Home Celebrity Page 3

Celebrity

Must Read Facts Behind Charlie Sheen Arrested

Must Read Facts Behind Charlie Sheen ArrestedWho is Charlie Sheen?

Born Carlos Estevez, Charlie Sheen is an American television and film actor who is best known for his roles in Platoon, Major League, Wall Street, Hot Shots and the hit TV show Two and a Half Men. Charlie Sheen grew up in the spotlight; he is the youngest son of actor Martin Sheen and starred in, Platoon, an Oscar-winning film at the age of 20. Aside from his acting talents, Sheen’s personal life has also garnered the spotlight; the actor has had numerous struggles with alcohol, marital problems and drug abuse. For his mercurial nature, legal troubles and addictive personality, Charlie Sheen was fired from his starring role on CBS’ Two and a Half Me.

Charlie Sheen Arrested:

The majority of Charlie Sheen’s arrests and legal troubles have stemmed from the star’s addiction to alcohol and cocaine. Throughout the late 1980’s and the majority of the 90’s Sheen was in and out of court rooms and hospitals, as a result of his habitual drug and alcohol abuse. On May 20th, 1988, while on probation for possession of illegal drugs, Sheen overdosed on cocaine and was immediately rushed to the hospital. Just a few months later, in August, Charlie Sheen had his probation formally extended for an extra year and as requested by the California state court system, Sheen was forced to enter a rehabilitation clinic.

In December of 2009, Charlie Sheen, then 44 years of age, was arrested after an emergency call was received from a ski resort in Aspen, Colorado. Police on the scene stated that the Two and a Half Men sitcom star was suspected of assault and criminal mischief. Sheen, who was then married to Brooke Mueller, was accused of hitting his wife over an argument that took place around 3:30 AM on Christmas morning of 2009. Mrs. Mueller told police that the feud started in the couple’s bedroom and grew intense after her maniacal husband grabbed by the throat and presumably threatened her with a knife.

Charlie Sheen’s legal troubles continued into 2009, when the actor, following a drug binge, ransacked his hotel room at the Plaza in New York City. Capri Anderson, an adult film star, who had been partying with Sheen in the room that night, filed a police report with the NYPD accusing Sheen of assault and batters, as well as false imprisonment. After an investigation and a review of witness testimonials the charges against Sheen were ultimately dropped; however, the star is no longer welcome in the Plaza hotel. Sheen’s laundry list of charges and legal troubles was the deciding factor in firing from the insanely CBS sitcom.

Bela Lugosi

Bela Lugosi

 


Bela Lugosi was a Hungarian-born actor most associated with his role as Count Dracula in the 1931 film "Dracula." Ten years after his death in 1956, the heirs of Bela Lugosi filed a lawsuit against Universal Pictures, the company which made "Dracula." The lawsuit alleged that Universal was profiting from and exploiting the image and likeness of Bela Lugosi for profits which should have been inherited and shared with theirs. The resolution of the lawsuit hinged upon the question of whether or not the contracts which Bela Lugosi had signed with Universal Pictures granted the corporation the right to use his likeness and portrayal of Dracula for profit without the involvement of his heirs.

 

The lawsuit did not receive a hearing and resolution until 1979. At this time, the lawsuit had developed into a request for an injunction against Universal Pictures to force the company to cease manufacturing 70 different product which made use of imagery of Bela Lugosi as Dracula. The lawsuit also called on the court to order Universal Pictures to share the profits from sales of such merchandise with the heirs of Bela Lugosi. Their lawsuit argued that such imagery constituted inheritable property. In response, Universal Pictures alleged in their response that barring them from manufacturing products bearing the likeness of Bela Lugosi as Dracula would constitute a violation of the First Amendment right to free expression.

 

The judge hearing the case ruled in favor of the heirs of Bela Lugosi, granting them $70,000 as well as the injunction ordering Universal to desist from further manufacture of products bearing the actor's likeness. Universal petitioned this decision, which was reversed by the Second Appellate District court. In its ruling, the appeals court declared that the right to exploit a name or likeness is not inheritable. Furthermore, the court ruled that for Bela Lugosi or any other person with an exploitable name or likeness to do so, they must take such steps to profit during their lifetime. The heirs of Bela Lugosi appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling and reasoning of the appellate court.

 

A similar case that was heard in 1979 concerned a biographical drama made about the silent film actor Rudolph Valentino. The actor's nephew and legal heir filed suit against the production company on the same grounds as the heirs of Bela Lugosi. This case too ended in a ruling against the plaintiff, since the court found that since Valentino had not exploited his likeness in such a fashion while alive, such a right could not be inherited by his heirs.

 

In response to this ruling, in 1988 the California legislature passed the Celebrities Rights Act. This act stated that the right to exploit a name and likeness for profit was inheritable and could be claimed by the heirs of the person in question for up to 70 years after their death. To date, twelve other states have passed similar legislation.

Harry Gale Nye Jr.

Harry Gale Nye Jr.

