Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Television

      Bill Cosby Is Sued; Woman Says He Sexually Assaulted Her in 1990

      by

      The suit was filed under a change in New Jersey law that extended the deadline to sue in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.A woman sued Bill Cosby in New Jersey on Thursday, accusing the entertainer of drugging and sexually assaulting her at a hotel in Atlantic City in 1990, when she was 26.The woman, Lili Bernard, now 57, an actor and visual artist, has long been public about her accusations against Mr. Cosby. She was able to file the suit because New Jersey overhauled its laws on the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases in 2019.Under the old laws, Ms. Bernard would have been time-barred from filing suit because lawsuits had to be filed within two years of the alleged assault. The reforms extended the time limit to seven years and created a special two-year window, ending next month, to bring cases regardless of how long ago the alleged assault might have occurred.Ms. Bernard, a former guest star on “The Cosby Show,” said in court papers that Mr. Cosby had acted as her mentor before an incident in which she said he drugged and raped her at the hotel, the Trump Taj Mahal. She began to feel dizzy after drinking something he gave her, she said in the court papers.“I have waited a long time to be able to pursue my case in court and I look forward to being heard and to hold Cosby accountable for what he did to me,” she said in a statement. “Although it occurred long ago, I still live with the fear, pain and shame every day of my life.”The suit comes more than three months after Mr. Cosby, 84, was freed from prison in Pennsylvania where he was serving a three-to-10-year prison sentence after being convicted of sexually assaulting another woman, Andrea Constand. The 2018 conviction was overturned by the state’s Supreme Court on due process grounds.In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, denied Ms. Bernard’s allegations and attacked the so-called “look back” reforms.“These look back provisions are unconstitutional and they are a sheer violation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights and denies that individual of their Due Process,” he said in a statement. “This is just another attempt to abuse the legal process, by opening up the flood gates for people, who never presented an ounce of evidence, proof, truth and/or facts, in order to substantiate their alleged allegations.”The suit against Bill Cosby was based on a change in New Jersey law that expanded the statute of limitations governing lawsuits in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.Dominick Reuter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Wyatt said that in 2015 Ms. Bernard had made a criminal complaint to the New Jersey authorities who decided against moving forward with the case. Lawyers for Ms. Bernard said she was told her complaint fell outside the criminal statute of limitations.New Jersey eliminated the criminal statute of limitations for most cases of sexual assault in 1996.More than 50 women have accused Mr. Cosby of a range of sexual assault and misconduct, including rape. Ms. Constand’s case was the only one that proceeded criminally and other women have said their efforts to sue Mr. Cosby on sexual assault grounds have been blocked by statutes of limitation.Ms. Bernard had lobbied for changes in California’s laws on sexual assault, joining legislative efforts by other women who had similarly accused Mr. Cosby. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      Clint Eastwood Wins $6.1 Million CBD Lawsuit

      by

      The Academy Award-winning director accused a Lithuanian company of falsely claiming that he had endorsed CBD products.The actor Clint Eastwood and Garrapata, the company that owns the rights to his likeness, were awarded $6.1 million on Friday in a lawsuit they had filed against a Lithuanian company that was accused of using Mr. Eastwood’s image and likeness to make it appear as though he was endorsing their products.Last year, Mr. Eastwood filed two lawsuits in federal court in Los Angeles against three CBD manufacturers and marketers whose products were featured in an online article falsely claiming that he endorsed CBD products, as well as 10 online retailers who he accused of manipulating search results through meta tags. (CBD is cannabidiol, a nonintoxicating compound in the cannabis sativa plant.)According to the first lawsuit, the online article contained a fake interview with an outlet meant to resemble the “Today” show. It included a photo of Mr. Eastwood from an actual appearance on “Today,” as well as links to buy the items.“Mr. Eastwood has no connection of any kind whatsoever to any CBD products and never gave such an interview,” the court documents said.The judge, R. Gary Klausner of United States District Court for the Central District of California, entered a default judgment after Mediatonas UAB, the company that published a fabricated interview with Mr. Eastwood, failed to respond to a summons in March. Mr. Eastwood and Garrapata were then awarded $6 million based on the company’s unauthorized use of his name and likeness, along with about $95,000 in attorneys’ fees and a permanent injunction that blocks future use of his name and likeness.“In pursuing this case, and obtaining this judgment, Mr. Eastwood has again demonstrated a willingness to confront wrongdoing and hold accountable those who try to illegally profit off his name, likeness, and goodwill,” said Jordan Susman, a lawyer for Mr. Eastwood, in a statement.Mediatonas UAB could not be reached for comment.Mr. Eastwood, 91, who recently starred in and directed “Cry Macho,” has enjoyed a lengthy Hollywood career that has ranged from inhabiting tough-guy roles (“Dirty Harry”) to directing dramas like “Million Dollar Baby” (2004), which won best picture at the 2005 Academy Awards.The original complaint, filed in July 2020, named as defendants the companies whose products were being advertised in the article. In February, Mr. Eastwood’s lawyers filed an amended complaint against Mediatonas UAB, the company that owns the websites where the false stories appear.While the court agreed that Mr. Eastwood and Garrapata were entitled to damages for the unauthorized use of his name and likeness, it declined to grant their full request, which also accounted for defamation claims.“It requires additional context to understand what CBD products are and why a person like Clint Eastwood would not endorse a marijuana-based product,” the judge wrote, adding that the language used “was not libelous on its face.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Music

