Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Null37283t03

Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Katy M said:

True, but it's not like that money just disappeared when the dress was paid for.  And who says starving children would have been fed with that money had the dress not been bought.  How many billions of dollars go into paying athletes that could be used for something else?  Watching sports is hardly a necessity.  Neither are movies. I don't think you can make a movie for less than $10 million today.  

Basically, I'm saying that this argument works for anything that isn't put towards the production of food, bare bones clothing, minimalist housing, health care and the education necessary to produce the former.

That is sort of where I am at. Beauty pageants seem trivial, pointless and of no real benefit to society. But the same thing could be said for pro sports. Looking good in an evening gown isn't really any more important than being able to sink 3 pointers. And it wouldn't surprise me if miss universe spend as much time in the gym as pro athletes do.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

From WGN-TV Chicago: A Man Bought Olivia Newton-John’s ‘Grease’ Jacket and Gave It Back to Her

By way of explanation, singer/actress Olivia Newton-John recently auctioned off a number of personal items (clothing, awards, tour memorabilia, memorabilia from her movies, etc.); according to the article it was a fundraiser for her namesake cancer center in Australia.

Two of the items with the highest bids were the black leather jacket & skintight black pants she wore in the finale of the movie Grease, when her character “Good Girl Sandy” became “Bad Girl Sandy”, & Sandy & Danny (John Travolta’s “bad boy” character), who were trying to make a relationship work despite (at least originally) being complete opposites, sang “You’re the One That I Want”, among other songs, while walking around their high school carnival with their respective groups of friends.

The clothes were sold separately (if you ask me, they should’ve sold them together), with the founder of Spanx bidding highest on the pants. As you can see in the article, the highest bidder on the jacket, who wished to remain anonymous, decided to return the jacket to Ms. Newton-John. He did so in person, according to the article.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/9/2019 at 11:28 AM, free2think said:

I feel that as long as powerful men rule the entertainment industry, this will never change. And, add drugs and alcohol to the mix, nothing good, for women or any 'underling,' will come of it. Heck, even in my company today, my CEO likes to haze his underlings by putting banana peels in their open briefcases (which are not found until they stink and have slimed everything) and giving them inappropriate nicknames, etc. I think it's a taught behavior that men pick up from other men. It's the good ole boy or 'locker-room' mentality that seems to be par for the course, and until women and other men stand up and say this behavior is wrong, it will never change. Heck, I think many who would say this behavior is improper won't because they secretly want to get to do the same thing if they raise to the position of power. Power is an addictive force, and only the strong can yield it well. 

The first years of SNL were infamous for the rampart sexism. The original women have repeatedly talked about it.

  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2019 at 9:21 AM, spiderpig said:

Just saw a newsflash on TV...Captain Kirk is back on the market.  He and wife #4 Elizabeth are divorcing.

The Shat is 88 years old.

I'm not surprised.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ten former NFL players have been indicted (and two more reportedly will be) on federal charges related to defrauding The Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account (which covers medical expenses for former NFL players after their NFL veterans insurance runs out) of nearly $4 million:  Clinton Portis, Carlos Rogers, Robert McCune, John Eubanks, Tamarick Vanover, Ceandris Brown, James Butler, Frederick Bennett, Etric Pruitt and Correll Buckhalter.  Four - McCune, Eubanks, Brown, and Rogers - were arrested this morning, and the rest are expected to turn themselves in.  Joe Horn and Reche Caldwell are the two announced to also be facing charges.
 

Quote

The players allegedly submitted false claims to the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan for reimbursement for medical equipment — such as hyperbaric chambers, cryotherapy machines, ultrasound machines used to conduct women’s health exams and electromagnetic therapy devices desigened for use on horses — costing between $40,000 and $50,000.According to the indictments, the players fabricated documents, including invoices and prescriptions, to execute the plan.

...

The accused players filed $3.9 million in false claims, and between June 2017 and December 2018, the health plan paid them more than $3.4 million on those claims, according to the court documents.

...

According to the indictments, the players fall into two groups: those who recruited former players and helped file fraudulent claims, and others who agreed to provide their personal information knowing it would be used to defraud the health care fund for fellow retired players. The players who filed the fraudulent claims on behalf of others received “payment of kickbacks and bribes” of up $10,000 for each false claim.

The charging documents paint McCune first, and then Buckhalter, as pivotal figures in the scheme.

