|
|
|
January 31, 2006 Volume 45 1. RANDOM STUFF New Years RANDOM STUFF How many of you have managed to keep your New Years resolutions thus far? And how many of you have broken them? And speaking of broken vows, let's move right into the next segment... CELEBRITY Angelina Jolie Pregnant with Brad Pitt's Child
Last month I wrote about Angelina Jolie and her adoptive son (he is a beautiful boy). This month it was announced that she is pregnant with Brad Pitt’s child.
Wife swap?
It's opened Aniston up to a lot of unneeded and probably unwanted publicity. I read a ridiculous headline today in a checkout line that tastelessly blared, "How Jen Plans To Crash Brad's Wedding." Yea, I believe that - not! What's great though is she, Aniston, has been graceful, throughout.
When I was in England last September, so many newspapers
It caused a big scandal, as there was this video circulating. Since then, the Met Police have been urging Moss to come in for an interview regarding the tape, as it is evidence of drug use and drug possession. It was reported she did so today. In addition to the interview with the police, her custody rights to
her daughter have been questioned in the press and she has lost millions of
pounds in endorsement deals.
As I have written on here before, I don't think most people who are addicts want to be addicts. They try drugs and end up developing an addiction. T How drugs truly work is kind of sinister. What drugs like cocaine do is create an initial high that the user's system craves again, not realizing that the initial high will never truly be duplicated again. Then the addict starts taking more and more drugs in attempting to reach that initial high that will not be reached again. But in taking more and more drugs, some overdose. Some recover from overdoses, many don't. Pete Doherty Arrested for Drug Possession
However, if Pete continues to associate with the same circle of friends, it is going to make it doubly hard for him to beat his addiction. Heroin is not child's play. Anyone on it must take a very serious approach if they are going to conquer it. I think he can conquer it, so can Moss. CELEBRITY Paris Hilton
Paris Hilton running from the law...and the Colonics Center. Caffeine has been known to leave people wired! Sidebar for site readers: Colonics is where they stick a hose in your butt and shoot caffeine in there to clean you out of all you've had to eat. The million dollar question is, did Paris have the procedure done on her brain too, judging by the deposition excerpts posted a few paragraphs below this one. Hilton is being sued for being a liar – twice! It seems Kaballahist Paris Hilton has a penchant for slander and libel and now it’s gotten her into legal trouble.
Zeta Graff suing Paris Hilton for defamation and libel in making up a story that she attacked her.
"The paper reported that Graff _ who once dated Hilton's then-fiancee, Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis _ went "berserk" at the nightclub, tried to strangle Hilton and attempted to steal her diamond necklace. Graff denies the report and claims Hilton said "I'm going to destroy you" after trying to oust her from the club, according to the suit." "Former Hilton publicist Rob Shuter said in a deposition that Hilton asked him to help plant the story and that he gave the paper comments attributed to himself, Hilton and anonymous sources that were dictated by Hilton." - Associated Press That's bad and the "I'm going to destroy you" line is quite delusional. Really, what can Paris Hilton do. Who in their right mind would be afraid of her. She's got some serious issues to make up a story like that. It screams insecurity and reeks of someone who thinks everyone is jealous of them...when in actuality people are not. However, clearly in Paris Hilton's mind, everyone is. People like that always amaze me...in a bad way. They do bad things to others, then when they are called out for it, lie to themselves that everyone is just jealous of them, which is why they are in trouble for their misdeeds. The thing is, Graf's l Q: So, Ms. Hilton, can you — Q: Ms. Hilton please. Can you tell us your friend Terry's last name? Q: Have you seen the reports in question printed anywhere else, such as in
the U.K.? Q: Ok ... moving on. Tell us, did you ever have a run-in with Ms. Graff at a
nightclub?
Hilton: "I just said to her... she is old and should stay at home with her child instead of being at nightclubs with young people. And just that -- I just - what else did I say? Just that she is not cute at all."
Hilton: "He said that she was going to do voodoo on me. And I kind of do believe in that stuff a little bit, so I was a little bit scared about that... "
There maybe an explanation for all this:
Photo of Hilton reportedly smoking marijuana
S In a separate lawsuit she is accused of harassing, badmouthing and threatening the life of promoter Brian Quintana in attempts to sabotage his business, when she and his friend broke up. He has requested a restraining order.
That is completely out of line. Is this a common theme with people who are Kabballahist/the Kabbalah Center - harassing, defaming and threatening the lives of people. They seem to engage in this a lot, as several unrelated people have attested. The evidence is so bad against Hilton at this point, the only way she can win is to try to bribe the judges. Kidding. Her publicist issued the standard statement: "I can assure you that when all of the facts are revealed in this matter, they will show that the victim is, in fact, Paris Hilton," Hilton's spokesman said." - Associated Press Ok, so she did it then. When I read the statement I thought, "And? Publicists always say that." This is Paris Hilton we’re talking about - goes around breaking up people’s relationships, making up stories about people, then spreading it around the industry through her little gossip network of equally vapid stars, celebrity wannabes and gossip columnists. That's how troublesome stars work. Rather than working on whatever it is they do for a living (porn doesn't count), they spend their time stalking, being nosy in people's business and spreading gossip. They won't go to credible papers with the lies. They go to truth challenged gossip columns under the auspices that it's gossip, so who can sue. Guess again.
Paris publicly falling over drunk - now that's class (well, no) A poll conducted this month revealed people don't believe Paris' denials: Did Paris defame Graff?
Her 2006 Album Something tells me that album is gonna harm reputations and cause trouble. From what's been written of it thus far, it sounds like a derivative mess. It's being released by Warner Bros. and considering she is disliked by entertainers for things she's done, they aren’t gonna have any pity on her when she goes on stage primping, preening and pretending to be what she thinks a singer is based on heavily imitating what’s already in the marketplace. The claws are gonna come out and it's not gonna be pretty. While Miami producer Scott Storch, who has had several hits with other
artists, is working on her album, I doubt he will be able to help Hilton because
of who she is and what she deliberately does. People are not amused with her
antics. CELEBRITY Britney Spears
Boy, celebrity ain’t what it used to be. Paris Hilton…Britney Spears…need I say more. Neither are famous for talent, both famous for taking their kit off (hey, Britney Spears is just about naked in her music videos and on stage at this point). The new breed of celebrity are like a bad
Family Values: K-Fed and Family [Pic by Todd Umbarger].
Is it just me or is it every year that someone from American Idol ends up in
the slammer. Which made me wonder, That was a joke. Don't take it seriously, people. QUASI-JOURNALISM Roger Friedman & Lloyd Grove
For those of you who don’t know who I am talking, well writing about, based on that title “Roger Friedman & Lloyd Grove” – to answer your question, no, they are not the guys from Brokeback Mountain (well, at least I hope not). I’m gonna give Friedman a break in this Column (not really). I may have written some very cutting statements about him in this Column (hard to believe, I know) last month (and the month before and the month before, but who’s counting) for defaming and libeling me in his column. Last month I wrote about him continually being wrong about his guesses of what will be future hits and shortly after he humbled himself somewhat and admitted in his column that he doesn’t always get it right via the mea-culpa-butt-covering-in-case-he’s-wrong-again with his next guesses of future hits, “Now, look, if I'm wrong, I'll take the Sylvia Browne psychic out: I didn’t say it. I always meant the opposite, I just didn’t have time to tell you,” said Friedman. It marked the first time Friedman actually admitted he could be wrong. You’re making progress. This month, I am turning my attention to another gossip columnist that defamed and libeled me, Lloyd “Rainman” Grove. Yes, be afraid…be very afraid, Mr. Grove.