      At Britney Spears’s Hearing, This Twitter Feed Scooped the World

      by

      With a deft plan, @BritneyLawArmy kept everyone outside the courtroom abreast of developments in a crucial moment in the singer’s conservatorship.LOS ANGELES — More than 50 members of the media took their seats Wednesday afternoon in Courtroom 217 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse here, all agreeing to abide by restrictions set by the court to govern a highly anticipated hearing regarding the conservatorship that controls Britney Spears’s life.No laptops in the courtroom. No phones visible during the proceedings. No attempts in real time to communicate with others outside the courtroom. Violators would be swiftly ejected.For those anxious to witness and understand whether Ms. Spears’s father would be removed as her conservator, as the singer had asked, it appeared the afternoon would be a frustratingly long wait to hear what had happened inside.But, then, just minutes after the Los Angeles Superior Court clerk finished his roll call, snippets, seemingly from inside the room, began trickling out on the @BritneyLawArmy Twitter account.For the next hour, the Twitter feed became a source of real-time information during the pivotal hearing, tracked both by mystified media outlets unable to talk to their own reporters inside and hundreds of Free Britney fans outside.How did they manage to pull it off?In interviews Thursday, members of the Britney Law Army described how the group, five friends all committed to seeing Ms. Spears enjoy freedom, plotted their judicial Ocean’s 11: a well-orchestrated “buddy system” that allowed them to disseminate as much information as quickly as possible without running afoul of the court’s very strict rules.“It definitely would not have worked without all five of us,” said Marilyn Shrewsbury, 32, a lawyer who focuses on civil rights cases in Louisville, Ky.The army, consisting of Ms. Shrewsbury; two other lawyers, Angela Rojas, 30, and Samuel Nicholson, 30; a legal assistant, Raven Koontz, 23; and Emily Lagarenne, a 34-year-old recruiting consultant, all from in and about Louisville, had flown into Los Angeles on Tuesday. That evening they sat outside, planning final logistics as they ate street tacos, drank beer and chain smoked.Britney’s Law Army, from left: Raven Koontz, Angela Rojas, Marilyn Linsey Shrewsbury, Samuel Nicholson and Emily Lagarenne.Laura Partain for The New York Times“We are from Kentucky,” Ms. Shrewsbury said.All four women identify as lifelong Britney fans, but Mr. Nicholson was the driving force.“From a civil rights litigation perspective, Sam really sparked my interest,” Ms. Shrewsbury said.The New York Times documentary “Framing Britney Spears” galvanized the group to rectify what they saw as a lack of consistent information available to the public about what they described as Ms. Spears’s “horrific treatment” inside the conservatorship.On Wednesday, they arrived at the entrance to the courtroom at 7:30 a.m. in hopes of securing five of the 11 seats allotted to members of the public on a first come first served basis. Another 54 seats had been reserved for members of the media. Only one person, a New York Times reporter, arrived before them.At 11 a.m. they were given red raffle tickets that ensured them spots in the courtroom when the hearing began at 1:30 p.m. Members of the public were told they would have to turn off their phones in front of deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and then put them in magnetic locked bags, which could be opened when they left.“I’ve never been so nervous for a court hearing I wasn’t an attorney on,” Mr. Nicholson said.The plan: Each of the five would take copious notes, leave the hearing one at a time, in 15-minute intervals, get their phones out of the bags and tweet out as much as possible, as quickly as possible.The one hiccup:“We were in the worst spot in the courtroom,” Mr. Nicholson recalled. “Far right corner, not anywhere near the aisle at all. The clerk obscured our view.”Some of them couldn’t see the judge or the screen for remote appearances. It didn’t matter. The doors closed, and the plan went into action.Mr. Nicholson, measuring time on his watch, cued the others one at a time to run out of the courtroom. Information flowed, and followers hung on every word.After an hour or so, Mr. Nicholson was the only Army member in the room. Judge Brenda Penny announced her ruling: Mr. Spears would be suspended as conservator of the estate, effective immediately. Reporters tried to leave the room to report the news to the outside world, but Judge Penny stopped them, saying she would let everyone out for a recess shortly.Mr. Nicholson couldn’t leave either. His phone stayed locked up. The feed went dark. Out on the street, over one hundred #FreeBritney protesters waited in near silence. Ms. Shrewsbury and Ms. Rojas joined Ms. Koontz and Ms. Lagarenne outside.When Judge Penny released the courtroom, the tweets started flying.“Judge Penny: My order suspending Jamie Spears shall remain in full force and effect until a hearing on removal,” Mr. Nicholson wrote.The other four members of the Army were with the crowd as it erupted.“Literally the moment Sam tweeted Jamie was suspended, everyone started screaming about it,” Ms. Shrewsbury said. “We were in shock for a full 45 seconds.”Julia Jacobs contributed reporting. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Music