One of the indictments can be accessed here for more details.

  • Useful 1
  • Surprise 9

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

As you can see in the article, the highest bidder on the jacket, who wished to remain anonymous, decided to return the jacket to Ms. Newton-John. He did so in person, according to the article.

Class act.    Some nice news.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

4th wife?!? Would he make it to Larry King's record? Damn, Shat!

Yeah, it's a bit surprising Mr. Shatner wouldn't have had more marriages than Mr. King. I mean, even if potential wives didn't think he was better looking than Mr. King and considered him to have a grating personality, one would think they'd have been able to sit back and think of the Enterprise

I guess there were more potential wives seeking insomnia cures so that's why Mr. King has had more.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

55 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Yeah, it's a bit surprising Mr. Shatner wouldn't have had more marriages than Mr. King. I mean, even if potential wives didn't think he was better looking than Mr. King and considered him to have a grating personality, one would think they'd have been able to sit back and think of the Enterprise

I guess there were more potential wives seeking insomnia cures so that's why Mr. King has had more.

Is it considered a good thing, or winning, to have the most spouses?  I would think one long-time spouse would be the best goal.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Is it considered a good thing, or winning, to have the most spouses?  I would think one long-time spouse would be the best goal.

Personally, I agree but it seems the Messrs. King and Shatner are more shallow in personality.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, Shatner's third wife died in an accidental drowning case a few years after they married, and his first wife was the one who filed for divorce rather than he. If he'd had his druthers he might have a couple fewer defunct wedding bands lying around the house.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

To be fair, Shatner's third wife died in an accidental drowning case a few years after they married, and his first wife was the one who filed for divorce rather than he. If he'd had his druthers he might have a couple fewer defunct wedding bands lying around the house.

She died when they were legally married but he had already filed for divorce at the time of her death. Also, I believe he admitted to cheating on his first wife repeatedly.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

Orlando Jones has stated he was fired from American Gods because, according to him, the showrunner said his character send the wrong message to black America.  I know nothing about American Gods, but Orlando was an original cast member from Sleepy Hollow whose Frank Irving character I enjoyed and was sad to see go (not the wife and kid though LOL).  

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/orlando-jones-fired-american-gods-says-he-sent-wrong-message-black-america-1262775

https://deadline.com/2019/12/orlando-jones-fired-american-gods-racism-gabrielle-union-fremantle-starz-neil-gaiman-1202809444/

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/american-gods-orlando-jones-fired-showrunner-wrong-message-for-black-america-1203436762/

  • Like 5
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/13/2019 at 3:50 PM, MikaelaArsenault said:

A very happy birthday to Christopher Plummer!

He turns 90 today.

I'll grant that he's a very versatile and talented performer but he hasn't been not the most kind or considerate person on our planet nor has always conducted himself  fairly or maturely with the opposite gender even as per his autobio.

 Well, 90 years is definitely an achievement and here's hoping he uses his remaining time to improve things in his own corner to the best of his ability. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, cynicat said:

I bet she thinks the Earth is flat and there was no Moon landing too.

The sad truth is that as a nation, the USA is going backward concerning proven science and is sliding toward believing conspiracy theories. So this may become the new "twinkie" defense.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 16

Share this post


Link to post

Saying government in this context is a bit misleading, I think.  If in fact there is evidence that the prosecutors are withholding evidence (I really doubt it but let's go with that) it's not like this is some deep state conspiracy.  And let's face it using "the government" makes people assume the government based in Washington not state or city government.

Edited by PennyPlain
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

There is rarely evidence that someone didn't do something. What does she think they have? A video of her NOT calling this guy? Photos of her daughters not pretending to be part of a crew team? This isn't a murder where they can prove she has an alibi, and I thought they had proof that she was part of the calls et al. So I really just have no idea what kind of "evidence" could prove she wasn't involved in this up to her pampered little ass. 

I think the more likely scenario is she is a stubborn, entitled brat (would explain where her daughter got it) and refuses to take any responsibility for her actions. 

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

I just can't wait to hear how Lori is innocent, yet had her daughters dress up in crew outfits. Is she going to claim that she was just so naive and thought the daughters were posing for a crew catalogue or something else equally indefensible and ridiculous? You know, the daughters are so beautiful, I am sure Lori thought they were on a a modeling gig and had no idea about doing anything illegal.

