Prediction: The Paparazzi Push-Back 2

Earlier this month, I predicted that celebrities would start pushing back against paparazzis themselves.

I used the recent activities of Britney Spears as an example (driving over paparazzi if they refuse to get out of her way, etc.) as well as Nicole Kidman's recent trial testimony on how terrifying the paparazzi can be.

Today, I read that Julia Roberts is pushing back at the paparazzi -- and it's caught on video (see it here).

Seems paparazzi were filming Julia at a school in Los Angeles (presumably, her kids' school, but I don't have confirmation of that). Seeing this, Julia follows them in her Mercedes SUV, honking the horn and waving until they pull over. Then she gets out, and confronts the paparazzi (quoting Breitbart.Com) as they are videotaping her:

"Turn it [the video camera] off," Roberts tells the photographers. "I want to talk to you about the fact that you're at a school where children go. Turn it off."

My prediction: it's one thing when Britney Spears starts to push back, it's another when it's Julia Roberts. Having Julia Roberts do this will, I predict, empower other celebrities to confront the paparazzi, as well.

I also predict that these confrontations are going to get nasty, and physical, as tensions mount. I believe someone is going to get hurt, maybe seriously hurt, in LA before anything is done to deal with these guys.

And, I predict that this victim is going to be a celebrity and it will only be after this tragic circumstance that something will be done about the paparazzi. Princess Di wasn't enough -- she was an icon, and she was across the waters. It's going to be someone close to home, doing something like Julia - protecting kids - who gets really hurt.

And, we'll know about it because the paparazzi will sell that story and those photos, too.

Here We Go Again: OJ 2

OJ Simpson has pled not guilty to all the Vegas charges, and the trial has been scheduled for April.

Right now, OJ is set to defend himself alongside two co-defendants, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich, on 12 counts of conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and burglary. Wonder if they'll be going for separate trials sometime soon?

Meanwhile, the Vegas oddsmakers are already at work, here's what I saw at the time of this posting over at Gambling911.com:

O.J. Simpson Trial Props - OJ is found Guilty of Kidnapping: 3/1
OJ is found Guilty of Armed Robbery: 5/1
OJ is found Not Guilty on all Charges: 2/3
OJ flees the US: 25/1
OJ falls asleep in the court during trial: 10/1
The trial to end in a mistrial: 5/1
OJ arrives at court in a white bronco: 10/1.

Gotta love that last one ... made me laugh and laugh....

The Peterson Murder Case - No, The Other One: Stupid Man Talking

I admit to following the Laci Peterson story as it happened, and I still remember my jaw dropping when I saw Scott Peterson with his beard and dyed blonde hair, denying he was running from anything ... but another missing Peterson wife? Another Peterson husband giving press conferences, pleading for the return of his wife?

Yep. Guess I'm a little late in the game, since it's already in People magazine. (Read Drew Peterson's interview here if you have a subscription to enter the People site.)

Today, the FBI joined in the search for Stacy Peterson. Stacy, Drew Peterson's 4th wife, has been missing for around 1 month and is presumed dead.

Interesting facts:

Drew Peterson is an Illinois police officer. (He resigned after Stacy disappeared.)

A former fiancee has said that after she broke off their engagement, Peterson gave her traffic tickets after then arrested her for not paying the fines.

His second wife has said that Peterson told her that he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

His third wife died, and her body has been exhumed - she died in 2004, in a death ruled an accidental drowning even though the bathtub allegedly had no water in it.

The last time that Stacy Peterson's family reportedly saw her was late in the evening on October 27th (around 11:30 p.m.).

Drew Peterson says that he last saw Stacy around 12 hours later, in the morning of October 28th.

Stacy's cell phone was last used on October 28th, at 9 p.m.

The search has expanded to using sonar technology that helps find bodies in water.

Drew Peterson has labeled himself a "media sensation," and in addition to the 5-page cover story in People, he's appeared on NBC's Today show, twice, and ABC's Good Morning America, as well as on Greta Van Susteran's show and Geraldo Rivera's ....