      The Surveillance Apparatus That Surrounded Britney Spears

      by

      An account by a former employee of the security team hired by Ms. Spears’s father created the most detailed portrait yet of the singer’s life under 13 years of conservatorship.Britney Spears’s father and the security firm he hired to protect her ran an intense surveillance apparatus that monitored her communications and secretly captured audio recordings from her bedroom, including her interactions and conversations with her boyfriend and children, according to a former employee of the security firm.Alex Vlasov, the employee, supported his claims with emails, text messages and audio recordings he was privy to in his nine years as an executive assistant and operations and cybersecurity manager for Black Box, the security firm. He came forward for a new documentary by The New York Times, “Controlling Britney Spears,” which was released on Friday.Recording conversations in a private place and mirroring text messages without the consent of both parties can be a violation of the law. It is unclear if the court overseeing Ms. Spears’s conservatorship was aware of or had approved the surveillance. Mr. Vlasov’s account, and his trove of materials, create the most detailed portrait yet of what Ms. Spears’s life has been like under the conservatorship for the past 13 years. Mr. Vlasov said the relentless surveillance operation had helped several people linked to the conservatorship — primarily her father, James P. Spears — control nearly every aspect of her life.“It really reminded me of somebody that was in prison,” said Mr. Vlasov, 30. “And security was put in a position to be the prison guards essentially.”In response to detailed questions from The Times, a lawyer for Mr. Spears issued a statement: “All of his actions were well within the parameters of the authority conferred upon him by the court. His actions were done with the knowledge and consent of Britney, her court-appointed attorney, and/or the court. Jamie’s record as conservator — and the court’s approval of his actions — speak for themselves.”Alex Vlasov, a former employee of Black Box Security, decided to share his information after hearing Ms. Spears’s speech to the court in June. He said a surveillance operation had helped several people linked to the conservatorship control nearly every aspect of Ms. Spears’s life.Victor Tadashi SuarezEdan Yemini, the chief executive and founder of Black Box Security, also did not respond to detailed questions. In a statement, his lawyer said, “Mr. Yemini and Black Box have always conducted themselves within professional, ethical and legal bounds, and they are particularly proud of their work in keeping Ms. Spears safe for many years.”Ms. Spears’s lawyer, Mathew S. Rosengart, said in a statement: “Any unauthorized intercepting or monitoring of Britney’s communications — especially attorney-client communications, which are a sacrosanct part of the legal system — would represent a shameful violation of her privacy rights and a striking example of the deprivation of her civil liberties.”“Placing a listening device in Britney’s bedroom would be particularly inexcusable and disgraceful, and corroborates so much of her compelling, poignant testimony,” Mr. Rosengart said. “These actions must be fully and aggressively investigated.”Mr. Vlasov said his superiors had often told him that the severe surveillance measures were necessary to properly protect Ms. Spears and that she wanted to be in the conservatorship. He said he had felt compelled to share his information after hearing Ms. Spears’s comments to the court in June, when she excoriated the judicial system, her conservators and her managers. She called the arrangement abusive.Ms. Spears’s father, who is known as Jamie, was appointed conservator in 2008, shortly after Ms. Spears was twice taken to the hospital by ambulance for involuntary psychiatric evaluations amid a series of public struggles and concerns around her mental health and potential substance abuse. He was given broad control over her life and her estate, including the power to retain round-the-clock security for Ms. Spears.Mr. Spears and others involved in the conservatorship have insisted that it was a smooth-running operation that worked in the best interest of his daughter. But in the wake of Ms. Spears’s comments in court in June, the judge authorized her to choose her own lawyer, Mr. Rosengart, for the first time. Mr. Rosengart swiftly filed to remove Mr. Spears as the conservator of the singer’s estate. After consistently arguing that there were no grounds for his removal, Mr. Spears abruptly asked the court on Sept. 7 to consider whether to terminate the conservatorship entirely.Mr. Rosengart’s and Mr. Spears’s requests are expected to be considered at a hearing scheduled for Sept. 29.The security companyThe security team’s role has long been a mystery.Mr. Yemini, the Black Box Security founder, was born in Israel, and is described on a company website as having a background in the Israeli Special Forces. The Spears account helped Black Box grow from a tiny operation to a prominent player in the celebrity security industry. It counts the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey among its clients.Mr. Vlasov joined Black Box in 2012 as a 21-year-old college student, excited by the opportunity to master the security industry. He started as Mr. Yemini’s assistant and grew into a role that encompassed wide responsibilities over operations and digital management. “I did everything from write his messages, write his emails, to be on all phone conversations in order to take notes for him,” Mr. Vlasov said. “I was the only person at Black Box that knew everything, really.”He generally worked at Black Box’s office in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles and seldom saw Ms. Spears in person, he said. But through the surveillance apparatus and his close work with Mr. Yemini and his colleagues, Mr. Vlasov said, he had a uniquely comprehensive view of her life.Edan Yemini with Ms. Spears in 2009. Mr. Yemini is the chief executive and founder of Black Box Security.AlamyMr. Vlasov said that Ms. Spears’s phone had been monitored using a clever tech setup: The iCloud account on her phone was mirrored on an iPad and later on an iPod. Mr. Yemini would have Mr. Vlasov encrypt Ms. Spears’s digital communications captured on the iPad and the iPod to send to Mr. Spears and Robin Greenhill, an employee of Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, the former business manager for the singer’s estate.This arrangement allowed them to monitor all text messages, FaceTime calls, notes, browser history and photographs.“Her own phone and her own private conversations were used so often to control her,” Mr. Vlasov said.In response to questions about the surveillance operation, a lawyer for Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group said: “These allegations are not true. Ms. Greenhill was only involved in Ms. Spears’ security to the extent Ms. Spears requested her involvement, as well as Tri Star’s role of issuing the payments to the security company.” The lawyer did not respond to follow-up questions specifically asking whether Ms. Greenhill had ever received copies of or reports on the contents of Ms. Spears’s text communications.Mr. Vlasov said the reason Mr. Yemini had given for monitoring Ms. Spears’s phone was to protect her from harm and bad influences. But Mr. Spears monitored his daughter’s text-message conversations with her mother, her boyfriend, her close friends and even her court-appointed lawyer, according to screenshots of messages provided to The Times.Mr. Vlasov’s accounts of how Ms. Spears’s life was controlled by the security team were confirmed by others with firsthand knowledge of the conservatorship who requested anonymity. They said Ms. Spears essentially could not leave her home without the presence of security personnel, who would inform Mr. Yemini, Mr. Spears and Ms. Greenhill of the singer’s movements via group chat.Ms. Spears with her father in 2013. As part of the conservatorship, Mr. Spears was given broad control over his daughter’s life and her estate, including the power to retain round-the-clock security.RS-Jack/X17online.comAs conservator of the estate, Mr. Spears controls his 39-year-old daughter’s nearly $60 million fortune and has the authority to employ workers for her.Mr. Vlasov said Mr. Yemini and another Black Box employee had once given him a portable USB drive and asked him to delete the audio recordings on it.