The un-esteemed Grove made the NY Press’ list of the “50 MOST LOATHSOME NEW YORKERS.” Nice. He came in at #20. Dude, for a gossip columnist, that’s pretty high: #20. Lloyd Grove - Gossip Columnist HE CAME FROM the Washington Post as a sniveling insider notable for daring to report that Tim Robbins threatened him with violence for reporting a simple truth. As gossip columnist for the Daily News, Grove has been flummoxed by the city and is reduced to covering petty internet bickering long after it's old news. Check out his sterling reporting on Martha Stewart, hacking away several days after the verdict to tell us that Hillary Clinton has sympathy for a perjurer. Big scoop, Lloyd. This would usually be incompetent instead of loathsome, but the stakes were raised once you conned the Daily News into paying massive bucks for your groveling. Lloyd “Screech” Grove has the most irritating read of a column in the world.
Friedman's page you can get through without annoyance at the high levels of
boredom it induces. It is the most
tediously boring read on the internet. One has to pinch oneself…not
Such stunning topics as who stole whose cab in New York. So what. I’d elbow a 85 year-old granny for a cab in New York (Kidding). But you get my point. With all that’s going on in the world, is that the best you can come up with for a column. At least your fellow gossip, Roger Friedman, goes into the unknown to get his lies, oops, I mean stories, and his writing, though often inaccurate, slanted and sometimes flat out lies, flows (even if it flows into the toilet). Friedman was recently spotted at Neverland hiding behind a giraffe trying to get the latest scoop on Michael Jackson –funny mental image worth a typing pause for a chuckle-. Ok, I'm back now. Grove’s most delusional column was spooled into other blogs by their owners where people dissed him for his delusionalnessness (yes, that is a word - ok, no it's not) in banning Brad Pitt from his column.
Brad Pitt, banned by Lloyd Grove. What ever will Pitt do. Because, as we all know, Brad Pitt needs the exposure from a poorly circulated column. Once the influential (I can’t even write that with a straight face) Grove bans him, what are the chances Pitt will ever be written about again? This just in: Brad Pitt still being searched for millions of times on the internet and written about every single day since being banned by Grove. Looks like Pitt moved on from Grove. He just meet with Kofi Annan. Who would
you rather meet. Annan or Lloyd Grove. Here are a few choice reactions from the internet reading and writing public regarding Grove’s column on Pitt. Some public feedback, if you will: 1. Well when I read the article and viewed Mr Groves picture, jealousy comes to mind. He sounds like a ten year old who is jealous of his best friends toys. lola December 22, 2005 at 10:15 am 2. lol. caroline I read the entire article….and yes it does mention Jen .
Many times (; 3. Doubt Brad cares. jane December 22, 2005 at 11:17 am 4. and who the ***l is this Lloyd guy anyway? I think Paris Hilton is the pointless celeb that the media should just abandon. Certainly not Brad, at least he tries to make some type of difference, even if it is just to be more like his girlfriend. Anyone that tries to do positive things for people should not be bashed. This Lloyd guy needs to shut the **** up and go pick on someone useless like K_Fed or Paris or someone that truly is not worth talking about. Even people that didnt like Brad probably do not want to see his named erased from the headlines, at least it is good conversation!! mar December 22, 2005 at 12:37 pm 5. I just actually read the article, and this guy didn’t tell us anything interesting that we all have not talked about on this site. This guy sounds jealous that he did not become an overnight star by being shirtless in Thelma and Loiuse. mar December 22, 2005 at 1:02 pm 6. okay, i agree with 1Melissa- Lowdown was school boy jealousy. Since when do GOSSIP columnists bar talking about a celebrity based on narcissism and then list catty reasons as an explanation? …scribe26 December 22, 2005 at 2:46 pm 7. I’m no hardcore Brad fan but I call bu******. In what universe is Brad Pitt a more annoying and overexposed celebrity than Tom ********g Cruise? I don’t care how personally one takes his breakup and alleged new relationship, Pitt is nowhere near as deserving of a boycott as Cruise. gina_king December 22, 2005 at 3:05 pm 8. yea but everyone knows tom cruise is off his rocker no fun in that… caroline December 22, 2005 at 3:24 pm 9. yeah, I don’t really think Brad deserved this one. and I know this doesn’t really make sense, but just for kicks, I think that it should be Paris again this year - a double ban. lisalisa December 22, 2005 at 3:28 pm 10. The reason I think this Lloyd guy should shut up is because we know he will be talking about Brad in 2006! And I was talking about respect to the people that post HERE on popsugar, not Lloyd. mar December 23, 2005 at 9:38 am 11. I could give 2 ****s about Lloyd. mar December 23, 2005 at 9:40 am Other sites responded with a similar guffaw: 12. While we agree with Lowdown editor Lloyd Grove (did we really just say that?) that Brad Pitt is a little played out these days, we can't understand why on earth he would ban the celeb from his column, as though he has something better to talk about. Plus, we are so sure that Brad is in tears over the fact that he will no longer be splattered on Grove's shady pages. We do, however, speculate that these cutting back of gorgeous male celeb coverage was tacked onto the reasons why Hudson Morgan is fleeing the column. Now, if only we could somehow get ourselves banned from ever being in column, again, we would be delighted. And maybe Hud would stay. – Jossip 13. Don’t know what this guys problem is, but according to Cinematical, NY Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove is banning any future mention of Brad Pitt. – planetbradpitt 14. It's true. Lloyd Grove has banished Brad Pitt from his column-- this year's iteration of an annual cleansing ritual which began last year with Paris Hilton. Unclear if this means that Hilton is now un-banned, though I guess we'll find out pretty soon. Kind of wish he went with Judith Miller. – Fish Bowl LA 15. NY Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove has put a ban on all items relating to Mr. Angelina Jolie, himself, Brad Pitt. What the **** is he thinking? He's got a host of reasons, and I'm going to tear them all apart: "Brad's an okay actor, some of the time, and certainly a hunky movie star, most of the time - but he's no Russell Crowe...Pitt's star turns range from the bland to the ridiculous." Um...so? First of all, Pitt admittedly doesn't have much range, but he really doesn't need it – he's just such a good star, all he has to do is show up and allow us to bask in his charisma. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is proof positive of that. And Daily Dish isn't exactly Serious Thespian Daily. When a gossip column decides it's too good to report on bad actors, there's a serious problem. "Brad seems always to be in love ... with himself." This may or may not be accurate – I admit, I am not a serious scholar in the field of Brad Pitt interview arcana - but the quote Grove pulls to support it (blah blah blah "Jen and I did it our way" blah blah), whilst admittedly dopey, doesn't exactly make his case. "Brad adopts the lifestyle, interests and passions of whatever woman he happens to be bedding ... much like dog owners who morph into their pets." Because Angelina Jolie has stupid-*** bleached blonde hair. Oh, wait - she doesn't? Grove corrects himself: "With Angelina ... he's adopted her children." Uh-huh - and it's made the gossip season. - Cinematical Nice to see your idiotic choice was so well received (not). How about you ban yourself from your column, as you keep creeping in it and you're not famous. QUASI-JOURNALISM Victoria Newton and her pals at the Sun lie about Kylie’s medical condition
And speaking of other half-witted quasi-journalists, Victoria “Elvira” Newton and her pals at the Sun inexcusably lied in a report about Kylie Minogue was free of cancer and in the all clear. Minogue’s rep stated immediately after that the story was not true: "Kylie Minogue's publicist has denied The Sun's reports that she's been given the all-clear from breast cancer. The paper claims doctors told Kylie last week that chemotherapy treatment has successfully destroyed all the cancerous cells in her body. But her Australian publicist has told the Sydney Morning Herald: 'There's no validity to this. It's not true.' " - Sky News What made you do that. Have you lost your mind. You knew full well it wasn’t all clear. My mom’s theory: after the horrible internet bashing Madonna got on several sites, read by millions of people, for willfully ripping off Kylie whilst she is fighting cancer, her defacto mouthpiece and publicly announced email pal, Newton, decided to make up the story that Kylie was free of cancer as a way of saying, see Madonna ripped off a healthy person, not a cancer patient. Madonna must have some serious dirt on the Sun. But that’s what you get for going along with a celebrity breaking the law in two countries. QUASI-JOURNALISM NY Post/Page Six
According to the NY Press, the New York Post loses between $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 million per year. Here’s another item from the NY Press list of the “50 MOST LOATHSOME NEW YORKERS.”