Also, why did she state they had to not arouse suspicions from their "little friend" the high school guidance counselor? This is the person Mossimo got into a screaming match with at the school, when the guidance counselor was asking how the daughters got into USC as crew team members---when never did crew.

All I can say is Lori and her husband better be doing some prison time. Even if they claim ignorance, that is not a defense.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

They appear to be claiming that they did nothing wrong because USC was aware of what was going on and that they genuinely believed they were donating money to the school in all good faith.

"The Government appears to be concealing exculpatory evidence that helps show that both Defendants believed all of the payments they made would go to USC itself — for legitimate, university-approved purposes — or to other legitimate charitable causes," the motion read.

Even if this is true that doesn't change that their intent was still to get their girls into a school they had no legitimate right to attend.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2
  • Laugh 1
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

They appear to be claiming that they did nothing wrong because USC was aware of what was going on and that they genuinely believed they were donating money to the school in all good faith.

"The Government appears to be concealing exculpatory evidence that helps show that both Defendants believed all of the payments they made would go to USC itself — for legitimate, university-approved purposes — or to other legitimate charitable causes," the motion read.

Even if this is true that doesn't change that their intent was still to get their girls into a school they had no legitimate right to attend.

They are claiming specifically that they didn’t know of the plan of bribing a specific person. In a case with so many different charges they are going after some of them individually before trial. It’s why you hire good lawyers and they appear to have done that. It’s not like it would be the first time the prosecution has withheld exculpatory evidence.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

They appear to be claiming that they did nothing wrong because USC was aware of what was going on and that they genuinely believed they were donating money to the school in all good faith.

"The Government appears to be concealing exculpatory evidence that helps show that both Defendants believed all of the payments they made would go to USC itself — for legitimate, university-approved purposes — or to other legitimate charitable causes," the motion read.

Even if this is true that doesn't change that their intent was still to get their girls into a school they had no legitimate right to attend.

I agree- and,hopefully, so will the upcoming jury. Now, of course, the question is WHERE will they find U.S. citizens to serve who'd never heard of this case, Mr. Mossimo, Miss Loughlin. .. or Aunt Becky.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

And let's face it using "the government" makes people assume the government based in Washington not state or city government.

However in this case the Federal government is the agency pressing charges. That is why Felicity Huffman when to Federal prison in Dublin not a State prison.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

They appear to be claiming that they did nothing wrong because USC was aware of what was going on and that they genuinely believed they were donating money to the school in all good faith.

"The Government appears to be concealing exculpatory evidence that helps show that both Defendants believed all of the payments they made would go to USC itself — for legitimate, university-approved purposes — or to other legitimate charitable causes," the motion read.

Even if this is true that doesn't change that their intent was still to get their girls into a school they had no legitimate right to attend.

Exactly, if they Lori really thought they were giving money in good faith, why the ruse? Why dress your kids up like they are on a SPECIFIC sports team when they were not? There are many legal means to donate to a school, this was not that, they were not 'donating' they were bribing and trying to cover it up. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, free2think said:

Exactly, if they Lori really thought they were giving money in good faith, why the ruse? Why dress your kids up like they are on a SPECIFIC sports team when they were not? There are many legal means to donate to a school, this was not that, they were not 'donating' they were bribing and trying to cover it up. 

I presume what happened was a don't ask/don't tell  situation where Lori and her husband y hired the guy who came up with the plan and they specifically declined to hear any details as to how the admission process was going to be rigged to allow them some deniability should they get caught.  The problem is, of course, that if Lori and hubby really wanted to donate to the university to help their kids get admitted, there are legitimate ways to do it, no middle man needed; just a lot more money than they were willing to spend.  They also are going to have to come up with a logical argument as to why their daughters submitted photos of themselves pretending to be crew team members when they weren't and why they were so concerned about the school guidance counsellor ruining their plan.  Their daughters attended a pricey private school; I am sure the guidance counselor had encountered many students whose families donated large sums of money to various institutions to grease the wheels; why were they so frantic to keep her quiet if they thought that what they were doing was perfectly legit?

They may not have known the specifics of the plan or the names of the people they were paying off, but there is no way that they could've thought it was all above board and honest.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

If Lori and Mossimo thought it was legit to do what they did to get their slacker daughters admitted to USC, then why did Mossimo go down to school to confront the guidance counselor?     When it's legit, you don't confront people about questioning it.      I wonder what happened to the guidance counselor since that happened?  