“I had them tell me what was on it,” Mr. Vlasov said. “They seemed very nervous and said that it was extremely sensitive, that nobody can ever know about this and that’s why I need to delete everything on it, so there’s no record of it. That raised so many red flags with me and I did not want to be complicit in whatever they were involved in, so I kept a copy, because I don’t want to delete evidence.”The drive, he discovered, contained audio recordings from a device that was secretly placed in Ms. Spears’s bedroom — more than 180 hours of recordings. Mr. Vlasov said he had thought the timing was curious because some of the recordings were made around the time that a court investigator visited Ms. Spears to perform a periodic review in September 2016.The New York Times reviewed the recordings to confirm their authenticity.When asked why he had continued working with Black Box despite harboring so many concerns, Mr. Vlasov said he had feared the amount of power Mr. Yemini and others had, and the possibility that they could damage his job prospects in the industry.After Ms. Spears’s impassioned remarks to the court in June, Mr. Vlasov said, his mind-set changed.Choosing to leave Black Box in April was the best decision of his life, he said, and he believes going public is the right thing to do. “I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow, but I’ve never regretted it,” he said.‘She did not want to be there’Ms. Spears spent time at a mental health treatment facility in 2019 — a stay that appears to have been a turning point in the conservatorship. Who exactly sent her there, for what reason and whether she went on her own volition are in dispute.Mr. Spears and others involved with the conservatorship have said that she consented to go to the facility and that she was aware that no one could force her to stay. Conservators are not allowed to force a conservatee into a mental health treatment facility against their will.“She did not want to be there,” Mr. Vlasov said. “I heard this from multiple people, including Robin and Jamie themselves when they would talk on the phone to Edan. I overheard multiple conversations where they knew Britney didn’t want to be there.”The Times obtained text messages that Ms. Spears had sent from the facility that said she felt she was there involuntarily and that she could not leave, noting that security personnel were at the door at all times. Ms. Spears told a judge later in 2019 that she had felt she was forced into the facility, according to a transcript of the closed-door hearing. She repeated that claim to the court publicly in June.Mr. Vlasov shared digital communication that showed how Ms. Spears, while in the facility, had tried to hire a new lawyer to replace her court-appointed lawyer — and that Mr. Spears and others had monitored that effort.Ms. Spears with Robin Greenhill, an employee of Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group. Mr. Vlasov said that Ms. Spears’s phone had been monitored using a clever tech setup: The iCloud account on her phone was mirrored on an iPad and an iPod.AlamyThe prospective lawyer asked Ms. Spears if he could come talk to her. Ms. Spears responded that she didn’t think the security personnel would let her see him. “They will say no for sure to me seeing a new lawyer on my side,” she said, and proposed that he tell the security personnel that he was a plumber instead. The lawyer declined that plan. “You have to be approved by the court before I hire you, but I don’t understand how can I know I want to hire you unless I meet with you first?” Ms. Spears wrote.“Yes, it’s a Catch-22 situation,” the lawyer said.In a text message sent a week after the initial exchange with the lawyer, Ms. Spears said that Mr. Spears had taken away her phone after finding out that she had been talking to a lawyer.The lawyer confirmed to The Times that the correspondence provided by Mr. Vlasov was accurate.Mr. Vlasov recalled that “one of the biggest ‘aha,’ red-flag moments” in his tenure at Black Box had happened in August 2020, when Ms. Spears’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, sent an email to Mr. Spears’s lawyers and Mr. Yemini asking for written confirmation that Ms. Spears’s new phone was not being monitored.“Ethically, I need to get written confirmation that no one other than my client can access her calls, voice-mail messages or texts directly or indirectly,” Mr. Ingham wrote in the email, which was reviewed by The Times.Geraldine Wyle, a lawyer for Mr. Spears, responded: “Jamie confirms that he has no access to her calls, voice-mail messages, or texts.”Ms. Spears in Paris for her “Piece of Me” tour in 2018. The following year, the singer spent time at a mental health treatment facility — a stay that appears to have been a turning point in the conservatorship.Marc Piasecki/Getty ImagesIn response to questions from The Times about the exchange, Ms. Wyle said, “Mr. Spears’ actions have always been proper, and in strict conformity with the law, and the orders of the Los Angeles Superior Court.”Mr. Ingham did not respond to requests for comment.Mr. Spears was particularly interested in Ms. Spears’s boyfriends, Mr. Vlasov said. The security team tailed her boyfriends in a continuing effort to look for incriminating behavior or other evidence that they might be a bad influence on Ms. Spears, he said.“There was an obsession with the men in Britney’s life,” Mr. Vlasov said.Her boyfriends were required to sign strict nondisclosure agreements, Mr. Vlasov said. An agreement signed in 2020 by her boyfriend at the time, Sam Asghari, who is now her fiancé, technically forbade him to post on social media about Ms. Spears without Mr. Spears’s prior written approval.In a confidential report by a court investigator that was obtained by The Times, the investigator wrote in 2016 that Ms. Spears had told her that she could not befriend people, especially men, without her father’s approval and that the men she wanted to date were “followed by private investigators to make sure their behaviors are acceptable to her father.”Mr. Vlasov said that Black Box Security had billed more than $100,000 in 2014 for investigating and surveilling Ms. Spears’s boyfriend at the time. The boyfriend, David Lucado, told The Times that he had been aware at the time that he was being followed by private investigators, and he said he had called 911 twice because of dangerous tailing situations. He said he believed he might have been more of a target because he was encouraging Ms. Spears to understand her legal rights under the conservatorship.‘Free Britney’ draws attentionAnother object of intense interest among those controlling Ms. Spears’s life, Mr. Vlasov said, was the so-called Free Britney movement, a growing cohort of fans that in recent years has brought heightened attention to the conservatorship case. Black Box Security sent investigators to infiltrate the group at a rally in April 2019 and to develop dossiers on some of the more active participants.“Undercover investigators were placed within the crowds to talk to fans to ID them, to document who they were,” Mr. Vlasov said. “It was all under the umbrella of ‘this is for Britney’s protection.’” He shared surveillance photographs with The Times that corresponded to photos posted by Free Britney participants that day.Megan Radford, a member of the so-called Free Britney movement, was classified as “a high risk due to her creation and sharing of information.”via Megan RadfordBlack Box prepared a “threat assessment report” dated July 2020 that included background information on several fans within the movement, including people who had popular podcasts and social media accounts like “Britney’s Gram,” “Eat, Pray, Britney,” “Lawyers for Britney” and Diet Prada. One activist, described as a young mother in Oklahoma, Megan Radford, was classified as “a high risk due to her creation and sharing of information.”An email from August 2020 sent by Mr. Yemini discussed the possibility of surveilling Kevin Wu, a fan who runs the prominent Twitter account Free Britney L.A.“They were extremely nervous, because they had zero control over the Free Britney movement and what’s going to come out of it,” Mr. Vlasov said.The fees for surveilling Ms. Spears’s boyfriend and the Free Britney participants, Mr. Vlasov said, were billed to Ms. Spears’s estate. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Music