"#4 Rupert & Lachlan Murdoch - Media Moguls - WHEN BRITISH TELEVISION playwright Dennis Potter learned he had terminal cancer, he named the tumor "Rupert." A bloody, distended hemorrhoid might have been more apt. The Aussie-born antichrist is alive and well, enjoying U.S. citizenship and avoiding his tax obligations, while Fox News continues to offer the world a glimpse of what American fascism would look like... But if you're one of the millions of people who can't think of a single good reason why Rupert Murdoch shouldn't die a slow and painful death next week, here's one: Lachlan, his tattooed, 32-year-old idiot-savant heir currently serving as the publisher of the New York Post. As a newspaper reportedly losing between $15 and $20 million each year, the Post is tied with the pyramids for biggest vanity project in history—all so that Little Lachlan can have a star-spangled tabloid in New York. If there is a chunk of the WTC that hasn't yet fallen to Earth, let it crash onto father and son the next time they're dining at the Carlyle." One would think with all the hype surrounding the Post, that it was actually making money. Go figure. QUASI-JOURNALISM “Blind Items” Why do certain columns love them. What happens when they get a little too to the point. Here, let me try! Which sick, voyeuristic, celebrity pays private investigators to follow around younger entertainers and shares the reports with her equally perverse husband who is more interested in the younger subjects of the surveillance than her? Which demented actor paid private investigators to wiretap his own ex-wife? Which former studio
executive is secretly gay, but married to an unsuspecting
wife? He needs to stop what he's doing Which Hollywood lawyer who loves the phrase “Shut up or we’ll shut you up,” commissioned wiretaps of legal opponents, but is lying to the grand jury? Which cult member celebrity paid someone to break into a rival’s home and steal items? Which female singer/so called actress wants to be cremated to hide from the public the things she’s done to her body? Which celebrity pretends to be friends with a pregnant actress for publicity, unbeknownst to the pregnant actress who thinks she is sincere in their friendship? Which director pretends to be gay to get more work in Hollywood when he secretly likes women? Which
Hollywood movie executive cheats on his wife in Which aging star is jealous of her own daughter who is shaping up to be quite the hellion herself? Which uber publicist who lied to the public about her celebrity client, is privately mad at said celebrity client because said publicist found out about the sick things the celebrity had done, which implicated said publicist in an embarrassing scandal of which said publicist said off the record about the celebrity client, “That nasty b**** knew she did this, but got everybody involved in it" to hide her misconduct. Which TV and movie executive barked “just get me out of this” to someone regarding serious legal trouble? Which TV and movie executive stalked a singer? Which publicist lied to a grand jury? Which celebrity got an STD from her promiscuous husband? Which desperate singer/actress regularly plants items in the press that she is in contention for roles she is not even being considered for in desperate attempts to twist directors’ arms who’d rather soon not make the film at all than put her in it, because she can’t act? Blind items are no fun. They are quite cruel actually. But it is an easy way for gossip columns to spread dirt without getting sued. But has anyone challenged that legally. Maybe one day someone will if it gets too specific. BOOKS Jumping into the Frey
"A Million Little Pieces" - the memoir by James Frey that has been exposed by the Smoking Gun site as a fraud. "A Million Little Pieces"…of feces. The brown stuff has hit the fan. Houston we have a problem. The Smoking Gun web site excruciatingly exposed James Frey's best selling memoir "A Million Little Pieces" as a million little pieces of fiction. This caused embarrassment for the Oprah Winfrey Show, as she had endorsed said book, making it a pick for her monthly book club. This endorsement caused said book to sell over 3.6 million copies. Thus far three lawsuits have been filed against Frey and Random House due to the controversy. As the press firestorm grew, Frey agreed to do an interview with Larry King. The interview included a call from Oprah pledging her support. When Oprah phoned Larry King to lend her support for the embattled writer, I thought to myself, "I'd have thrown him under the bus." Not to be cruel to him, but I'd have done it in a comedic way, as supporting the book at that point would send the wrong message. If Larry
King asked: Did you know of the fabrications in James Frey's
book? Just kidding.
Oprah looking like she wanted to drop kick James
Frey Oprah and audience tore Frey into A Million Little Pieces. Her audience went Jerry Springer on the fabulist. Seriously, there were some major fibs in the book, but at the same time, I don't want Frey to commit suicide after the press bashing he's been getting. It's been a serious press caning. I hope he will be able to recover. I saw excerpts of Oprah questioning Frey on her show over the lies in his book and she was clearly upset and understandably so, as he put her reputation on the line. When a book is published, an outside party such as a TV show, newspaper, magazine or web site shouldn't have to vet it for lies. I'd like to think if something says memoir, it's true. I think it is good that Oprah has taken the stance she has now, as his conduct was starting to affect her name, evidenced by news articles and editorials. To lend her support came across in the press as supporting a lie. Many writers questioned her original call to Larry King, but are now applauding her for speaking out against it. Movie deal in jeopardy
“The Hollywood Reporter said that a planned film of Frey's memoir could now need a rehab of its own. The controversy could keep Hollywood "A" list talent away from the project so as not to taint their careers, the paper said. Warner Bros. is developing the project with a production company owned by actor Brad Pitt and "ER" producer John Wells.” - Reuters "The power of the overall reading experience" depended on the faith that "A Million Little Pieces" was the unvarnished truth - not just "his version of the truth" or "true to his recollections." - NY Times Refund? What refund? said publisher Random House. Seriously, they are instructing people who wish to obtain refunds to
take it back where
“Contrary to erroneous published reports, Random House, Inc. is not offering a special refund on “A Million Little Pieces.” It has long been standard Random House Inc procedure to direct consumers who want a refund on any of the tens of thousands of books we publish back to their retail place of purchase, unless they purchased the book directly from us in which case we refund it.” - Random House MUSIC Ron Isley Tax Evasion Verdict
The Isley Brothers - Ron Isley (right) I was saddened to read about Ron Isley’s tax situation. He has been found guilty of tax evasion. While the Bible does say, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" it’s sad to see this happen to him, especially at age 64. He faces 26 years in prison. Here’s hoping he will be able to make full financial restitution to the government and the sentencing judge will have mercy on him. MUSIC Sony BMG Clearly Doesn’t Know When to Shut Up
"ADD STRINGER: In another memorable quote from Sir Howard’s Thursday press conference, he offered the following take on the XCP/MediaMax fiasco: "Clearly the perception out there is that we shouldn't be doing too much of that copy protection stuff." You can say that again, big guy." - Hits Daily Double “Shouldn't be doing too much of that copy protection stuff" - no, the perception is that you should not be invading people’s privacy with an unlawful, insidious little program that was destroying $1000 computers to protect a $18 CD. That was lunacy. If I were a judge, and I’d be a great one who acts in the best interest of justice and doesn’t take bribes, because some judges do take bribes, I would sentence every Sony BMG executive who had anything to do with the XCP trojan-malware-virus-program to one year of using a computer that was messed up by said program to solely do all their work and internet surfing. Try getting all your work done now with the XCP program eroding the memory, speed, safety and integrity of your computers, hackers sending viruses to said computer and unlawfully going in and out of your computer whenever they feel like to steal then destroy data, read any medical records you have on your computer (doctor's appointments, prescriptions ect.), view pictures of your new born relatives that another relative emailed you to show you how adorable your new nephews are, read all your emails, commit identity theft charging up your credit cards/debit cards ect... Side bar: is Sony BMG jinxed and it's rubbing off on its affiliates. Random House (See James Frey scandal above) is owned by Sony BMG parent company Bertelsmann AG. In other news, it appears Sony BMG is following the entertainment industry tradition of willfully stealing copyrighted works then abusing the court system: Jury selection is set to begin in a copyright infringement suit filed against Lil' Flip, his former label Suckafree Records, Columbia Records and Sony Music BMG. According to Granville's attorney, Scott Hemingway, Sony Music has ignored three separate court orders to turn over evidence pursuant to the case, and further alleges the companies in question of forging documents and altering financial records related to the suit. Magistrate Judge Stacy of the Southern District Court of Texas has fined Sony Music BMG and the other defendants $12,000 for violation of these orders. "Sony is leading the charge in filing lawsuits against anyone it suspects is infringing its copyrights," said Hemingway, "but when the shoe is on the other foot, they have done everything they can to deny and delay justice for Mr. Granville." In a separate action filed in September of 2004, NamCo America sued the same set of defendants for copyright infringement over the rapper's hit song, "Game Over." In the suit, NamCo accused Flip of using sounds from the games "Pac-Man" and "Ms. Pac-Man" on the song and it's remix. The case was eventually settled for undisclosed amount. - Baller Status web site MUSIC Album Sales – Inflation Sales in the music industry (and film
too)
The New York Times stated last year's unbelievably abysmal sales, "Drop reverses the previous year's slight uptick in sales" The Associated Press wrote, "U.S. album sales hit a nine year low in 2005."
