The current drama with the Hogan family is proof that Karma really is a bitch. And like any other form of justice, it’s best when it’s sure and swift. Though Linda Hogan, 48, just filed for divorce last week, it turns out the couple has been separated for several months. Given that fact, it’s weird that Hulk Hogan publicly professed surprise at the divorce papers.

Either way, the Hulk is pissed. He’s going to fight Linda on alimony and child support. Their loser son Nick is still 17, so technically Linda could get some child support if Nick lived with her. Hulk says Linda is able to support herself, and notes that they have two houses and their liabilities should be divided equally between the pair. I wonder if that includes the legal liability the family will be facing when John Graziano’s parents sue them for the car crash Nick caused that turned Graziano into a vegetable?

In the court filing, Terry Bollea, 54, contested everything from his wife’s alimony and custody claims to the couple’s marriage date. Linda Bollea’s petition lists it as Dec. 12, 1983, while Terry Bollea says it was Dec. 18. Terry Bollea had it right: Public records show they were married Dec. 18, 1983. According to court documents, Terry and Linda Bollea separated about a month after their son Nick’s Aug. 26 car wreck, which critically injured his friend and passenger, John Graziano.

Linda Bollea, 48, is seeking an unspecified amount of alimony and child support. She also wants custody of their son, subject to “liberal visitation” with his father. But in his counter-claim, Terry Bollea said his wife is capable of supporting herself and helping support their son, 17, who will be a minor until July. The petition also says Nick Bollea is old enough to decide with whom he will live and that “it would be in the best interest for the parties to have shared parental responsibility.”

[From the St. Petersburg Times]

I love that quote about “shared parental responsibility.” That implies that they have some parental responsibility, which they clearly don’t. Unless they’re planning on starting it now, I doubt that makes a bit of difference. I hope they both lose their shirts when the Grazianos sue them, and then they won’t have to argue about alimony and division of assets – just division of debt.

As we reported earlier, Sharon Osbourne and Courtney love are feuding about who’s fault it is that Jack Osbourne was addicted to drugs. Did Courtney give him drugs? Should former Mother-of-the-Year Sharon have taught him to ‘Just say no’? The fur flies.

“I never did that. I would never give drugs to a teenager. F— you, Sharon - as if I would ever give drugs to a teenager,” Love fired back recently, reported Spinner.com.

Osbourne has thrown another punch, telling the New York Daily News, “I’m glad she doesn’t like me. I only pity her. She’s a virus. I don’t want her anywhere near people I love. The cold, hard fact is she’s a has-been.”

The war started in September when Osbourne told the Daily Mirror:

“I will never have time for Courtney Love. She was the first person to give my son Jack the prescription drug OxyContin. There’s not a shadow of doubt in my mind about that.”

“My dislike towards her is very personal,” Osbourne continued. “I’m not saying Jack wouldn’t have taken it if she hadn’t given it to him, but I’m appalled that an adult mother would give that to a 15-year-old boy. How could she do that to someone else’s child?”

Daily Telegraph

Unfortunately we’re not going to be hearing anymore of this cat fight for a while – at least not until the matter goes to court.

And now Osbourne admits she can no longer talk about her bitter feelings for Love: “It’s kind of got to the point where it’s now in legal hands, so we can’t talk about it, because it’s gone to that stage.”

antiMusic

What is the legal issue here? Is Sharon going to try and prove that Courtney did addict her son, or is Courtney going to sue for defamatory remarks? Is Sharon using the legal excuse as a way of getting out of talking about this issue? Is she going to make Courtney pay for her son’s rehab? Are Courtney and Sharon actually the same person and someone has made the court case up so we can see them in the same room?

I must be great to be the kind of lawyer that represents these petty disputes. You don’t have any moral or ethical issues that you might if, for example, you had to defend a murderer. You can also laugh at your clients silly, petty fight while taking home a paycheck, providing they don’t catch you at it. The only issue I can see is how you might feel about taking money from someone so stupid. It’s kind of like stealing.

First things first: I never support Lindsay Lohan. Lindsay Lohan could somehow turn into the Virgin Mary, and I’d still have a really big problem with her. I think I might be going to a special level of Hell just for saying that. But if someone should be such a giant prick as to make me support Lindsay Lohan, I’m pretty sure that person is destined for a special level of Hell too. Probably one where “Herbie Fully Loaded” plays on a loop.