      Britney Spears’s Father Files to End Her Conservatorship

      by

      In a new petition, lawyers for James P. Spears wrote that if the singer “believes that she can handle her own life, Mr. Spears believes that she should get that chance.”Britney Spears’s father, James P. Spears, who agreed earlier this summer to eventually step down from his own role in the conservatorship that has overseen her finances and controlled much of her life since 2008, filed a petition on Tuesday asking the court to “now seriously consider whether this conservatorship is no longer required.”The filing marked a turnaround for Mr. Spears, who long insisted that the guardianship — which was imposed 13 years ago amid concerns over the singer’s mental health and possible drug use — was in his daughter’s best interest. Last month, he said he would eventually step aside from his role overseeing the singer’s finances once there could be “an orderly transition to a new conservator,” but argued that he should not be immediately removed. Until now, he has not said that the conservatorship should end, something that Ms. Spears announced she wanted publicly for the first time in a June court hearing, when she called the arrangement “abusive.”“As Mr. Spears has said again and again, all he wants is what is best for his daughter,” Mr. Spears’s lawyer, Vivian Lee Thoreen, wrote in the new filing. “If Ms. Spears wants to terminate the conservatorship and believes that she can handle her own life, Mr. Spears believes that she should get that chance.”Ms. Spears, 39, has not yet filed her own formal petition to end the conservatorship; she has, however, asked the judge to remove her father as conservator of her estate. He has not served as her personal conservator since September 2019, when Jodi Montgomery, a licensed professional conservator, took over on an ongoing temporary basis.Mr. Spears’s lawyer wrote that Ms. Spears had recently “demonstrated a level of independence that calls into question whether a conservatorship of the person is required.” Ms. Thoreen cited news reports that the singer had been driving — something she had previously been unable to do under the strictures of the conservatorship — and that she had recently chosen her own counsel, Mathew S. Rosengart, a former federal prosecutor and Hollywood lawyer who took over as Ms. Spears’s representative in July. When the conservatorship began, Ms. Spears was found to be incapable of hiring her own counsel.“If Ms. Spears has the capacity and capability to engage counsel on her own, she presumably has capacity and capability to handle other contractual and business matters,” Ms. Thoreen wrote.In a statement, Mr. Rosengart called the filing “vindication” for Ms. Spears. “To the extent Mr. Spears believes he can try to avoid accountability and justice, including sitting for a sworn deposition and answering other discovery under oath, he is incorrect and our investigation into financial mismanagement and other issues will continue,” he said.As a movement among the singer’s fans known as #FreeBritney grew online, arguing that the conservatorship should end, Mr. Spears consistently defended his management of his daughter’s life. In the court filing, his lawyer again maintained that the arrangement “helped Ms. Spears get through a major life crisis, rehabilitate and advance her career, and put her finances and her affairs in order.”But, his lawyer wrote, the situation had changed when Ms. Spears spoke out fervently against the conservatorship. In June, Ms. Spears told the court that her father “loved” his control over her life and should be in jail for his actions as conservator. She has vowed not to perform as long as her father is in charge.As recently as last month, Mr. Spears had fought Ms. Spears’s efforts to remove him from the arrangement and sought to deflect blame for Ms. Spears’s complaints on other people with responsibilities, including Ms. Montgomery, who has opposed Mr. Spears’s continued involvement in the conservatorship.But in the new filing, Mr. Spears’s lawyer wrote that the singer should be able to choose her own doctor and manage her therapy. He also supported Ms. Spears’s request that the conservatorship end without a medical evaluation, which experts have said is unlikely.Over the years, Ms. Spears has raised questions about the fitness of her father to serve as her conservator, citing his struggles with alcoholism. Confidential court records obtained by The New York Times indicated that as early as 2014, she said that she wanted to explore removing her father as conservator; in 2016 the singer told an investigator that she wanted the arrangement terminated as soon as possible. She started publicly calling for its end in her rare public appearance in court in June, where she told the judge overseeing her case, “I just want my life back.”The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 29.Liz Day contributed reporting. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Music