And, in all this media play, Drew Peterson is busy proclaiming his innocence and talking about possible scenarios to explain Stacy's disappearance. She ran off with another man. She just ran off. You get the idea.

As a lawyer, I shake my head. If there's anything Mr. DREW Peterson should remember, it is how Mr. SCOTT Peterson's taped statements were used against him by prosecutors.

And, as a lawyer, I'd like to point out that the only concrete evidence against Scott Peterson was that he cheated on his wife. There was no direct evidence that Scott Peterson murdered Lacy, and he got the death penalty. (Not that I don't think that Scott killed Lacy, I'm just talking direct evidence here.)

Drew Peterson is being very, very stupid, from a lawyer's perspective. This stuff is going to get used against him, later. Of course, the prosecutors must be loving it.

Hollywood Sues Chinese Company For Pirated Films

Twentieth Century Fox, Walt Disney, Paramount Pictures, Columbia Pictures, and Universal Studios have just sued a Chinese internet cafe and online service, Jaboo.com, for over $400K for offering pirated downloads of movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean."

Jaboo.com purportedly created software for the cafe that gave customers the ability to download the Hollywood movies. Then, the cafe offered the movies to folk interested in viewing films like "Pirates," "Hitch," and "Click."

I wonder ...

Has Jaboo contacted the folks over at The Pirate Bay yet? Shouldn't the same jurisdictional arguments advanced by Swedish The Pirate Bay apply equally as well to Chinese Jaboo?

Seems like they should, and I'd like to know if Chinese law is allowing a suit that Swedish law will not.

Are these Hollywood BigWigs going to use their new outsourcing lawyers over in India to handle things?

SDD offers litigation support .... Why wouldn't they -- they're already using them for transactional work.

Nikki Finke's Getting Scary: Now They're Outsourcing Lawyers

I think everyone agrees that Nikki Finke's blog at LA Weekly is the place to be for WGA Strike Coverage ... well, other than United Hollywood, or the guys from Letterman over at LateShowWritersOnStrike.Com.

However, who knew how downright skeery Nikki Finke could get? Today, she reveals something that should make lawyers cringe everywhere, not just in Hollywood:

"Because Hollywood is starting to outsource legal research, legal analysis, legal opinion and contract drafting services. Production houses like 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures and HBO have hired an India-headquartered company, SDD Global Solutions, to handle the legal biz of their movie and TV releases, according to The Times Of India in a recent article. The newspaper says the Mysore-based legal process outsourcing firm has 40 attorneys and is owned by Smith Dornan Dehn, a Manhattan-based international media and intellectual property firm funded by Cisco Systems, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Barclay's Capital."

For the full scoop, go read her complete post, "News to Make a Showbiz Lawyer Shudder," as well as the Times of India article she references.

For more on legal outsourcing, check out SDD's website as well as Indian Rahul Jindal's blog, which purportedly keeps track of the new trend of "LPO" (Legal Process Outsourcing) aka "LSO" (Legal Services Outsourcing).

Prediction: The Paparazzi Push-Back Begins

Nicole Kidman testified today in Australia about being hounded by paparazzi in her homeland and especially about one, specific harrowing event where she feared that she was about to be in a car accident. From the Australian Herald Sun, her testimony:

'"I was frightened and I was worried, I was worried about a car accident," she said.

'Her driver, John Manning, sounded "pretty panicked" as he told her about Mr Fawcett's "crazy" driving.

'"I was really frightened and I was in tears, and distressed," she said.

'Kidman said she no longer drove herself because she did not "feel equipped to handle being pursued" by photographers.'

Meanwhile, Britney Spears has begun dealing with the media mob by continuing to slowly drive her car through the crowd -- and two paparazzi have already had their feet run over by her tires. One paparazzi says this isn't her fault, that the paps are getting too close to the car and not moving away in time.

The inquest into Princess Diana's death continues, and while there were predictions then of an increase in paparazzi-induced fatalities, it didn't happen. Times have changed, though, and I predict that celebrities are getting more frazzled and fearful as pararazzi continue to become more brazen and forceful.

