Fan Fare
Entertainment behind the scenes
Woody Allen-American Apparel case could still get personal
American Apparel founder Dov Charney will likely come face to face next week with the man he says he has “deep respect” for who is suing his U.S. clothing company for $10 million.
At a trial starting in New York on Monday, Woody Allen is suing American Apparel, which is known for its controversial ads, for displaying on giant billboards an image of him taken from his film “Annie Hall,” in which Allen is dressed as a rabbi. The image appears in the ad next a Yiddish caption that translated as “the holy rebbe.”
After putting Allen’s wife Soon-Yi Previn, his ex-companion Mia Farrow and Allen’s sister on an initial witness list, the company’s lawyer now says they won’t be called up.
Some might be breathing a sigh of relief saying New York does not need another legal airing of the 73-year-old director’s personal life, but documents suggest there will be at the very least some discussion of Allen’s reputation and personal history.
Judging Britney, without bias
The trial of Britney Spears on a relatively minor charge of driving without a California license finally got under way on Thursday.
But finding an unbiased jury in a case in which virtually everyone in Los Angeles knows, or knows of, the 26 year-old pop star took almost as long as the trial itself is expected to last.
The process began on Wednesday and Spears’ lawyer J. Michael Flanagan said some jurors probably had confused ideas about the case against Spears. “Half the people think she’s been charged with driving under the influence or drunk driving, drugs, and all this kind of stuff,” Flanagan told reporters. “People think they know about this case but they don’t, really.” One teacher in the pool of potential panelists said in court that she disliked “rich, spoiled girls,” and would have a hard time being unbiased toward Spears. Asked if any of them knew Spears personally, another woman said she knew the singer’s manager, and was quickly dismissed from the jury. Flanagan said the trial itself was expected to take only a few hours. Spears herself has stayed away from the trial, exercising her right not to appear, because the case against her is a misdemeanor instead of a more serious felony case. (Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis)
OK YES… SHE NEEDS A LICENSE BUT COME ON DONT YOU THINK A TRIAL IS A LITTLE EXTREME. SHE SHOULDNT HAVE ROYAL TREATMENT BC SHES FAMOUS BUT SHE SHOULD GET A FINE MAYBE PROBATION AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET HER CALIFORNIA LICENSE.
No exit for Britney Spears from driver’s license trial
The drama is not over yet for Britney Spears.
More than a year after being charged for driving without a California license, authorities have set an Oct. 15 trial date for the pop singer on the relatively minor offence.
It’s always possible that case could be settled before then, but so far that has not happened — prompting speculation on the Internet that Spears is being treated harsher than most in her situation. Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the L.A. City Attorney’s Office, said those facing the same charge as Spears typically settle the case by agreeing to probation and a fine. ”We’re just looking for a fair outcome to this case. If they want to take it to trial then that’s where we’ll go,” Mateljan said, referring to Spears’ legal team. “We’re treating it like any other case.” The case stems from an Aug. 6, 2007, incident in which Spears scuffed another car in a parking lot as she was being trailed by dozens of paparazzi at a time when she was going through a very public meltdown.
She had a driver’s license from her home state of Louisiana and obtained one in October 2007 for California, as well as reaching an out of court settlement with the person whose car she hit.
(Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis)
Please see the MTV Newsroom and the Associated Press articles… the Judge in the case on Thursday has refused to drop the charges. Britney’s attorney Flanagan is attempting to have the charges dismissed. (Pay the $10.00 and it is over). The judge has stated that he will not drop the charges because she is a celebrity. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: A defense lawyer can file a MOTION FOR DISMISSAL and if the judge refuses, he can appeal it. The point here is: the issue of wether Spears was disabled at the time of the offense and how the ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act)will play into it. My prediction is this: THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL.
Dov Charney is an ego-maniac. He takes aim and harms Woody Allen, and admits guilt when Allen demands that the billboards be taken down. Then he has the nerve to suggest that Woody’s personal life will be focus of the case, only to reverse himself in saying that the case is actually about the First Amendment.
If this were a case between Woody and Dov, I might understnad, but Dov as CEO of a putlic company is subjecting shareholders to a reckless, needless waste of the court’s time. A company which earns like $15 million a year in net profits is risking a year’s profits on a case like this? The shareholderss should be up in arms, demanding that Dov Charney be thrown out of the company. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read about – Dov is proving himself to be poison to this company, and should it take a suit from Woody Allen to spell it out for the shareholders?