Lohan’s car hit busboy Raymundo Ortega’s van on October 4, 2005. Lohan had just finishing having lunch at the Ivy. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s ruled the incident to be Ortega’s fault for making an illegal U-turn directly in front of Lohan. They also ruled that alcohol was not a factor in the crash. It seems pretty clear that Ortega say dollar signs on impact. But he didn’t do anything for two years, until Lohan went to rehab for the second time. Then he filed a negligence suit on June 14, 2007 against both her and the Ivy (who he believes served her alcohol even though she was underage) for $200,000. His argument seems to be that because Lohan has alcohol problems now, she must have had them then. While that could very well be true, I can’t imagine how someone could prove that. More specifically, I can’t imagine how he could prove that Lohan was drunk at that moment two years ago, especially when the sheriff’s deputies said she wasn’t. It seems like he’s trying to take advantage of the situation.

Lindsay finally countersued the guy, since she paid for all the repairs to her car herself – which she didn’t have to do, since the crash was ruled Ortega’s fault. [I just want to note that I’m seething right now because I’m actually feeling something close to empathy for Lindsay Lohan, and that makes me HATE Raymundo Ortega with the fire of a thousand suns]. Anyway, Ortega has been dragging Lohan in and out of court almost weekly, promising that he has some evidence that will prove she was drunk that day. But he’s failed to produce it or comply with any of the judge’s orders to turn over paperwork pertaining to his evidence.

According to court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Lohan’s camp is requesting that a judge order the Los Angeles-based busboy to provide proof that Lohan, contrary to the CHP’s report, had been drinking on Oct. 4, 2005, before she smacked into Ortega’s van with her Mercedes.

The 21-year-old starlet’s lawyers also request in their latest filing that the judge conclude that Ortega’s allegations are false because the plaintiff has ignored their repeated requests to turn over the documents he claims to have that prove his assertions. Ortega’s lawyer has said that they have witnesses who will support their side of the story.

[From E! News]

I’m not inclined to believe Lindsay Lohan is innocent of anything. The sky could suddenly turn green and rain hedgehogs, and I’d be certain her drinking was somehow involved. But something tells me Ortega’s “witnesses” are a load of crap. This whole thing sounds like it’s filled with opportunists. And they need to be stopped, not to make Lindsay’s life better, but so that no one feels inclined to cut her a break out of sympathy.

The judge also ruled against Lindsay’s request not to have her deposition taped. Her lawyer argued that the press would try to get a hold of the tape, which would go for tens of thousands of dollars. But that’s more than most of Lohan’s movies rake in anymore. Really, it can only help.

Picture note by Jaybird: Here’s Lindsey Lohan leaving Byron salon on November 28th. She then went to the Staples Center for a Lakers game. Images thanks to Splash Photos.

It’s starting to look like R&B singer Brandy won’t get charged in the deadly car crash she caused last December. Brandy was driving along 405 (a few initial reports mentioned that she was possibly talking on her cell phone, though I can’t find any recent articles that mention it) at 65 miles an hour, when she failed to notice that traffic in front of her had slowed down. She slammed into 38-year-old Awatef Aboudihaj’s car, which then flew across the lane and was struck by another car. Aboudihaj died from massive internal bleeding. The one year anniversary of the crash is coming up on December 30th, and the L.A. City Attorney’s office has yet to press any charges against Brandy.

Sources tell TMZ that the City Attorney’s Office plans to make a decision at the very last moment. If charges aren’t filed, chances are the public wouldn’t notice over the holidays — and the case would quietly go away. TMZ spoke exclusively with Bill Sayed, lawyer for the victim’s husband, Marouane Hdidou. Sayed questioned the delay, saying, “There is a death and obviously reckless driving involved, which is enough evidence for an involuntary manslaughter charge. As to why the City Attorney has taken this long? I think we would all like to know.”

Over the past year, Brandy has pursued her usual activities; shopping, partying and living a normal life. Sayed says, “Brandy continues to live life with really no negative results … doing what Brandy is doing … as if though nothing has occurred here.” He also describes how life has become a roller coaster for his client. “Thanksgiving just passed and he was all alone — he has no family here.”