In the same article
Rolling Stone labeled it, "The Worst Year Ever." MUSIC Madonna Lawsuit
Madonna photo from Gaultier show
As was expected and predicted by me based on the pattern of corruption I've witnessed in many entertainment industry cases (and what I have been saying since the day I filed the case back in September of 2005, as not expecting anything from the Court system based on what I have witnessed in other entertainment industry cases that reek of corruption), the case I filed was questionably closed by Judge Marcia Cooke, who ruled "pop culture icons" could not have done the "sensational accusations" leveled against them (because as you all know, celebrities never break the law. Um, see list of dozens of celebrities who have broken the law listed further in this column). I immediately filed an appeal. This case isn't going away just like that. It's going to be a long legal ride for the Defendants, as listed below. List of a few celebrities who have broken the law according to Crime Library: Pee Wee Herman, Pat O’Brien, Marv Albert, Pete Rose, Mike Tyson, Mystikal, Suge Knight, Fatty Arbuckle, Eric Aude, Sandra Will Caradine, Christian Brando, Spade Cooley, Robert Durst, Steven Roye, Phil Spector, Oscar Wilde, Glen Campbell, Enrico Caruso, Robert Clary, Hogan's Hero LeBeau, Robert Downey Jr, John du Pont, Jane Fonda, Gary Glitter, Steve Howe, L. Ron Hubbard, Rick James, Don King, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Lookinland, Bess Myerson, Dana Plato, Sid Vicious and Wendy O. Williams. United States Court of Appeals I have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals regarding the inappropriate closure of the case on such a shoddy legal premise that gives judges everywhere a bad name (a judge's personal opinion of celebrity, and a dubious opinion at that, is not more important than the Constitution, the law and physical evidence showing guilt). If the appeal is not successful, I will send the case to the Supreme Court. If the case is not remedied there, then the case goes international. This is the beginning of a very long legal and social ride for the miscreant Defendants. I also
Judge Marcia Cooke's Ruling
Ms. Cooke has been on the bench for a year, and it shows, the newest judge in Miami, and also went to Madonna's alma mater. She owes the public more than cursory reads of serious cases with far reaching legal and social effects. Closing the case will not make it go away, only intensify it. My dad was in disbelief and asked how she "autocratically" threw out a case with so much evidence based on her opinion that "pop culture icons" could not have broken the law, and that's what her ruling boiled down to. Not the evidence pointing to the Defendants' unquestionable guilt, which she clearly has no use for, but her opinion of "pop culture icons," which is a disgrace. Since when is a judge's opinion of celebrities more important than the Constitution, the law and actual physical and digital evidence showing guilt. But it is the same strain and pattern of corruption prevalent in many entertainment industry cases, especially the ones with Warner Bros as Defendants. Sophia Stewart, who sued over the theft of her copyrighted script that was unlawfully used to make the Matrix film by Warner Bros and the Wachowski Bros (By the way "V for Vendetta" looks like it stinks), echoed similar sentiments after her case was unbelievably closed by a judge - even though it was reported the FBI found evidence that her script was present on the set of the Matrix film and used to make the film. The FBI finds all that evidence, and for reasons known to that judge, she closed the case anyway. If FBI evidence isn't good enough, what is? What kind of vote of confidence is that in the FBI from the judicial system. With some of these judges, Jesus himself could come down here and testify that he saw them do it, and the judge would say, "You're just a carpenter, what do you know." That is the kind of arrogance, haughtiness and self-regard some judges are exercising today to the detriment of the judicial system and the watching world. After her case was
inexplicably closed after all that evidence,
Yes, I agree. There clearly is corruption in the judicial system, which is doing nothing for the public's confidence in said system, evidenced by postings all over the internet in articles, editorials, web blogs and message board postings. Judges are not as regarded as they once were. Confidence in the judicial system is at an all time low. Basic searches of the internet from a variety of public sources will reveal this. There are now many web sites detailing and questioning judicial corruption, with many seeking to stop it.
Judges are supposed to render decisions enforcing the Constitution and the law, not enforcing their personal opinions, personal beliefs and philosophies. The bench cannot afford such personal indulgencies at the expense of justice. That's disgraceful. On a side note, somebody please explain to me, why is it Warner Bros keeps winning and or getting court cases against them tossed, where there are clear violations of the law that even a child can see. That alone deserves it's own investigation and hearing. Judge Marcia Cooke did not take any of the evidence into account which indisputably showed: 1. The Defendants regular habit of visiting my web site that was being viewed by millions, as recorded by software used by thousands of webmasters all over the world - even detailing their IP addresses and server info. 2. Madonna made a sick habit of quoting items from this Column, the Diary page and my bio, word for word, in her public interviews, attributing them to herself, all after I wrote, published and copyrighted said writings on this site. According to one legal expert, "That inextricably tied her to your web site." 3. A pic of Madonna appeared in a Cafe Direct promo, of her as a black woman, but rather than it looking like Madonna as a black woman, or the Black coffee trader the blend was supposed to be of, it came out looking more like my mom in an old pic - and considering my mom looks nothing like Madonna or the coffee trader whose image was allegedly blended with Madonna's to produce the composite - how did that happen. 4. Madonna and co. have criminally accessed my already copyrighted songs, scripts, music video treatments, photo treatments and book manuscripts, using several of them, all years after they were copyrighted by me (I used other means to secure dates of authorship as well). 5. I have experienced the same wiretapping, harassment, property break ins and stalking many in Hollywood testified happened to them at the hands of Madonna's lawyer's private investigator and the Kabbalah cult. 6. Madonna crazily began wearing unique costumes from my unreleased copyrighted works, which she had made to duplicate what was in my private copyrights that she gained criminal access to. 7. Every single song on "Confessions on a Dance Floor" contains lyrics, music and or both from songs I already copyrighted years before, some of these songs I haven't even released yet, but she criminally got her hands on copies of it and criminally used them in willful violation of domestic and international law. 8. My business c 9. I was the victim of identity theft that originated with the Warner Bros owned AOL - my former internet service provider. AOL allowed a hacker illegal access to my Visa Debit card given to them to pay for my monthly internet access, and said hacker charged over $2200 to it. Any judge that does not take the evidence into
account, favoring her questionable opinion over it, should not be on the bench. A judge My question is, why don't
they want this case heard. There is
evidence linking several of the Defendants to willful breaches of civil and
criminal U.S. and U.N. laws. If the Defendants are so innocent, what's everybody
so afraid of.
