy who played golf and seemed to be happily married to a loving wife? Those were the days. Back in those days, the Gosselins were some of the sketchiest, most dysfunctional people going. They’re still pretty crazy, but they’ve gotten pushed to the side in favor of real celebrities with bigger issues. So it is with a heavy heart that I report that Jon Gosselin didn’t bother showing up for his (I typed “her” first, because Jon is a bitch) court hearing regarding the lawsuit and counter-suit between him and TLC.

Originally, TLC sued Jon for breach of contract, because he pretty much ended the show and because they said they had on an exclusive contract, and he was making paid appearances elsewhere, without TLC’s permission. Oh, and Jon violated his “morals clause” by bangin’ all of those sketchy women. Jon countersued, blah, blah, you remember. Anyway, Jon cared so much about the legal proceedings that he didn’t show up. Because he has the mind of a five year old.

Jon Gosselin, the star of TLC’s hit reality show “Jon and Kate Plus 8,” has not shown up to a hearing in his legal fight with the network.

Gosselin’s attorney, Mark Heller, had previously said the celebrity dad would attend Thursday’s hearing in Maryland, but the hearing has started without him.

The judge says Gosselin’s lawyers don’t plan to call witnesses.

The network wants the judge to stop Gosselin from making media appearances that it says violate his exclusive contract. TLC, which is owned by Silver Spring, Md.-based Discovery Communications, says the contract remains in force.

Gosselin says he has a right to earn a living as a media personality. He also claims in a countersuit that TLC violated Pennsylvania’s child labor laws in filming his eight children.

[From Huffington Post]

I just skimmed through Radar’s play-by-play of the court proceedings, and some of it is really interesting, but probably not for the reasons people think. It amazes me how people sign away so much of themselves just for a shot at reality stardom – and that’s what the case boils down to. How much control could TLC exert over Jon’s life? When is an affair not a personal matter, but a “breach of contract”? You get the idea. I couldn’t live like that, but I do think it’s an interesting case.

Oh, and Jon’s lawyer called TLC “mean-spirited”. Because he’s five years old too. Meanies!

UPDATE: TLC won, but I’m not sure exactly what that means. Radar claims that TLC got a “preliminary injunction” against Jon, and now Jon must “be questioned under oath regarding his outside income, statements about TLC and more.” Oh, and the Divorced Dads’ Club is not happening anytime soon. So, VICTORY!

Christina Fulton and Weston Coppola Cage on 10/23/08. Credit: WENN/Fayes Vision

Nicolas Cage threw a lot of money around, and that seems to have included his ex girlfriend and the mother of his oldest son. Cage, who owes over $6 million to the US government and is being sued by – and suing – his former business manager, is now being sued by his ex, Christina Fulton. Fulton, 42, claims that Cage took back a house he gave to her in 2001 for raising their son and that one of his employees racked up charges on one of her credit cards. According to the lawsuit, Fulton is over $1.2 million in debt and wants $13 million from Cage:

Christina Fulton, mother of Cage’s eldest child Weston, 18, is suing the actor for fraud and breach of contract, alleging she’s been caught in the web of his financial mismanagement and is now more than $1.2 million in debt herself, Los Angeles court papers show.

Cage stated in an October lawsuit he faces financial ruin after allegedly being duped by a former accountant, Samuel Levin. The actor currently owes $6.3 million in back taxes, recently defaulted on a $2 million loan, and has begun a massive sell-off of homes, cars, yachts and other possessions to recoup his losses.

Fulton, 42, a former actress, says she was provided an L.A. home years ago by Cage in exchange for raising Weston, and believed the property was under her name. That is until September, when Cage allegedly served her with a 60-day notice to get out.

Fulton says that because of Cage and Levin’s negligence, she now owes the IRS more than $1 million, in addition to $250,000 in unpaid credit card debt. She says the credit card was supposed to be paid off regularly by Cage and that fraudulent charges were racked up by a staffer hired by the actor who didn’t undergo a sufficient background check.

All told, Fulton says damages to her exceed $13 million.

Levin, the accountant, has countersued Cage, stating the actor’s financial collapse was due to his “compulsive, self-destructive spending.”

Cage’s attorney Marty Singer tells PEOPLE: “This lawsuit is ridiculous and absurd. Nicolas Cage has given her approximately three million every year for many years, even though he was only obligated to pay her six thousand a month in child support. We expect this lawsuit to be promptly thrown out.”

[From People]

If this is true and Cage only owed Fulton $6,000 a month but was giving her three million a year and a free house I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her. It’s not like Cage owes her more money just because he decided to give his son a life of luxury. On the other hand, if she believed the home was in her name and had a bunch of fraudulent charges on her credit card from one of Cage’s employees she should be compensated. It’s not Fulton’s fault that Cage was massively overextended.