[From TMZ]

The lawyer does have a point – Brandy should have some kind of consequence. Though it obviously doesn’t appear that she intentionally caused the crash or was doing anything grossly negligent, she failed to slow/stop her car, which was going very fast. There’s no word on just how slow the traffic in front of her was – if it was nearly stopped, or just slowing down. Either way, the victim obviously died a horrible death, and it seems kind of unnecessary for Brandy to be out partying and living it up. She’s been photographed out a lot more in the last year. You’d think she’d want to keep a low profile. Her negligence caused a four-car crash, and she has been sued by the other three drivers. It’s unlikely she’ll do any jail time, but I’m guessing she stands to lose a ton of money. Especially since she reportedly admitted that the crash was her fault.

Picture note by Jaybird: Here’s Brandy at Fashion Week in L.A. on October 16th. Images thanks to PR Photos.

Fall Out Boy has apologized to author Maurice Sendak for using images based on his famous children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” in visuals for their “Young Wild Things” tour. They have removed all the infringing images from their tour visuals, but their website is still up with the old Wild Things style. The header image features a photo of a room that looks like the enchanted boy’s room of the book, complete with the night sky and a tree.

As you may have seen in our most recent concerts, we’ve changed the staging and visuals. We were using Where The Wild Things Are and, unintentionally, infringed on the rights of Maurice Sendak, the author of this timeless classic. We have great respect and affection for his book and it was our intent only to pay homage to it, not to infringe any rights. FOB sincerely apologizes to Maurice Sendak for using images from Where The Wild Things Are in our concerts and elsewhere without authorization.

[From Fall Out Boy's blog via Rolling Stone]

Ads for their tour show a kid in bed with a monster under it, tentacles reaching out. There are no octopus-like monsters in “Where the Wild Things Are,” they’re more like bear-like beasts with claws and horns, although some have scales. It looks like they were paying homage more than blatantly ripping off the book since the imagery is similar, but not close enough to be the same.

Rolling Stone notes that the visuals used on tour were potentially infringing on author Sendak’s rights, as they showed Fall Out Boy members as characters from the book:

Each night of the tour, fans saw graphics depicting Pete Wentz and Co. as characters from the book — Wentz as main character Max, and Patrick Stump, Andy Hurley and Joe Trohman as the imaginary creatures Max envisions within the story. The graphics were also used on T-shirts and other tour promo, some of which still appears on Fall Out Boy’s site.

[From Rolling Stone]

They might not get sued since they were quick to apologize, but they should have realized that it was illegal before they built their entire tour around the book. 79 year-old author Sendak might be particularly sensitive to copyright infringements because his brand is about to blow up thanks to the upcoming film version of Where The Wild Things Are. It’s directed by Spike Jonze and is due out in October, 2008. It looks cool as hell from the still that’s been released.

Thanks to I Watch Stuff for this image

Fallout Boy’s fifth album is due out in three to six months, according to MTV’s buzzworthy blog.

Oh and there’s a “Pete Wentz sex tape,” according to Perez, but it’s really just a segment from a short film called Goodnight Moon starring Pete. I think it’s pretty hot, I wouldn’t mind smacking that guy:

“In Touch” is set to publish an article claiming that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt may have to return their adopted daughter, Zahara. Angelina adopted her from Ethiopia in June 2005 when Zahara was six months old. Zahara was severely dehydrated and malnourished and had to be hospitalized when she first came to the U.S. Angelina said, “she was six months and not nine pounds. Her skin, you could squeeze it, it stuck together.” When she adopted Zahara, Angelina was told that she was an AIDS orphan. However it’s now looking like that’s not really the case, and Zahara’s birth mother is alive and well – and wants her daughter back.

“She’s from Ethiopia. She’s an AIDS orphan,” Angelina said. But Zahara’s adoption papers, which an “In Touch” representative was shown on November 12, clearly states that Zahara has a grandmother and extended family alive in Africa— and the grandmother introduced “In Touch” to her daughter, who claims to be Zahara’s mother.