My prediction: celebrities are going to start pushing back, like Britney.

And, given the rest of Nicole Kidman's testimony -- bugs found where she was honeymooning with Kevin Urban, for example -- looks like lines are being crossed that should be respected.

No one has much sympathy for the star, and nothing has been done since Diana to stop this mess. Britney's slow-moving, foot-smashing car may be just the beginning of celebrities trying to define a privacy line for themselves. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

Martha Stewart Settles Before Katonah Roast

Martha's agreed to limit the use of "Katonah" as a label for furniture, chair cushions, pillows, and mirrors.

Nothing else.

The town of Katonah's happy.

I guess this means that they're cancelling the roast of Martha that they'd planned for this month, where (I kid you not) they were planning on serving a wine labelled "Australian Bitch." (There it is, in the photo.)

Personally, I've got to get me some of this wine. I've already started the Whine/Wine Pun List.

Blindspot: Judith Regan

Judith Regan is suing for libel. One hundred million dollars of harm to her reputation. This, from a woman who was pushing to publish the OJ confessional with all its word count on Nicole Brown Simpson?

Am I missing something here or does Judith Regan need what some folks would call "a good talking to"?

To clarify: Regan was willing to have millions of copies sold of a book filled with nasty commentary on a woman dead and unable to defend herself, and she's simultaneously willing to sue for millions of dollars for a purported slight to her reputation.

Plueeezzzzzeeeeeee.....

Google's $10 Million Prize Pot: the Open Handset Alliance

Win a prize -- Google's put $10 million in the prize pot.

Read all about Google's Android and Dream and Prize Money in the CNET.COM interview of:

1. Mark Rubin, Google's Mobile-Platforms director and in a

2. Rich Miner, Google's Android guy, by PCWorld.

What's this all about?
Google's just announced the creation of the Open Handset Alliance, as well as introducing its Android mobile phone software. (Read: cheaper, cutting-edge competition for IPhone, etc.)

What's the goal?
Getting you fast and reliable internet service outside of a PC or a laptop and away from your desk or favorite coffee house. Better access and more freedom for you, more advertising revenue for them.

There are 34 companies already committed to the Alliance, including such BigWigs as T-Mobile, Motorola, and Sprint-Nextel. The FCC has given its nod of approval.

The Open Handset Alliance will work together on developing applications for the Android platform. Expect to see the new Androids, or "Google phones," sometime in 2008.

Google bought Android in 2005, with Rubin explaining back then that wireless was the "next frontier in search." Rubin came to Google via Android. So did Miner.

Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett Was BAD

Elizabeth: The Golden Age was horrible. I know, it's been out for awhile. Here's what I thought about it. Don't go see it.

26-year-old Hacker Faces 60 Years Behind Bars & 1.25 Million Dollar Fine

This is a sad story: some smart guy in California obviously used his power for evil and figured out how to hack into Paypal via malware, getting usernames and passwords, using the info (together with his friends) to buy lots of stuff.

Game over.

Now, John Schiefer's in the federal system, which is a much bigger (read that harsher) deal than the state system. He's already confessed, he's going to be arraigned soon, and his case is the first of its kind (read: setting a precedent). And, he is facing a 60 year prison sentence and a $1.25 million fine.

Criminals in federal court must deal with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines more or less tell the judge what the prison term has got to be for a specific crime, and they exist to try and insure fairness in sentencing. You don't want someone in Oregon to get an extremely different federal sentence than someone in Florida for the same crime, for example.

However, other than rearranging the dice on what the charges are, there is not much room to move in any plea bargaining situation. You know plea bargaining, you watch TV.

So, John has made a plea deal on the charges of four counts of fraud and wiretap charges. Factually, he admitted that he and his unidentified co-conspirators infected 250,000 computers through their "botnet underground."