Judge Marcia Cooke referred to my lawsuit as an “amusing read.” I'm glad she finds U.N. violations "amusing." My family and I have been living under U.S. and U.N. human rights violations thanks to that depraved woman and her cohorts who are hell bent on criminally using my copyrighted catalog of works with thousands of songs and dozens of scripts in it, that do not and will never belong to them, and that smug, disgraceful judge referred to it as “an amusing read.” If she and her family had to live under the
What concerns me most is she also presides over criminal cases, therefore I can't help but wonder who is she letting go that is guilty and who is she putting in jail without carefully weighing the evidence. The kind of autocratic, un-Constitutional conduct I witnessed firsthand has me further questioning the integrity of the judicial system in that something like this could transpire. She has shown that she has no respect for or use for evidence in cases and her ruling was fraught with legal errors. Another disturbing fact, the magistrate judge over the case since the day it
was filed, William Turnoff, was formally accused
But it is the same rubbish happening in entertainment industry cases. I wrote of the 100 cases I reviewed that bore that same pattern. Cases amazingly get tossed out of court or bear strange verdicts when Warner Bros and or Disney are the Defendants. "Warner Bros is a big company with connections" About a year ago, a lawyer from a well known Miami law firm said to me regarding this case, “Don’t be so cocky you’ll win in Court. Warner Bros is a big company with connections.” Apparently… Pardon me for thinking if you are severely wronged and have proof of misconduct being committed against you, you are supposed to win in court. While the Constitution guarantees you certain rights, apparently a Federal
judge who swore before God to uphold the Constitution and the law can un-Constitutionally strip you of those
Constitutional rights based on said judge's opinion, The Constitution is a great document to base any civil society upon - but it only works when people actually follow it. Regarding the lawsuit, no one is undefeatable. Media giants have their David’s too. The God I believe in never lost a fight…and He’s not about to start now. The good news - the boycott is working. Rolling Stone called last year in music "the worst year ever" and sales analysts are now saying this year looks like it will be worse, after the "up tuck" in 2004. Excerpts of the appeal I filed:
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Notice is hereby given that AISHA GOODISON in the above named case hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA from the FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL OF ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT entered in this action on December 21, 2005. 2. The Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of numerous Copyrights that were granted by the Library of Congress, years before the Defendants’ willful and criminal infringement thereof. Exercising her Constitutional rights, the Plaintiff filed suit in Federal Court, pro se, to stop the willful infringements of her Copyrighted works by the Defendants, who have a long, sordid history of the very same misconduct the Plaintiff has sued them for. 3. However, Judge Marcia Cooke single-handedly, autocratically, summarily and unconstitutionally tossed her lawsuit out of Court, based on her opinion of the probability and likelihood that famous “pop culture icons” and “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” Defendants could commit the “sensational accusations” leveled against them in said Complaint, making no reference to the irrefutable digital and physical evidence the Court was presented with of the Defendants’ willful misconduct. This was a miscarriage of justice with the Judge acting for the “pop culture icons” and “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” as a defacto character witness and defender. 4. Judge Marcia Cooke made several claims and allegations against the Plaintiff in her hasty ruling in a case she had for two days before tossing it out and failing to cite examples of said claims and allegations against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff “Failed To Present A Case For Relief” 5. The Plaintiff did not fail to present a claim for relief when she cited “Copyright Infringement” as the main basis for her case. Copyright Infringement is a violation of Federal Law. The Plaintiff filed suit in a Federal Court with the proper subject matter jurisdiction and venue. The Defendants are constantly sued around the world for copyright infringement and have been pronounced guilty by other Judges. There is a long list of misconduct in the same vein by the Defendants in similar cases, where they have been found guilty and liable. 6. Judge Cooke has not cited one law or case that states the Plaintiff; the owner of many U.S. Federally assigned copyrights, is not entitled to relief in Federal Court, which has undeniable jurisdiction over this case, that is for Federal Copyright Infringement .... 8. The Copyright Office has accepted Copyright fees from the Plaintiff over the last 15 years and granted her Copyrights and the exclusive rights that accompany them i.e. Copyright protection of her works and the ability to bring suit in Federal Court in the event said Copyrights are infringed. 9. Sadly, her Copyrights have been infringed, yet she is being denied her Federal and Constitutional right to file suit to stop the willful infringements and recoup the money lost due to the Defendants willful, criminal misconduct, based on the Judge’s opinion of the likelihood famous, influential Defendants committed the malfeasance they are accused of and not based on the Constitution, the Law or the physical and digital evidence submitted to the Court. 10. This is unconstitutional and an act of treason against the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. No citizen is above and or greater than the Constitution of the United States. 11. Judge Marcia Cooke via her ruling has unconstitutionally stripped the Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights. One cannot summarily tear up the Constitution in favor of one’s personal opinion that “pop culture icons” and “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” absolutely, positively could not have committed the crimes an unknown immigrant U.S. citizen writer/singer is formally accusing them of – especially when they have been found guilty of this very same misconduct by other judges. “50 Plus Page Morass Of A Complaint” 12. The Plaintiff was instructed by Judge Marcia Cooke’s colleague, Judge Cecilia Altonaga, the first presiding Judge in this case that was recused for a gross conflict of interest that was not disclosed to the Plaintiff, who had to find out about said conflict of interest on the internet, that she was to submit an amended Complaint of 60 double spaced pages, which she compiled with two business days later. 13. However, Judge Marcia Cooke stated in her FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL that the Plaintiff was instructed to submit a 50 page double spaced amended Complaint and instead, in her estimation, turned in a “50 Plus Page Morass Of A Complaint.” 14. REQUEST: For Court record, the Plaintiff demands an explanation of how these two conflicting requests can be achieved in a double spaced “50” or “60” page Complaint against a main Defendant, Madonna, who unlawfully engaged roughly 100 people in assisting her in knowingly and willfully breaking Federal and international law at the Plaintiff’s expense, as she has been sued for doing to others on almost a yearly basis for the last several years. 15. The average Madonna CD will take 70 or more people to produce and market. The Plaintiff naming 100 Defendants who knowingly participated in civil and criminal violations of Federal and international law, is not a frivolous nor is it far fetched that that many people broke the law in knowingly assisting Madonna in misconduct. She has been sued for and or publicly accused of this very misconduct numerous times before for EVERY SINGLE ALBUM OF HER CAREEER. 16. Her credibility is gone, with the public and critics now publicly turning against her in droves for her many notable thefts of other artists Copyrighted works. She has become synonymous with this misconduct, which is easily verified. She is regularly publicly referred to as a fraud and a hack for this misconduct she has willfully utilized against numerous members of the entertainment community, further embarrassing herself in creating publicly written about, international incidents where she has willfully stolen from foreign artists and been caught red-handed. Judge’s Assertions Made Without Citation of Alleged
Deficiencies 17. Judge Marcia Cooke referred to the Plaintiff’s Complaint as a “Supermarket tabloid recounting” and “sensational allegations” against “pop culture icons” and “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” but did not cite examples of her, Judge Cooke’s, allegations found in the Plaintiff’s complaint. The law does not afford anyone, not even a Federal Judge, the luxury of making an allegation without citing proof of said accusation. That stretches the limits of judicial immunity and is as harmful to the service of justice as one who is careless with a sword. 18. The Plaintiff’s allegations are factual with credible evidence and Court submitted exhibits to back them up. None of it is slanderous, libelous or “tabloid” in nature. Judge Cooke made this broad allegation and did not cite one example thereof in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 19. The Plaintiff has not asked the Court to take her word for it. She has presented credible, irrefutable evidence that is not being addressed. How can such a mountain of credible digital and physical evidence, coupled with the Defendants long history of this very misconduct cited in numerous other cases, be ignored. Copyright Infringement 20. The Court has not addressed the very serious