      Why the Baby on Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ Album Is Suing Now

      by

      Spencer Elden, 30, says Nirvana engaged in child pornography when the band used a picture of him naked on the cover of the breakthrough album.Spencer Elden was 4 months old when he was photographed by a family friend in 1991 drifting naked in a pool.The picture, taken at the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center in Pasadena, Calif., would be used that year for the cover of “Nevermind,” Nirvana’s seminal second album that helped define Generation X and rocketed the Seattle band to international fame.In the decades that followed, Mr. Elden appeared to celebrate his part in the classic cover, recreating the moment for the album’s 10th, 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries, though not naked.“It’s cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember,” he said in 2016 in an interview with The New York Post, in which he posed holding the album cover at 25.Now, however, Mr. Elden, 30, has filed a federal lawsuit against the estate of Kurt Cobain, the musician’s former bandmates, David Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and Mr. Cobain’s widow, Courtney Love, among other parties. He claimed that they, along with Geffen Records, which released “Nevermind,” profited from his naked image. It is one of the best-selling records of all time, with at least 30 million copies sold worldwide.“Defendants knowingly produced, possessed, and advertised commercial child pornography depicting Spencer, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday in federal court in California.Mr. Elden suffered “permanent harm” because of his association with the album, including emotional distress and a “lifelong loss of income-earning capacity.” The lawsuit did not provide details about the losses and said they would be disclosed at trial.Mr. Elden, an artist living in Los Angeles County, has gone to therapy for years to work through how the album cover affected him, said Maggie Mabie, one of his lawyers.“He hasn’t met anyone who hasn’t seen his genitalia,” she said. “It’s a constant reminder that he has no privacy. His privacy is worthless to the world.”The lawsuit said that Mr. Elden is seeking $150,000 from each of the 15 people and companies named in the complaint, including Kurt Weddle, the photographer who took the picture. Mr. Weddle did not respond to messages requesting comment.The photo of Mr. Elden was picked from among dozens of pictures of babies Mr. Weddle photographed for the album cover, which Mr. Cobain envisioned showing a baby underwater.Mr. Weddle paid Mr. Elden’s parents $200 for the picture, which was later altered to show the baby chasing a dollar, dangling from a fishhook.“They were trying to create controversy because controversy sells,” Ms. Mabie said. “The point was not just to create a menacing image but to cross the line and they did so in a way that exposed Spencer so that they could profit off of it.”She said her client sometimes agreed when the band, media outlets and fans asked him to recreate the photo as an adult, but he eventually realized that this only resulted in the “image of him as a baby being further exploited.”The representatives for Mr. Cobain’s estate did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Representatives for Mr. Grohl, Ms. Love, and Geffen Records, which is now part of Universal Music Group, did not respond to messages.Mr. Elden, who declined to comment on his suit, said in a short documentary in 2015 that the album cover had “opened doors” for him. For example, he worked with Shepard Fairey, the artist who was sued by The Associated Press for using an image of Barack Obama for his piece “Hope.”Over the years, he has expressed ambivalence about the cover.“It’d be nice to have a quarter for every person that has seen my baby penis,” he said in a New York Post interview in 2016.In a different interview that year, he said he was angry that people still talked about it.“Recently I’ve been thinking, ‘What if I wasn’t OK with my freaking penis being shown to everybody?’ I didn’t really have a choice,” Mr. Elden said to GQ Australia.He said that his feelings about the cover began to change “just a few months ago, when I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show.”Mr. Elden said he was referred to managers and lawyers.“Why am I still on their cover if I’m not that big of a deal?” he said.Ms. Mabie said that Mr. Elden has long felt discomfort over the images and had expressed it in even earlier interviews when he was teenager.“Mr. Elden never consented to the use of this image or the display of these images,” she said. “Even though he recreated the images later on in life, he was clothed and he was an adult and these were very different circumstances.”Ms. Mabie said his parents never authorized consent for how the images would be used.She noted that Mr. Cobain once suggested putting a sticker over the baby’s genitals after there was pushback to the idea for the cover.The performer, who died in 1994, said the sticker should read: “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.”Mr. Elden is “asking for Nirvana to do what Nirvana should have done 30 years ago and redact the images of his genitalia from the album cover,” Ms. Mabie said.This lawsuit is not a typical child pornography case, said Mary Graw Leary, a professor at the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America.“Nudity of a child alone is not the definition of pornography,” she said. “The typical child pornography that is being seen in law enforcement and pursued in the courts can be violent. The children are young and it is very graphic.”But there are factors under federal law that allow a judge or a jury to determine whether a photo of a minor “constitutes a lascivious exhibition of the genitals,” including if they were the focal point of a photo, Professor Graw Leary said.That part of the law “gives a bit more discretion to the court,” she said. “It’s not a case with easy answers.”Mr. Elden’s past comments about the cover should not undermine his current claim that he was a victim of child pornography, she added. The law does not pick between children who immediately denounce their abusers and children who initially were dismissive about what happened to them, she said.“We don’t want to be in a position where we’re only going to consider one case criminal because in the other, the child didn’t think it was a big deal at the time,” Professor Graw Leary said. “We don’t only protect certain kids.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Music