He's got a teensy, little hope. Until 2005, these guidelines were mandatory. Then the US Supreme Court decided that this violated the defendants' right to trial by jury, and they became discretionary. Now, the High Court explained, judges should look to the guidelines, but they can move away from them if they think it best. However, the judge must give his written explanation for doing so, and this open door to an appellate review leaves many judges just following the safety of sentencing based upon the guidelines.

So, expect John to face a judge who's going to follow those guidelines in this precedent-setting case with lots of media attention. Why wouldn't he?

My Lawyer Look at Britney Spears: How Do You Know When Someone is Legally Crazy?

There was talk in August that Britney Spears' friends thought she was suffering from post-partum depression. This week, US Magazine has a cover story that Britney Spears' friends are thinking maybe it's Adult-onset ADD or maybe it's depression. Earlier, US Magazine had a couple of doctors (who had not treated Britney) suggesting that she might be bipolar or she might be addicted to drugs and alcohol. There are even those that claim her erratic behavior is caused by her bad diet, which is filled with sugar, fat, and caffeine.

Here's My Lawyer Look:

Stupid's Not Crazy

Okay, we can all agree that her behavior is bizarre and illogical and self-destructive, I think. But one of the great things about America is we have the right to be ... well, different. Stupid's not crazy.

However, her behavior is being monitored by a court right now. A judge is reviewing her actions with her children via reports from an appointed professional, and he is requiring Britney to take drug tests. He's already issued a court order acknowledging frequent use of drugs and alcohol.

Professional eyes are watching what Britney does -- and if she is seriously ill, then the court will investigate further. What would happen?

Legally Incompetent versus Mentally Ill

For those working with the mentally ill, it's common to see them try and self-medicate with drugs and alcohol. Those diagnosed with bipolar disease as well as depression both commonly self-medicate in this way.

It's not that easy in this country to have your rights curtailed on the basis of mental illness. The law is strict in its protection of an individual's freedom as well as their privacy. Legal incompetence and mental illness are not the same.

If Britney should act in a way that was considered an imminent danger to herself or others, for example should she threaten suicide, then she could be placed into a mental health facility against her will. However, her case would have to be reviewed by a judge within a matter of hours and the law would be in favor of her freedom -- there would have to be serious evidence of her being a continued threat to herself, or she could leave.

If Britney becomes unable to function -- she can't make simple business decisions, she can't take care of her personal hygiene -- then someone could move a court (perhaps the family law court, perhaps a new one) for a third party to be placed in a position to make decisions about her property and/or her person for her. She would be declared legally incompetent. The guardian would have the power to make basic decisions for her -- until she could do so for herself, again.

There are millions of folk out there who are mentally ill. There's a whole field of study about this -- epidemiology is the study of disease patterns in a population, and one epidemiological study estimates that 20% of the US population is not mentally healthy. (Think about that when you're driving home today....)

Britney may be mentally ill but not to the level of legal incompetency. As long as this is true, as sad and tragic as it may be, Britney can continue to spin out of control because she has the freedom to make very bad choices.

My Lawyer-Look at Dog Getting Sued By Monique, Tucker's Girlfriend

Okay, I just read that Monique, Tucker's African American girlfriend discussed in the notorious, recorded cellphone call between Tucker and Dog Chapman, has announced she's suing Dog for slander. And, I've also already read a couple of blog posts pontificating on this suit and muddying the legal waters.

Here's my LawyerLook:

1. It's not about the phone call.

She is NOT allegingly suing based upon the phone call. She's purportedly suing for statements Dog has made on television about her.

Under Hawaii law, one person CAN record a cellphone conversation and the person on the other end doesn't have to know it's being recorded. That's legal in Hawaii, although that's not the case in other states. In Hawaii, it only becomes illegal if the recording is made for a criminal or tortious reason.

If Monique was involved in Tucker's decision to record the phone call, she can't sue on a tort (slander is a tort) without violating Hawaiian law. So, if she's wanting to sue, she has to find other statements to form the basis of her lawsuit.

Plus, Dog's statements in the phone call were private: he didn't know he was being recorded. Defamation by definition involves a PUBLIC communication.