The cover story notes that while her birth family may not be able to afford to challenge Zahara’s adoption, they do claim they were misled. They say a local official, who took Zahara to the adoption agency, told the family they would get to see the baby again and maintain contact with her. Most people hoping to adopt who are working with the U.S.- based agency Wide Horizons for Children (which Angelina used to adopt Zahara) visit the child’s village and surviving family members.

[From the National Ledger]

Angelina is said to have wanted to travel to visit Zahara’s village and meet her extended family, but wasn’t able to since there were so many journalists trailing her. Perhaps if the circumstances had been different, she would have been able to meet Zahara’s grandmother, who signed the adoption papers turning Zahara over to Wide Horizons. The article goes on to say that Zahara’s birth mother, Mentewab Dawit Lebiso, was raped by a man who broke into her home and became pregnant with Zahara. Lebiso briefly ran away after feeling frustrated and scared with the responsibility of the child. It was during this time that her grandmother gave Zahara to the adoption agency, since she was unable to provide for the child. It isn’t clear from the article if the grandmother really thought her daughter was dead, or simply said so to proceed with the adoption.

Could her birth mother get Zahara back? Mentewab Dawit Lebiso, 24, the woman that claims to be the birth mother never signed the papers giving up her daughter, which could give her a case for getting Zahara back — if she had the money to pursue it. “If some family member comes in and leaves the child at an orphanage and signs her over, and then the mother wants her back, you can make the argument that the person didn’t truly understand that their child is gone forever,” says adoption specialist Jerri Jenista.

Mentewab struggled to feed her family. “Sometimes all I had was a piece of bread all day,” she tells In Touch. Zahara’s mother Mentewab sells onions at the market. Her grandmother Almaz says they couldn’t afford to keep Zahar. “I would tell other families not to give up their children,” says Zahara’s aunt Frehiwot, 18, with another aunt, Zinash Haile Yenero. “I would tell them what happened to us.”

Dawit Lebiso, 24, tells In Touch. “Her grandmother and I both tried very hard to raise her, and I want her to come home to regain her identity.”

[From the National Ledger]

Angelina is said to be aware of the existence of Zahara’s birth mother, though for how long isn’t clear. The article goes on to say that Angie believes what’s most important is what’s best for Zahara, and in her opinion that’s staying with her. From all the things that have been written about her, it seems clear that Angie does want to make sure Zahara knows where she comes from, appreciates her history, and has a sense of connection. But “In Touch” states that Angelina doesn’t want Zahara to meet her biological family at such a young age, feeling that it could be confusing to her. Other adoption experts say it’s a good idea to do that early on so it’s always a part of the child’s life. It seems highly unlikely that Brad and Angelina would actually have to give Zahara back, but it’s interesting to know more of her history.

Being a celeb offers many perks of the famous, like skipping the line at a nightclub, or being let off a speeding ticket. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to get you out of going to court, even if you are Australia’s most famous actress.

Nicole Kidman has been called to give evidence in a defamation suit that paparazzo Jamie Fawcett is filing against Fairfax newspapers after they declared him to be “Sydney’s “most disliked freelance photographer” and “a cowboy type” who had “scared her (Kidman) on the road” and was determined to “wreak havoc” on her private life”. Nicole is a witness to these alleged tactics, after she applied for an apprehended violence order, and had him banned from coming within 500 metres of her home. Her driver gave evidence today of Fawcett’s tactics and said Nicole “feared for her life.”

However, she’s currently working at a Sydney studio on the film Australia with Hugh Jackman, and can’t leave the set without disrupting 335 people’s work schedule.

Sydney’s Supreme Court has rejected an affidavit from Kidman solicitor Stuart Gibson that Kidman is too busy to testify in person during court hours.

“It would not be possible or practical to suspend filming for a couple of hours in those time periods because Ms Kidman is in virtually every scene being shot during this time frame and is required to deliver her lines even when she is off camera,” the affidavit reads.

news.ninemsn.com.au

So, Nicole’s lawyers suggested a video link up, normally only allowed for children in abuse cases to give evidence so they don’t have to be in the same room as their abuser, or she could appear on the weekend. Courts in Australia aren’t open on weekends.

Today it has been suggested she may be able to appear this coming Monday for a few hours. Often the courts in Australia call you to give evidence and you spend days waiting to actually be called to the stand, so I can see what Nic’s problem is here. Hopefully she’s less of a diva in the courthouse than on the movie set.