issue of copyright infringement in this case. 2. The Plaintiff submitted side-by-side digital analytical evidence to show that the Defendants listed in the case have visited her web site that they willfully stole from, on many occasions, as evidenced by the web site statistics program used by thousands of webmasters around the world. The Plaintiff also sufficiently established access through other means. 3. The Defendants further violated her copyrights “Right of Attribution” on many occasions in repeating publicly, verbatim, copyrighted items from her web site – all after she copyrighted them. They are inextricably linked to her publicly viewed web site and that fact can never be erased, as records of it have been indelibly saved to discs. 4. These are not mere allegations subject to one’s interpretation thereof based on prejudices, star struck views on “pop culture icons,” “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” or preconceived notions. The law and justice do not afford such luxuries. 5. The “pop culture icons” in question have a very sordid history of breaking civil and criminal law and have been guilty for these misdeeds in other cases. 6. The Defendant Madonna has shown a great propensity for this type of misconduct, yet it is not being taken into account. The “pop culture icon” was: 7. Sued over 10 times for copyright infringement, in the latest case having been found “guilty” of copyright infringement and plagiarism. 8. Sued 3 times for invasion of privacy and civil rights violations by unrelated people via unrelated incidences. 9. Has displayed a willful, publicly viewed propensity for being cruel to children. 10. Has displayed willful propensity for choking innocent citizens, among them a child whose family sued. Case Dismissed On Judge’s Prejudicial Opinion Of “Pop Culture Icons” and Not The Evidence 21. Many “pop culture icons” have been accused of
and been found guilty of crimes that willfully broke the law. 22. The Judge may not want to believe that famous people she fawningly referred to as “pop culture icons” and “the companies who bring their entertainment to the masses” could commit the malfeasance listed in the pages of the Complaint, but the fact of the matter is they have and numerous credible people witnessed it. People who are ready and willing to testify in Court under oath. The Court was also presented with concrete evidence of civil and criminal misconduct and Judge Cooke refuses to make reference to that. 23. These companies that “bring entertainment to the masses” have been found guilty of Copyright Infringement and other crimes against the US Constitution, Federal Law, US citizens and international citizens in other cases (USA v. Warner Bros, Acquaviva v. Madonna). 24. Being a “company that brings their entertainment to the masses” should not exempt one from the legal consequences that come from willfully breaking the law. 25. This would trample on the U.S. Constitution, Federal Law, Civil Rights Laws and equality in placing favor on a “company that brings their entertainment to the masses” as opposed to the hard working immigrant US citizen whose rights were horribly violated in a manner which the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Federal Law and the United Nations condemns. 26. The U.S. Constitution deems all equal with the right to fair, impartial, unprejudiced access to the Court system, therefore utilizing such a basis to throw out a valid Copyright infringement case is unconstitutional. 27. Judge Marcia Cooke stated in her Ruling, “These allegations are nothing more than sensational accusations that bear no relationship to each other or the parties accused.” 28. However, the Judge has made no reference to the digital and physical evidence she has been presented with that ties all the Defendants to each other. 29. The Judge has made no reference to the fact that the alleged “sensational accusations that bear no relationship to each other or the parties accused,” were committed by “pop culture icon” Madonna and her publicly established music industry partners and business affiliates, who do bear “relationship to each other” and “the parties accused.” 30. The Court was presented with exhibits to support this, that showed the clear, irrefutable business ties among the Defendants, yet Judge Cooke made this statement that contradicts public, Defendant announced press releases, IRS, Division of Corporations and S.E.C. records attesting to the Defendants irrefutable business ties. Case Dismissed On Judge’s Opinion of the “pop culture icon” Defendants and Not Experts in each field 31. Judge Marcia Cooke via her Ruling autocratically became, Judge, Jury, Musicologist, expert music transcriber and analyst, expert music witness, expert computer scientist, expert computer security technician and expert surveillance security technician in briefly analyzing and summarily tossing out a case in two days that requires testimony of a musicologist, expert music transcriber and analyst, expert music witness, expert computer scientist, expert computer security technician and expert surveillance security technicians. 32. The Plaintiff was under the impression that the purpose of a Complaint was to list the wrongs committed that violate U.S. Law and it was up to a Jury to decide the truth not a star struck judge referring to “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses.” 33. A case is not supposed to be subject to a judge’s personal belief of guilt or innocence based on “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” or the judge’s opinionized probability of a Complaint being true or not. 34. That is commonly known as prejudice – something a judge should never be. A case is supposed to be based on the facts, evidence and testimony. Not a judge’s prejudiced opinion of the likelihood famous people broke the law. The law was never based on such stargazing reasoning. History has shown many famous people have broken the law. Therefore, how can one equate fame with innocence, when so many celebrities have been arrested, tried and jailed for numerous crimes against innocent members of the public whose constitutional rights were violated by said celebrities? 35. The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial for the case to be tried by a Jury not a Judge fawning over “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses,” one of whom, Madonna, choked a child, 10 year old Keith Sorrentino of Long Island, and additionally choked the son of “pop culture icon” Dick Clark. 36. Judge Marcia Cooke has tossed out a Federal Copyright Infringement case based on her opinion of “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” when the Court system reflects said “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” have been found guilty in other cases of the same allegations the Plaintiff has made against them. Unpassed Laws? 37. “To provide the Court with some legal bases for their claims, the Plaintiffs also refer to a series of statutes that have allegedly been violated. Some of these statutes are known to the Court and others remain to be conceived of, passed by the legislative branch of government, and sign into law by the President of the United States.” – Marcia Cooke stated regarding Aisha v. Madonna. 38. The Plaintiff is unsure of whether or not the Judge was being sarcastic in her ruling, as each of the Complaint’s cited “Laws Violated In Which The Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Relief” are established laws that other American Citizens have filed suit under as their basis for relief. 39. Once again, Judge Cooke failed to cite which of the laws the Plaintiff made reference to, “remain to be conceived of, passed by the legislative branch of government, and sign into law by the President of the United States.” 40. The Plaintiff sued under established U.S. laws and U.N. laws the United States is sworn to uphold as a member of the United Nations. Other litigants have sued citing these laws, therefore why is the Plaintiff openly being discriminated against in being told she is not entitled to relief for the Defendants’ violation of the following laws: 1. Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 101 41. It was the Plaintiff’s understanding that as a U.S. citizen it is her right to have her case heard, not a privilege based on the determination of a star struck judge. Why is the Plaintiff being deprived of her Constitutional rights. 42. “Not one sentence contained therein demonstrates that the Plaintiffs have been injured and are entitled to some relief.” – Marcia Cooke stated regarding Aisha v. Madonna. 43. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendants willfully infringed millions of dollars of copyrighted works belonging to the Plaintiff, who copyrighted these works years before the Defendants infringed them. The Plaintiff additionally listed the items infringed and their corresponding Copyright registration numbers, as has been done in other accepted Federal Copyright infringement cases. How is that, “Not one sentence contained therein demonstrates that the Plaintiffs have been injured and are entitled to some relief.” 44. This is a Federal court. How is stating a claim for Copyright infringement, a willful violation of Federal law, in a Federal court, not grounds for relief. The Plaintiff’s Companies Are Not Corporations 45. “It is a well settled principle of law that a corporation cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel.” – Marcia Cooke stated regarding Aisha v. Madonna. 