      Nicki Minaj and Husband Sued, Accused of Harassing Sexual Assault Victim

      by

      Jennifer Hough said in a lawsuit filed in New York that the couple pressured her to recant her account of the rapper’s husband, Kenneth Petty, sexually assaulting her in 1994.A woman who accused the rapper Nicki Minaj’s husband, Kenneth Petty, of sexual assault during high school filed a lawsuit on Friday against the couple, alleging that they harassed and intimidated her while trying to convince her to recant her account.The case dates back to 1994, when Jennifer Hough, then 16, reported to the police that Mr. Petty — a 16-year-old she had known growing up in Jamaica, Queens — had raped her after leading her into a home at knife point, the lawsuit says. Mr. Petty was arrested that day and was charged with first-degree rape, and subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted rape, said Kim Livingston, a spokeswoman with the Queens district attorney’s office. He served about four and a half years in prison, according to inmate records.According to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Hough, 43, and her family members started to receive communications from people claiming to be connected with Ms. Minaj and Mr. Petty shortly after Mr. Petty was arrested last year for failing to register as a sex offender in California. The lawsuit alleges harassment and witness intimidation, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress by Ms. Minaj and Mr. Petty, and seeks unspecified damages. It also alleges sexual assault and battery against Mr. Petty, referring to the mid-90s case.A representative for Ms. Minaj did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Petty, Michael Goldstein, declined to comment on the lawsuit.The lawsuit says that an intermediary offered Ms. Hough $20,000 in exchange for signing a prepared statement recanting the accusation. At one point last year, the lawsuit says, Ms. Minaj called Ms. Hough, saying that she had heard Ms. Hough was willing to “help out”; days later, it says, Ms. Hough and her family members received an “onslaught of harassing calls and unsolicited visits” from people she believed to be associated with the couple.Ms. Hough “has not worked since May of 2020 due to severe depression, paranoia, constant moving, harassment and threats from the defendants and their associates,” the lawsuit says. “She is currently living in isolation out of fear of retaliation.”According to the lawsuit, Ms. Hough was on her way to school on Sept. 16, 1994, when she ran into Mr. Petty, a boy she knew from the neighborhood. The lawsuit says that Mr. Petty held a knife at her back as he led her to a house around the corner, where Ms. Hough said he raped her. The suit says that Ms. Hough escaped, ran to her high school and told security guards, who called the police.In an interview, Ms. Hough said that as her case was prosecuted, she faced harassment and retaliation in the neighborhood, prompting her family to force her to attend a court hearing for Mr. Petty and request that the charges be dropped — a request that was denied. At the time, the suit says, Mr. Petty had already accepted a plea deal.Ms. Hough said in an interview that she left New York City after the ordeal, and for years, it remained in the past: “I didn’t think it would be something that would come back and slap me in the face 20-something years later.”But in 2018, Ms. Minaj — a chart-topping rapper with a fiercely loyal social media following — posted about her relationship with Mr. Petty on Instagram, and questions about his status as a sex offender surfaced.Ms. Hough said in an interview that she had spoken to YouTube bloggers to defend herself and respond to an Instagram comment from Ms. Minaj that stated that Ms. Hough and Mr. Petty had been in a relationship at the time of the assault and that Mr. Petty was younger than Ms. Hough. (They were never in a relationship, and they were the same age, according to the lawsuit.)After Mr. Petty was arrested in 2020, Ms. Hough reconnected with a childhood friend from Queens, the lawsuit says, and told him she “wished it could all just go away forever.” Ms. Hough said that the friend replied, “I can make that happen.”The suit says that a few days later, the friend told Ms. Hough that Ms. Minaj had asked for her phone number, and the rapper later called her and offered to fly Ms. Hough out to Los Angeles or fly her publicist out to Ms. Hough; Ms. Hough said she declined and told the rapper, “I need you to know woman to woman, that this happened.”The lawsuit says there were then a series of encounters where Ms. Hough or her family members were offered inducements if she would recant: $500,000 at one point, $20,000 at another, with a proposed bonus that Ms. Minaj would send birthday videos to Ms. Hough’s daughter. Ms. Hough said she declined.Ms. Hough said in the interview that she never expressed interest in a bribe and was adamantly against recanting her story.“If I lie now and say that I lied then, you know what that does?” she said. “Do you know what that’s going to say to my two little girls, or even my sons?”Ms. Hough said in the interview that at one point she told the intermediary that the $500,000 offer was “not good enough.” She said she had been trying to deflect the conversation, not to express interest in a bribe. Tyrone Blackburn, a lawyer representing Ms. Hough, said Ms. Hough’s comment was an effort to dissuade the intermediary from thinking she would accept anything.At one point last fall, the suit says, Ms. Hough was contacted by a lawyer for Mr. Petty, who asked her about a recantation letter. In response to threatening calls and her own growing paranoia, the suit says that Ms. Hough moved three times in one year.“I feel like I’m living in secret,” she said in the interview, “like I can’t tell people my exact location.”Joe Coscarelli contributed reporting. Alain Delaqueriere contributed research. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Music