Picture note by Celebitchy: Nicole Kidman is shown on 11/9/07 outside of Good Morning America. Do you guys think she has extensions? Her hair is looking a little too long and perfect to me.

I wish I were a celebrity. If I were, I could drive around drunk and get in a little trouble the first time, but not so much the second time. I could be told I have to wear an alcohol monitoring device around my ankle, but I could take it off early because I didn’t like it. And I could afford fancy lawyers and doctors to say it was medically necessary to take it off… because being annoyed is a medical problem. To be fair, Tracy Morgan is kind of a minor celebrity, but he’s big enough to be able to afford to ignore judges and cops and laws and such. After he got 2 DUIs within about six month of each other – one in Los Angeles and one in New York City – Morgan was forced to go to rehab, do community service, and attend AA meetings. Pretty standard issue. He also had to wear a SCRAM anklet – you know, that alcohol monitoring device that Lindsay Lohan voluntarily sported six months ago to show the world how sober she was… before she went to rehab a few more times. Well apparently the SCRAM bracelet didn’t agree with Tracy Morgan, and he decided to go ahead and take it off early. That got him in a bit of hot water with the judge, who was going to make him keep it on even longer after he admitted to drinking alcohol over the summer – until Morgan produced photographic evidence along with doctors’ reports saying that it was medically necessary for him to take it off – and the judge agreed!

Tracy Morgan has made peace with his prosecutors. A Los Angeles judge ruled Tuesday that the 30 Rock funnyman has completed the terms of his DUI-related probation and will not be punished for taking off his alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet a wee bit early, the L.A. City Attorney’s Office confirmed to E! Online.

Morgan, who on Sept. 18 was ordered to keep his Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring device on for another 80 days after he copped to imbibing booze over the summer, claimed in court last week that he took the accessory off early due to “medical issues.”

After reviewing several letters from doctors and one from the company that manufactures SCRAM bracelets, as well as a handful of photos depicting the nature of the undisclosed medical condition, the judge concluded that Morgan had a valid reason to untether himself before the court-ordered end date.

According to Morgan’s attorney, Blair Berk, Morgan has voluntarily been taking daily breath or blood tests to prove that he’s staying on the wagon. No further court appearances on his case are scheduled, said City Attorney’s Office spokesman Frank Mateljan.

[From E! News]

Boy I would really like to know what “medical issue” arose from this bracelet that was so terrible a judge let Morgan take it off. Last time I checked, the bracelet wasn’t made out of rabid pack of angry bees that sting you at random to check the level of alcohol in your blood. Because I know SCRAM considered this bumble-based technology and quickly ditched it. So if the problem is anything less than bees, I really can’t figure out how it could possibly be so bad that a judge agreed to let the guy take it off. Unless the judge was actually paid off by the bee industry. Wait, that would make no sense. But so does taking a bracelet off for “medical reasons.” So I’m pretty sure it must be bee related after all.

Picture note by Jaybird: Here’s Tracy Morgan at the 2007 VH1 Hip Hop Honors on October 4th. Image thanks to PR Photos.

It’s been a little while since we’ve heard from Pete Doherty. Last we heard, he was engaged to another model – because what beauty doesn’t crave a pockmark-ridden dumpy dirty little toothless guy? That’s right, none of them! Pete is all done with his 283,484,283,498,283 visit to rehab, and he’s so confident in his success this time around that he’s told the courts they no longer need to monitor him – and they believe him. In other news, the British justice system apparently truly is blind.

Pete Doherty is vowing to stay off drugs, and an English court no longer feels the need to monitor that promise. Doherty, 28, a musician best known as Kate Moss’s ex-boyfriend, was released on Wednesday from a drug treatment order in the U.K., ending 18 months of court supervision, the Associated Press reports.

Outside the courtroom, Doherty, who has run afoul of the law with numerous drug offenses, told reporters he intends to stay clean. “It’s just the beginning, you know what I mean? My life has changed,” he said. A close friend of the rocker told PEOPLE, “He’s really really got his s— together. His is a dry tour and he hasn’t got his beer goggles on.”