46. The Plaintiff’s businesses Judge Marcia Cooke referred to are not “corporations.” “Sonustar” is a sole proprietorship and “Aisha Kamilah Music (ASCAP)” is solely an ASCAP name title granted for the Plaintiff’s music publishing rights, as they collect royalties for it on a sole proprietorship type basis with all taxes to be paid through the Plaintiff’s designated social security number. There are no corporate or corporation styled attachment entities. 47.The Plaintiff understood the word “corporation” to mean a business incorporated bearing the “inc” or “incorporated” title signifiers. Aisha Kamilah Music (ASCAP) and Sonustar are not “corporations.” Sonustar is a “sole proprietorship” which the State of Florida does not recognize as a “Corporation.” 48. Judge Altonaga’s first admonishment stated “corporations” needed to be represented by licensed legal counsel. It did not state sole proprietorships. 49. The Plaintiff was not being disobedient, but following Florida Law and the Descriptions assigned by the State governing local businesses. 50. The IRS also defines a sole proprietorship as, “An unincorporated business that is owned by one individual. It is the simplest form of business organization to start and maintain. The business has no existence apart from you, the owner. Its liabilities are your personal liabilities. You undertake the risks of the business for all assets owned, whether used in the business or personally owned” Page Two of “ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION IN SERVING DEFENDANTS” missing 51. The Plaintiff was sent a copy of the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION IN SERVING DEFENDANTS one page short. Page 1 states “Page 1 of 2” but no page 2 was included in the mailing sent to the Plaintiff. Case Entered Into Court System Incorrectly 52. It has come to the Plaintiff’s attention that there is an error in how the lawsuit Aisha vs. Madonna has been entered into the Court’s computers. It is listed under “Madoona” with two o’s instead of “Madonna” with one “o.” 53. The Plaintiff did not file the case with the spelling error of “Madoona” with two o’s instead of “Madonna” with one “o” - see exhibit A. 54. People searching for the case by the name “Madonna” will not be able to find it. Though the lawsuit is on the internet on the Plaintiff’s web site and republished and linked on numerous other international web sites, for search purposes, public record, court reference and archiving, this error should be corrected. --- United Nations Treaties 58. The Court is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. To do anything less is treason to the Citizens of the United States and the Constitution. 59. The Plaintiff brought a valid Federal Copyright infringement case that should not be subject to anyone’s prejudices, opinions or preconceived notions. It is subject to the Law and the Constitution. 60. To dismiss the Plaintiff’s case that has willful violations of numerous U.S. Federal laws and U.N. treaties will place the Court in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution and U.N. Treaties and the United States in willful violation of U.N. treaties. 61. The Plaintiff is entitled to have her valid case heard, as she has met the criteria for having her case heard. To deprive her of this right is a willful violation of the U.S. Constitution and U.N. laws. 62. The law is the law. It is not subject, captive or servant to anyone’s prejudices, view on celebrities, “pop culture icons” or any other personal interpretations thereof. The Defendants have willfully violated several Federal laws and it is the Court’s duty to hear the case. Justice Is Blind ... 64. If one were to use such a basis and premise for deciding a legal case as was done here, should that not swing the odds in the other direction in that there is a long, established case history of this misconduct by the Defendants. 65. The Plaintiff has loved this country since she was a child. She has defended it to verbal enemies and sought to make it better. The Plaintiff understands that the Judge may feel prejudice against her for requesting the recusal of her colleague, Cecilia Altonaga, but to commit treason against the United States Constitution, U.S. law and U.S. citizens in throwing out a valid Copyright Infringement case with irrefutable digital evidence is unconstitutional and un-American. Eyes Of The World Are Watching This Case 66. The eyes of the world are on this case. It is being referenced worldwide. What will it say of the U.S. Judicial System to the watching world that a Copyright Infringement and Invasion of Privacy case with so much credible, digital, irrefutable evidence that scores of people watched unfold via the internet right before their very eyes was willfully tossed out of court by a U.S. Federal Judge whose ruling contained sarcasm, legal errors, clear favoritism to the Defendants who she fawningly referred to as “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring entertainment to the masses.” It will reinforce every negative world media stereotype of America. 67. And what message does that send to the American public who are also watching this case – many of whom have had their Copyrights willfully violated by these very same Defendants in their quest for ill-gotten wealth and have made reference to the case Aisha v. Madonna in citing problems they themselves are experiencing. 68. The message it will send is if your rights are violated by “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” you have no Constitutional rights and your case will summarily be tossed out of court by a Judge, within a couple days of receiving it (Assigned the case on the 16th of December, delivered to said judge on the 19th of December and dismissed by the 21st of December, just in time for Christmas), as the “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” could not have possibly done what they have been accused of by a nobody. And “Pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” desire to criminally gain ill gotten revenue in violation of SEC laws trumps your Constitutional right as a U.S. citizen and member of the human race, assigned rights by the United Nations. 69. That is not the America the Plaintiff knows. In the America the Plaintiff knows, people have rights. The Constitution and U.S. Federal Law are enforced. People are not arbitrarily deprived of their Constitutional right to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers. People are patriotic and kind. The government is impartial in its pursuit of justice. The famous and the unknown are treated with equality, dignity and respect in Court. People are not verbally abused by a Judge presiding over a case the law forbids them to preside over based on a gross conflict of interest that violates the Federal “Judge’s Cannon of Ethics.” People do not have their credible cases summarily tossed out by a Judge prejudicially influenced by the “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” Defendants, evidenced by her written statements – who ironically have been found guilty in other cases of the very crimes the Plaintiff has formally accused them of - not just nationally, but internationally. That is not the America the Plaintiff knows. That is a judicial autocracy, which the Constitution forbids and condemns, as America is a democracy, not a Judge autocracized dictatorship. Unconstitutionality of Judge Cooke’s Decision 70. Judge Cooke failed to show the Constitutionality of her ruling in summarily dismissing a jury trial demanded Federal Copyright Infringement case, very similar in layout, style and format to other Copyright Infringement cases accepted by other Federal Courts around the country, that also contains digital and physical evidence to support said Complaint. Why is it other Plaintiffs have submitted similar cases with similar charges to other Federal Courts and they weren’t dismissed; yet the Plaintiff’s case has been dismissed? 71. The plaintiff stated her claim in numbered paragraphs. The Plaintiff stated the US laws violated. The Plaintiff stated subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff stated which laws the defendants have broken. The Plaintiff stated her prayer for relief 72. In essence, the Judge’s ruling is saying based on her opinion and not the Law, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief in Federal court, for the Defendants willfully violating her Federally assigned Copyrights. 73. The Plaintiff has clearly stated her BACKGROUND, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE, LAWS VIOLATED IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF, CAUSE OF ACTION, PRECEDENT FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY VIA HACKING SET BY DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S COPYRIGHTS WILLFULLY VIOLATED (COPYRIGHT OFFICE REGISTRATION NUMBERS, INJUNCTION, FORTHCOMING INFRINGING WORKS, COUNTS and PRAYER FOR RELIEF as other accepted Federal cases did – yet it has been tossed on Judge Cooke’s prejudicial opinion of “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses.” 74. Why have the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights been torn up and tossed away by Judge Cooke in a ruling containing legal errors and unsubstantiated allegations against the Plaintiff that the Judge refused to cite examples of that are allegedly contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 75. The entire ruling is Judge Cooke’s opinion and view of “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” and not based in the Constitution or Federal Law. 76. No where in the Constitution or in Federal Law does it grant a judge the right to summarily toss out a case with Federal Copyright Infringement violations based on her clearly prejudicial opinion against a nobody Plaintiff in favor of “pop culture icons” and “companies that bring their entertainment to the masses” who have been found guilty in other cases of the very things the Plaintiff has formally accused them of. 77. Judge Marcia Cooke committed substantial errors and her orders must be reversed, as it violated the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights and is dishonoring the Plaintiff’s Federally assigned copyrights and U.N. assigned rights. Dated: January 4, 2006 Judge Cecilia Altonaga Judge Cecilia Altonaga was the first judge who was assigned my lawsuit. After the first hearing with her presiding, I lost all confidence in the judicial system, due to unprovoked verbal abuse, slander, her interrogating me like I was the accused, her trying to send a Copyright case to State court, when it is an establish principle that the Court she works for, has undeniable Federal jurisdiction over Copyright cases, and her presiding over a case, my case, the Judicial Cannons forbade her to (and it is my belief that she knew of the conflict of interest. In this case, if I knew, she should have). Apparently I am not the only one questioning her poor judgment