2. You can read Dog's Public Statements on LKL and Hannity & Colmes

I didn't see Dog on Hannity, but I did watch the full hour of Larry King Live. I didn't hear anything that sounded slanderous - and yes, I believe that Dog was prepared beforehand to be careful here. A good attorney would have been careful to instruct him on the boundaries of legal defamation. Even if Dog doesn't have a lawyer to do that, you can bet Larry King does.

The LNL transcript is online. So is Hannity & Colmes' transcript. Go read for yourself, see what you find.

One thing I clearly remember. Dog said that Tucker should marry Monique, especially after all that has happened.

3. It's not slander, it's libel, and Dog would not be the only Defendant.

Now, here's the bottom line: Slander is defaming someone verbally. Libel is doing so in writing. However, when a statement is spread over the TV airwaves, it counts as libel because it's essentially "published" like it had appeared in a newspaper or magazine.

The report that the suit is for "slander" isn't legally accurate. Another error.

Now, back to a libel action. There has to be a specific statement which has to be false, and Dog has to have known it was false when he said it. What statement is being referenced here? What TV statements are we talking about here?

Another element of the cause of action: the statement has to harm the person's reputation or standing in the community. Where's Monique been harmed? What was her reputation and standing in the community before this brouhaha? How has it changed?

And, finally, the speaker has to have acted with malice -- Dog would have to be shown to have spoken the statement on TV with malicious intent and a disregard for the harm it might cause.

Once again, Dog on Larry King was apologizing to everyone, everywhere. To Larry, to callers, to the public at large. He stated that Tucker should marry Monique. Not a malicious frame of mind.

I'm not seeing a successful defamation suit here. Both Dog and the entities responsible for the TV show would be defendants, of course. Now, you know CNN has some legal big dogs at the ready.

I am also sure that there is a lawyer out there, all ready to take the case. Shocked? I doubt you are.

How Did Dog the Bounty Hunter Do?

Dog the Bounty Hunter was on for the full hour of Larry King Live last night, with one segment of the show including his oldest son, Chris, and the last segment adding his pastor, Tim Storey. During the show, Larry King kept score on the CNN.COM website poll asking if Dog's show should return to the air. By the end of the show, the poll was over 80% "yes."

Today, TMZ.COM is running its own poll, and as of this post, their question "Do you forgive Dog?" is running 73% yes. The CNN.com poll is at 87% this morning.

Looks like Dog's getting his second chance.

Posh Spice, the Crime Doctor, Bette Davis, and Dog the Bounty Hunter

Okay, this Writers' Strike already has my attention.

I'm all for the writers getting what they want (go check out their blog, United Hollywood, for details) but man -- it's already making me fixate on TV, when I'm trying to beat my TV addiction.

Tonight, I've got an extra-thin crispy crust 4-cheese pizza all ready to go when Dog the Bounty Hunter hits the airwaves on Larry King Live.

I want to hear good things, I want this all to be all better, because I like the Dog. I don't know what I expect him to say that will fix all this. Not wanting your daughter to date an African American because of your vocabulary -- is this what I heard? And while I'm here, let me just say that I only recently learned that according to the US Census of 1977, I am supposed to call myself European American. Who knew.

Then, tomorrow, there's the wedding on Ugly Betty and I'm just so happy that Henry and Betty are together. But I really like the Sandwich Guy, too -- you KNOW there's a future relationship there -- and hey, the Wedding is this week with Posh Spice as maid of honor for Willi.

And, today, while I was typing at the keyboard all day long, Turner Classic Movies had a marathon of the old Crime Doctor movies. Have you seen these? Shrink-sleuth combo, it's just fabo. But then again, I love all those 40s mystery shows in black and white: Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Moto, Charlie Chan, The Saint, The Falcon, .... I only recently discovered the Crime Doctor, by the way. Along with the Lone Wolf. Both from Saturday showings on TCM.

Fine. I admit it. I love TV. Did you see The Letter with Bette Davis last week? Nothing better. Just nothing.