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If Lori and Mossimo thought it was legit to do what they did to get their slacker daughters admitted to USC, then why did Mossimo go down to school to confront the guidance counselor?     When it's legit, you don't confront people about questioning it.      I wonder what happened to the guidance counselor since that happened?  

Excellent points! And why didn't the Giannullis they JUST try to tell their offspring to do their best in high school then let them entirely sink or swim on their own if they had had no intention of  trying to have them shoved ahead of actual worthy scholars and athletes for USC?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

10 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Excellent points! And why didn't the Giannullis they JUST try to tell their offspring to do their best in high school then let them entirely sink or swim on their own if they had had no intention of  trying to have them shoved ahead of actual worthy scholars and athletes for USC?

This was never about the girls needs or wishes. It's about the Giannullis gigantic egos.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blergh said:

Excellent points! And why didn't the Giannullis they JUST try to tell their offspring to do their best in high school then let them entirely sink or swim on their own if they had had no intention of  trying to have them shoved ahead of actual worthy scholars and athletes for USC?

Yes. "You can't upload another influencer video, until you do your homework." Something like that. "We'll study for this test together, then you can go to that party." 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If Lori and Mossimo thought it was legit to do what they did to get their slacker daughters admitted to USC, then why did Mossimo go down to school to confront the guidance counselor?     When it's legit, you don't confront people about questioning it.      I wonder what happened to the guidance counselor since that happened?  

This is an argument offered up by the lawyer because they insist that the man running the scam told investigators that this is how he pitched the plan to them and that the prosecution is withholding those statements. If true it would absolutely poke holes in the prosecutions case. Don’t know if he did do that and don’t know if it would work but it could be the prosecution has overcharged based on the specific language of the laws that they broke. Doesn’t mean they didn’t break those laws but the prosecution might not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the various crimes they have charged them with. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't the head of this scam plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence and acting as a witness for the prosecution? Pretty sure he won't be backing up the defense's theory -- and those tapes are pretty clearly a case of *wink, wink, hush, hush*. His context will make it clear that they knew what they were doing.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rainsmom said:

Didn't the head of this scam plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence and acting as a witness for the prosecution? Pretty sure he won't be backing up the defense's theory -- and those tapes are pretty clearly a case of *wink, wink, hush, hush*. His context will make it clear that they knew what they were doing.

It’s the interviews with him that the prosecution has that the defense is requesting because they say they weren’t all given to them. Have no idea if that’s true but at this point they aren’t asking for him to back the theory just arguing that the government has exculpatory evidence that hasn’t been given to them. 

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rainsmom said:

Pretty sure he won't be backing up the defense's theory -- and those tapes are pretty clearly a case of *wink, wink, hush, hush*. His context will make it clear that they knew what they were doing.

There is something particularly scummy to me when someone who is guilty as hell (not someone who got in over his head) tapes others with the obvious intent to get them in trouble and get himself out of deeper trouble.  I can certainly understand why the defense would want to hear those tapes!

Edited by PennyPlain
  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

It’s the interviews with him that the prosecution has that the defense is requesting because they say they weren’t all given to them. Have no idea if that’s true but at this point they aren’t asking for him to back the theory just arguing that the government has exculpatory evidence that hasn’t been given to them. 

I wonder if the defense has any idea when Singer started working for the FBI.

If the FBI gained his cooperation after he had started working with Lori Loughlin and her husband, I would expect that the conversations before the FBI was involved were very different than the ones after.  The FBI would have coached Singer to make sure the conversations didn't torpedo the case they were building.  The ones before would have been to say anything to get the money, even if it was lies to convince the parents that what they wanted to believe was true.  The defense might think the government has tapes of conversations that they don't have that would help fight the escalating charges that they've been adding.

Edited by ParadoxLost
  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

I wonder if the defense has any idea when Singer started working for the FBI.

According to the FBI agent's affidavit, Singer became a cooperating witness late September 2018. 

The scheme regarding Dipshit Daughter #1 began in 2016.  That for Dipshit Daughter #2 began in 2017.  All the emails between Loughlin/Giannulli and Singer quoted in the affidavit are from that time. 

The recorded phone call transcripts about the supposed IRS audit of Singer's foundation are, of course, from when Singer was acting at the behest of the FBI (in October and November 2018).

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Please do not post only links to news stories. Please add some context for the link for the other members. Context can even be as simple as a quote from the article itself. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size