Radar Online has the court filing for this case and there’s some interesting dirt in there. Fulton’s filing mentions her troubled relationship with Cage in the early 80s and states that they lived together for four years and that Cage emotionally and physically abused her:

After living together off and on for approximately four years [after Weston was born in 1990], and not being able to live with the mental, physical and emotional abuse inflicted upon her by Cage, and feeling that she was subjecting Weston to an unhealthy environment, Plaintiff together with Weston moved out of her common residence with Cage.

The legal document goes on to say that Cage bought Fulton and his son a house in 2001 and told her “that she could restore and decorate… to her liking as it was going to be a permanent residence and as title would be transferred to her as soon as arrangements could be made.” What’s more is that Cage allegedly sent an e-mail to Fulton in 2009 telling her to sell the home if she needed money. It was only when she tried to sell that she realized it was still in Cage’s name. Then at the end of September she got a notice to move out followed by foreclosure notices.

Cage’s financial situation is surely a mess and it’s not surprising that he let down some people who were depending on him. The guy was a compulsive spender and only a massive setback like this was going to stop him.

By the way, have you seen Nicolas Cage’s oldest son? He’s in the photo above. He’s a big kid with long hair and a punk look and I assumed he was in his twenties. He’s only 18, though, and it looks like he could be fending for himself unless his dad steps back in to help.

A man portrayed as an angry terrorist in the shockumentary Bruno is suing filmmaker Sacha Baron Cohen, David Letterman, and NBC. Ayman Abu Aita runs a supermarket in Bethlehem and says he’s a Christian guy with a wife and two kids and isn’t a terrorist at all. He’s a Palestinian peace activist who responded to a request for an interview with what he was told was a German documentary filmmaker. Instead, he met with gay caricature Bruno and became an unwilling subject in what he considers an offensive movie. He was portrayed as the leader of a terrorist group and his reputation in his community suffered. They even used his real full name in the movie:

Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, the actor behind the flamboyant character Bruno, is being sued for $114 million in libel damages, reports the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

Ayman Abu Aita, a Palestinian grocer and peace activist, says that the box office hit, “Bruno,” has ruined his life. In the film, Abu Aita travels with Bruno, a gay fashion journalist, to the Ein El-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon to meet with a leader there. A caption that appears during the scene describes Abu Aita as a “Terrorist group leader, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.”

Since the film’s release, Abu Aita says he has received death threats and that he was originally tricked into meeting Baron Cohen in the first place. He claims he thought Baron Cohen was a German producing a film about Palestinians — not an actor making a comedy, reports Britain’s Daily Mail.

Abu Aita alleges that when Baron Cohen spoke with David Letterman on TV last year, he said he had found a “real terrorist” through a contact at the CIA.

He is suing NBC Universal, Letterman and Baron Cohen. “Bruno” has grossed about $137 million worldwide since it’s release in July.

[From The NY Daily News]

The thing that bothers me is that in an appearance on Letterman (link leads to video) Baron Cohen told the story about finding a “real” terrorist to interview as if the whole thing went down just as it looked on film. He said that he used CIA contacts to find a member of the “Al-Axa Martyrs Brigade, the number one suicide bombers out there,” that he had to agree to meet the guy at an undisclosed location, and that the situation was so dangerous he had trouble securing a willing bodyguard. If this guy’s story is to be believed, Baron Cohen just found an average guy with ties to Palestinian rights groups, met him at a public restaurant, and then duped him into appearing in the film.

In an interview with NPR’s Fresh Air, Larry Charles, the director of Bruno and Borat, explained their approach. “A lot of this comedy is about putting people, hopefully who are good targets, in uncomfortable situations.” Not all of the people are good targets and many eventually fight back. This is the second lawsuit against Bruno. The first was by a woman who claims she was left permanently disabled after a scuffle with Bruno filmmakers at a Palmdale, CA bingo game. Baron’s earlier film Borat was the subject of at least seven lawsuits from the people who appeared in the film.

It’s unlikely that Baron Cohen will get the chance to offend more people in character. He told NPR that he’s too well recognized now and that it’s too dangerous for him. “Basically its impossible to do now. Its too well known as a genre, and its just too hard to get people not to recognize me. And also I think I was lucky as a performer in Borat and Bruno that I didnt get permanently hurt.” It’s not just Baron Cohen who can get hurt by his performances.

An Interview with Ayman Abu Aita is below. Here’s a link to a press conference announcing this lawsuit.

Sacha Baron Cohen is shown outside the Late Show as Bruno on 7/9/09. He appeared on the show as himself, not as one of his alter egos. Credit: WENN.com