Dog on Larry King Live This Wednesday

TMZ is reporting that Dog the Bounty Hunter will be Larry King's guest this Wednesday on CNN's Larry King Live.

Since writers like Tina Fey are manning the picket lines with the 2007 Writer's Strike, and Nancy Grace is out of pocket, having just given birth to twins, heck. Looks like Dog may get a really big audience share on Wednesday night.

And how will A&E interpret this? They haven't cancelled Dog the Bounty Hunter, after all. They've "suspended production."

By the way, if you want to e-mail a question to Larry for the Dog, the Larry King Live website invites you to do so here.

Update - American Gangster and Bee Movie: The Pirate Bay Is Terrible Movie Forecaster

Update: As Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily explains so well, American Gangster and Bee Movie both had spectacular opening weekends.

So much for The Pirate Bay being a forecaster of how upcoming movies will do.

Laughing, laughing at me. I really thought it was going to work .... :-)

American Gangster and Bee Movie: The Pirate Bay As Movie Forecaster

American Gangster opens the weekend, and ThoseInTheKnow are predicting great things. There's a hush as American Gangster, combined with Jerry Seinfeld's Bee Movie, are hoped to bring in big bucks to a lackluster American Box Office this year.

Sure, it's got Denzel Washinton and Russell Crowe. But, here's the thing. A full, high-quality pirated version has been available to a world-wide audience over at The Pirate Bay for a couple of weeks now.

American Gangster hasn't held a lead over there -- this morning - as I write this - it's in 6th place, with Death at a Funeral in the #1 spot.

No, I'm not suggesting that you go watch American Gangster for free courtesy of the Pirates. That's stealing.

I'm just curious about TPB as a predictor of how popular a movie really will be, and if my hunch is right, then American Gangster is not going to be a Bourne Ultimatum ($412 million worldwide as of last weekend) nor a Ratatouille ($555 million worldwide as of last weekend). (Both Bourne and Rat are in the top 5 at TPB right now, despite being released several weeks ago.)

Bee Movie? It's not even on TPB top ten -- and it's getting "rotten" reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes.

Dog's Show Is Pulled - But Why Aren't We More Upset About THIS?

A&E just announced that they've pulled Dog the Bounty Hunter off their TV schedules for now, after announcing earlier this week that his show has been put on hiatus.

Okay, I admit it. I've been a big fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter for awhile now. I even have favorite episodes -- like the one where Baby Lyssa goes running down the street, chasing a deadbeat who's thrown her to the ground after realizing she doesn't have handcuffs, or a gun, or anything. I also like the one where Leland goes driving down to pick up his Hummer on that little Moped thingie. Hilarious.

And, while there's all this chatter about Dog's comments - which you can hear at the Enquirer site (both the long version and the short version) -- here's what is getting me as a lawyer:

Why aren't we all a little bit more upset about how a private cellphone call gets put on the web for all to hear? What about privacy?

I, for one, don't like this precedent - and we're all so busy being shocked by what was taped, that we're overlooking the fact that it WAS taped and then sold for money to be put on a website.

Did Dog have an expectation of privacy? Sure he did. Did he trust that his son wouldn't betray him? Sure he did.

I've already thought about how someone could make lots of cash putting up a website with the rants of divorcing couples - never is there a time when you're more likely to say stupid stuff than during a divorce, am I wrong here?

Think about it: we could all listen in and have a good laugh at work. You know they'd be funny.

I'm just sayin'.

And, yep, it would all be within the law to do this. Legal. Totally legal.

What's the law here?

Well, under federal law and the law of most states, if one party to the call (here, Tucker) knows the call is being taped, then it's legal and he doesn't have to tell the other party (Dog) that it's being recorded.

In a small minority of states, however, this is not true. In some states, the other party would have to be informed that the call was being recorded. Hawaii is not one of those states, apparently.

However, if some of the gossip sites are correct, and Tucker's girlfriend recorded the call without Tucker's knowledge at the time the call was made, then that recording is arguably illegally made and laws against wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping would come into play.

Oh -- and one other thing to be upset about: no more Leland. Sigh.