      Britney Spears's Father Says He Will Step Aside as Conservator

      by

      Lawyers for James P. Spears said he intended to work with the court to assure “an orderly transition to a new conservator,” while arguing that he should not be immediately removed.In an abrupt reversal after more than a year of fighting in court — and a much longer battle behind the scenes — Britney Spears’s father has agreed to eventually step aside from his long-running role overseeing the singer’s finances as part of the unique conservatorship that has governed her life since 2008.Ms. Spears has called the conservatorship abusive and said she is afraid of her father, James P. Spears, vowing not to perform as long as he remained in charge. A new lawyer for the singer recently filed in court to have Mr. Spears immediately suspended or removed from his position as conservator of her estate.Initially, Mr. Spears objected to the request and defended his work on behalf of his daughter. But in a new filing in Los Angeles probate court on Thursday, lawyers for Mr. Spears said that, while there were “no actual grounds for suspending or removing” Mr. Spears, he intended to work with the court to assure “an orderly transition to a new conservator.”The lawyers did not provide a timeline for the change, and they steadfastly maintained that Mr. Spears had “saved Ms. Spears from disaster, supported her when she needed it the most, protected her and her reputation from harm, and facilitated the restoration of her career.”“It is highly debatable whether a change in conservator at this time would be in Ms. Spears’ best interests,” the lawyers wrote. “Nevertheless, even as Mr. Spears is the unremitting target of unjustified attacks, he does not believe that a public battle with his daughter over his continuing service as her conservator would be in her best interests.”Mr. Spears’s lawyers said that there was “no urgent circumstances justifying Mr. Spears’ immediate suspension,” but that he would be in position to step aside after resolving outstanding matters including financial accounting for the conservatorship in recent years.The lawyers said that Mr. Spears had previously “been working on such a transition” with the singer’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, who stepped down in July after representing Ms. Spears since the arrangement began.Mathew S. Rosengart, a former federal prosecutor and Hollywood lawyer who took over as Ms. Spears’s representative last month, said in a statement, “We are pleased that Mr. Spears and his lawyer have today conceded in a filing that he must be removed.”Mr. Rosengart added: “We look forward to continuing our vigorous investigation into the conduct of Mr. Spears, and others, over the past 13 years, while he reaped millions of dollars from his daughter’s estate, and I look forward to taking Mr. Spears’s sworn deposition in the near future.” The lawyer also reiterated his call for Mr. Spears to “step aside immediately.”Mr. Spears, 69, first petitioned the probate court for legal authority over his daughter’s personal life and finances in early 2008, citing concerns about her mental health and potential substance abuse. By the end of that year, the arrangement, typically reserved for people who cannot take care of themselves, was made permanent.Since then, Mr. Spears has controlled his daughter’s finances, including an estate worth around $60 million, sometimes with a professional co-conservator. Recently, a wealth-management firm that was set to join the arrangement as co-conservator with Mr. Spears requested to withdraw, citing Ms. Spears’s objections to the guardianship. Mr. Rosengart requested last month that a certified public accountant in California, Jason Rubin, be named conservator of Ms. Spears’s estate.Mr. Spears had also largely overseen Ms. Spears’s personal and medical care until a personal conservator, Jodi Montgomery, took over in September 2019 on an ongoing temporary basis.For years, Ms. Spears, 39, bristled behind the scenes at the strictures of the conservatorship, calling her father and his oversight over her oppressive and unnecessary given her continued success as a musician, according to confidential court records recently obtained by The New York Times. The singer also raised questions about the fitness of her father — who has struggled with alcoholism and faced accusations of physical and verbal abuse — as conservator, and she began officially seeking substantial changes to the arrangement in court last summer.But the urgency of Ms. Spears’s requests ratcheted up in June, when the singer publicly addressed the conservatorship in detail for the first time, calling in court for it to end and singling out her father as “the one who approved all of it.” The singer said that those in charge “should be in jail.”On Thursday, Mr. Spears said he would step down “when the time is right.” But in their largely defiant filing, his lawyers also criticized Mr. Rosengart for what they called his failure to “review the history of this conservatorship in order to understand factually what has actually occurred” or to “resolve matters cooperatively” in the weeks since he took over the case, noting that he had not yet been given full access to the court files.“If the public knew all the facts of Ms. Spears’ personal life,” lawyers for her father wrote, “not only her highs but also her lows, all of the addiction and mental health issues that she has struggled with, and all of the challenges of the Conservatorship, they would praise Mr. Spears for the job he has done, not vilify him. But the public does not know all the facts, and they have no right to know, so there will be no public redemption for Mr. Spears.”Mr. Spears also dedicated more than half of the 13-page filing to targeting his ex-wife and Ms. Spears’s mother, Lynne Spears, who has recently supported the singer in court after years outside the periphery of the conservatorship. Lawyers for Mr. Spears accused her of not accepting “the full extent to which Ms. Spears has had addiction and mental health issues or the level of care and treatment she needs.”“Instead of criticizing Mr. Spears, Lynne should be thanking him for ensuring Ms. Spears’ well-being and for persevering through the years-long tenure requiring his 365/24/7 attention, long days and sometimes late nights, to deal with day-to-day and emergency issues,” the lawyers wrote.Gladstone N. Jones, a lawyer for Lynne Spears, said on Thursday that the singer’s mother was “pleased Jamie has agreed to step down,” adding, “Lynne entered into this conservatorship to protect her daughter almost three years ago. She has accomplished what she set out to do.”Mr. Spears’s lawyers said that “regardless of his formal title, Mr. Spears will always be Ms. Spears’ father, he will always love her unconditionally, and he will always look out for her best interests.”The next status hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 29. More