and inability to discern the truth. Days later an article appeared in the New
York Sun on Judge Cecilia Altonaga granted the approval despite objections from several law firms and a prominent New York law professor, all of whom argued that the deal was unfair and may have been the product of collusion between the company and plaintiffs' attorneys. The deal would end at least 10 class action lawsuits American Express was facing over its handling of foreign currency transactions. The move to settle all the claims before Judge Altonaga drew the ire of attorneys involved in some of the suits. The objecting lawyers said the New York firm that cut the deal with American Express, Garwin, Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher, was focused on the 1% to 2% service fee to cardholders - or "members," as American Express calls them - and knew little about the other allegations. The lawyers attacking the deal, who also have a financial interest in keeping their own cases alive, hired a law professor, Samuel Isaacharoff, to weigh in against the settlement. Mr. Isaacharoff, who recently decamped to New York University from Columbia, called the negotiations that led to the deal "whipsawed." "The
most striking and disturbing feature of the present proposed settlement is that
the release reaches claims that were never pleaded in the underlying action and
were negotiated away without any effort to assess their value," the
professor wrote in a declaration filed with the court. He expressed concern that
the company might be seeking "to buy peace by cutting a deal with the weakest
potential class counsel, there by offering a windfall to lawyers who had no
leverage in the case, other than the willingness to settle cheap." Judge Altonaga, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2003, said one factor in her decision to accept the settlement was that the claims asserted in all the lawsuits were "weak" and that the company's defenses "present a significant hurdle to any potential recovery." One of the attorneys who asked Judge Altonaga to reject the deal, David Stellings, said he plans to file an appeal. That is likely to delay any distribution of the settlement fund for a year or more. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Isaacharoff said he disagreed with Judge Altonaga's decision. He said he continues to believe the entire array of foreign-transaction cases against American Express may have been worth a lot more than $75 million, a figure he described as the product of "a gestalt assessment." A law professor said that. There was an article I read and cited in my motion to recuse her as the original judge over my case. The last lines had to do with her possibly becoming a Supreme Court justice one day. It is my literal prayer to God above that she never
becomes a Supreme Court Justice as she is now, after what I witnessed from her firsthand in the
court room i.e., unprovoked verbal abuse, arrogance,
Copyright Infringer/Plagiarist Katherine Fugate A/K/A, K-Fug “Valentine’s Day” – a planned Warner Bros film criminally ripped off by a Defendant in my lawsuit, Katherine Fugate, another Madonna and Warner Bros affiliate, in which she is illegally and willfully using a Valentine’s Day film I wrote and copyrighted years before, even with the word “Valentine’s Day” in the title. She only dropped the last 3 words off the title of my film and is criminally using the same plot, characters and items listed in my already copyrighted script that she gained criminal access to. She is already a Defendant in the case with clear ties to Madonna and Warner Bros and continues to criminally use more of my already copyrighted work without permission. Your parents must be so proud that they bore a thieving, fraud like you that criminally rips off an indie writer and pathetically takes credit publicly for something she didn’t write. Your family must be so proud. Insurance What I found amazing at the court hearing two months ago is that Madonna has insurance for lawsuits. She should have been rendered uninsurable long ago, as she willfully and continually steals copyrighted works deliberately. There have been so many cases against her for this, and triple the number of public allegations of theft as well. She deliberately steals music, film and photo items from foreign artists and brings them back to America thinking none will be the wiser. Ever heard of the internet. All the news people try to hide gets distilled onto it for millions, sometimes billions to read. Jerry Bruckheimer
Jerry Bruckheimer, another Defendant in the case, works infringe copyrights, not just mine, and he's been sued for it already with "Pirates of the Caribbean." His works are highly derivative knock offs of existing copyrighted works. CSI:Miami is the new Miami Vice. He is working on a legal drama that sounds like a knock off of L.A. Law. His next movie project, the Prince of Persia, is a rip off of "The Mummy" "Set in 9th century medieval Persia, about a young adventurous prince who uncovers a dangerous artifact in a remote mountain kingdom and with the help of an enemy princess, must stop a despot from unleashing a sandstorm that could destroy all mankind." If you've seen "The Mummy" or its sequel, you'll recognize that as the plot. Bruckheimer tries so hard to be hip that it unintentionally becomes funny. His published alleged iPod list reveals this. Yes, Jerry, we know....you're hip, you're with it, you're cool, you're down...you're 60 years old and becoming a cliché of the aging Hollywood producer trying his best to be down with kids he clearly isn't in touch with, with a side order of the song "Pretty fly for a white guy." It's almost as bad as your partner Madonna dressing like a 21 year old and trying so hard to be hip. It is very undignified. People should age gracefully and with dignity. "Oldfrapp" It's because of such conduct, coupled with thieving that fans of the band Goldfrapp have renamed the thieving Madonna "Oldfrapp" for ripping off the band, whose lead singer is much younger than she. Pellicano Wiretap Case
Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields - Some people think something is bugging Madonna's lawyer, Bert Fields (get it, bugging - wiretap case). Field's has also represented Bruckheimer's company/his partner. Many believe a blind item in the New York Post which stated, "Which hard-nosed power lawyer is quaking in his hand-stitched loafers about a looming indictment that could land him behind bars for years" refers to him. - Aisha having a thinking moment - "hand-stitched loafers?" - you think he got them at Payless? Kidding. Fields is in his 70's and at his age he doesn't want to star in Brokeback Prison.
Bert Fields - employed Anthony Pellicano many times
Fields is once again mentioned in the Anthony Pellicano
wiretap case that produced two arrests this month.
"It's like a rollout in the movie business," said former Pellicano defense lawyer Victor Sherman, comparing the Carradine and Stevens charges to the way some movies are premiered. "You know, they start small in 10 theaters, then later they'll go wide in 1,000." Said lawyer Peter Knecht, who represents Sandra Carradine: "It's going to hit the fan soon." Prominent entertainment lawyer Bert Fields is one of the names that has been linked to the investigation. Actor Garry Shandling acknowledged to The New York Times in 2003 that FBI agents informed him some of his telephone conversations had been recorded. In the late 1990s, Shandling was in a court battle with his former manager, Brad Grey, who is now president of Paramount Motion Pictures Group. Fields was Grey's lawyer. He said Pellicano taped the telephone conversation that ultimately implicated Carradine. "He was like Richard Nixon; he forgot he was taping himself, too," Knecht said. - Sign On San Diego Confessions Flopped According to Reuters, "Music biz blues: hot new releases burn out, Tue Jan 3, 2006 2:33 AM ET "Confessions on a Dance Floor," Madonna's much-trumpeted return to dance music, hit No. 1 in November behind a 350,000-unit debut stanza. But immediate freefall ensued: The album fell 39% in its second week and 49% in its third. " Funny Article A funny article I saw in the Miami Times the other day made me laugh. The title that provoked the laughter was, "This used to be Madonna's playground, but it's time for her to get off the swing." It was written by Jean Carey and chronicled Madonna's desperate, derivative attempts at trying to stay relevant, ripping off younger stars and urging her to retire. Madonna Copying "Pimp My Ride" "MADONNA is such a fan of the popular MTV series Pimp My Ride that she plans to copy the car makeover concept for her new music video. - Electric New Paper, Singapore" There's that word copy again. That's all she seems to do. Copy t |