Doherty, who checked into rehab in August, recently got engaged to singer-model Irina Lazareanu, according to reports.

[From People]

Well that’s a whole lot of bull I’m not inclined to believe. You? No? Really? Huh. Wonder why it’s just us that think Pete Doherty is already on the pipe again. Oh, you say he never stopped? Really, that’s crazy! He just seems like one of those “tough it out” stone cold sober types, you know. Though I will give him a little credit – he got all poufy/bloated/fat when he was done with rehab, and most people do tend to put on some weight. That has happened after his other 283,484,283,498,282 visits, so maybe he really did manage to quit this time. I mean I’m sure he’s started up again – not to be pessimistic, but come on, let’s also not be gullible here – but if he stopped even for 2 seconds, that’d be more than he’s done before. So congrats, Pete. The British justice system has so much confidence in you. We… do… too? I can’t say it. I’m counting down the days Pete.

In the drama that is still the Anna Nicole Smith saga, one can’t really be surprised by anything anymore. Howard K Stern has sex with ocean mammals? Fine. Virgie Arthur is actually a pair of conjoined twins with only one visible head? Totally cool. Dannielynn’s already getting $200,000 legal bills? Well of course. The wee one’s trust fund is being charged that preposterous amount by her guardian ad litem Richard Milstein. Milstein worked for Dannielynn for about 2 – 3 weeks (depending on who you ask). He represented her interests in the Florida court after Anna Nicole Smith died, and eventually won custody of Anna Nicole’s body, since Dannielynn was ruled to be the closest relative. But since she was a baby, that meant her guardian ad litem got to choose where Smith was buried. He seemed to do a good job, and chose to have Smith buried next to her also recently deceased son Daniel in the Bahamas.

Case closed, right? Well not so much, because it seems that Milstein wants to be compensated about $200,000 for his work. He says it took not just him but five members of his office to do all the work required in the case, and that they had to devote themselves entirely to it, including travel to and from the Bahamas. That’s basically billing $900 an hour for legal work she never was able to request. Unless sucking on a binky is some type of indication one way or the other, and I just don’t know it.

“‘It’s outrageous,’ said Larry Birkhead’s attorney Nancy Hass, who along with a lawyer for Howard K. Stern has filed a complaint in Broward County objecting to the request. ‘I’m a guardian ad litem, too, and I always reduce my fees when I deal with children,’ Hass told the Palm Beach Post Monday. ‘A lot of work produced [by Milstein] was unnecessary.’ Milstein, who won custody of Smith’s body and adhered to the late model’s unwritten wish to be buried in the Bahamas next to her son Daniel, maintains that his request is more than fair.

“‘This representation required the guardian ad litem to devote significantly all of his professional and personal time and attention to the interests of Dannielynn for a period in excess of two weeks,’ he states in his petition. ‘The three weeks of work entailed the work of five people, not just myself, in order to handle the multiple details involved in handling the trial and funeral arrangements,’ Milstein wrote in an email to the Post. Echoed Robert Zinn, president of Milstein’s firm, Akerman Senterfitt: ‘We believe there is no basis whatsoever for the objections to our invoices, given the complexity of the issues, the large number of interested parties and the extremely short time.’

“‘That’s $900 an hour,’ [Krista] Barth [Hass and Stern's attorney] told the Post. ‘People believe the baby is rich. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Mr. Milstein even charged for another lawyer at his firm to go to Anna’s funeral.’ Although Dannielynn stands to inherit up to $500 million if the decade-long battle between Smith’s estate and that estate of her late husband, billionaire tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, is decided in Smith’s favor, the reality-TV star was worth only about $710,000 when she died.”

[From E! News]

When Barth and Hass responded to Milstein’s bill in an official complaint, they also suggested that Virgie Arthur should be responsible for part of Milstein’s bill, since she’s the one who initiated the legal proceedings over custody of Smith’s body. Her lawyer, Stephen Tunstall, said that was ridiculous, but he agreed that Milstein’s bill was excessive. I would love it if Arthur had to pay some of that bill. Any decent mother knows her daughter should be buried next to her grandson. Why would a good mother try to prevent that? Because the crazy lady wants money and attention. I think it’d be a little bit of justice if Arthur had to fork over the cash, instead of Dannielynn.