 


Harry Gale Nye Jr. was an American businessman who is primarily remembered for his achievements as a champion yachter. In the legal field, Harry Gale Nye Jr. is primarily remembered as president of the Nye Tool & Machine Works company established by his father. This company was the subject of an important 1923 Supreme Court case, Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works. This trial took place before Harry Gale Nye Jr. assumed control of the company.

 

The case concerned a dispute over the manufacture of a machine which made screw-thread cutting devices. The basis of the lawsuit occurred when Nye Tool alleged that its patent was being infringed upon by Crown Die & Tool Co. and sought to receive both an infringement against Crown Die and damages for lost revenue. In considering the case, the main issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court concerned whether a suit over patent infringement could not be separated from the right to exclude specific parties from manufacture within the patent.

 

This reasoning meant that the Supreme Court was not concerned with the merits of the case filed by the Nye Tool company owned by the father of Harry Gale Nye Jr. in particular. Rather, the Supreme Court was interested in determining whether an infringement lawsuit could be brought forth by anyone other than an exclusive licensee of a patent without the involvement of the patent owner. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not possible, a verdict which reversed the appeal filed by the Nye Tool company.

 

As a result, Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works became an important case in the history of patent infringement litigation. As a result, the rights of a patent owner to exclude specific manufacturers from making use of their work were affirmed. These issues were resolved by the time that Harry Gale Nye Jr. assumed control of the company.

 

Under the leadership of Harry Gale Nye Jr., the Nye Tool & Machine Works company experienced financial difficulties due to the Great Depression. However, the company managed to survive. Concurrent with its primary functions, Harry Gale Nye Jr. became interested in manufacturing sails. The company expanded in this direction and continued its activities throughout World War II until canvas became unavailable. This alternate company was sold in the late 1950s. This company subsequently transitioned in manufacturing fashion apparel.

 

Nye Tool & Machine Works was sold by Harry Gale Nye Jr. to an Indiana company in 1964. However, Harry Gale Nye Jr. remained best known for his many victories as a yachter. Later in his career, he began developing hydrofoil vessels. Harry Gale Nye Jr. passed away in 1987. After his death, the International Star Class Yachting Association named an award in his memory, which is conferred upon those the organization feels have contributed significantly to the development of the sport of yachting. 

Charice

Charice

 


Charice

Charice is a pop singer from the Philippines. In the legal field, she is primarily associated the death of her father, Ricky Pempengco, which occurred on October 31, 2011.

During initial reports of the death of the father of Charice, it was reported that he had been stabbed by a man with an ice pick outside of a convenience store from which he had just purchased cigarettes. The person with the ice pick then fled the scene of the crime. An investigation subsequently pointed to Angel Capilli Jr. as the perpetrator of the murder.

After several days, Angel Capilli Jr. turned himself in to the mayor of Gen. Trias, where the killing took place. Under initial questioning by the authorities, Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that the murder of the father of Charice had its roots in a confrontation that had occurred earlier in the evening. At that time, Angel Capilli Jr. stated that he had met the father of Charice prior to the murder and gotten involved in an altercation that resulted in him being punched in the face. Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that at the time, rather than punching back, he ran away and reported the incident to the authorities.

Angel Capilli Jr. went on to say that later in the evening, when he had encountered the father of Charice again, he had no intention of retaliating for the events that occurred earlier in the evening. Instead, Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that when he saw the father of Charice, he began retreating to avoid further conflict. Angel Capilli Jr. stated that he was still being pursued by the father of Charice, so he had no choice but to defend himself. In some statements, he said that he had grabbed a screwdriver and used it to stab the father of Charice. In other statements, he said that the ice pick which he had used to kill the father of Charice was something he regularly carried on his person when visiting the city. He also claimed that in retreating from the scene of the crime, he had lost the ice pick.

After turning himself in for the murder of the father of Charice, Angel Capilli Jr. requested that the charges against him be lowered from murder (meaning he had been the aggressor) to homicide (meaning that the death had occurred as a result of self-defense). The police filed a preliminary charge of murder at the time of his surrender and then conducted a ten-day investigation to determine whether the request was reasonable.

After questioning witnesses to the murder of the father of Charice, the Filipino police investigating the matter concluded that Angel Capilli Jr. had not acted in self-defense and therefore was liable for murder. As of October 2012, the case has not reached a publicly disclosed resolution or verdict. Charice rejected all statements made by Angel Capilli Jr. seeking forgiveness.

 

 

Chris Hatcher

Chris Hatcher

 


Chris Hatcher

 

Chris Hatcher was a psychologist who became famous as an expert in forensic psychology, specializing the field known as "profile evidence." He specialized in analyzing behavioral patterns to help predict and establish criminal motivations. Chris Hatcher was involved in many high-profile cases prior to his death in 1999.

 

One prominent case in which Chris Hatcher was involved concerned the trial of convicted murderer Gregory Scott Smith. In March of 1990, Gregory Scott Smith kidnapped an eight-year-old boy, who he raped and murdered. He then disposed of the body by burning it. Following a police investigation, he was arrested in October of that year and pled guilty to all charges filed against him. During the subsequent trial, he was found guilty of all charges.

In December of 1991, Chris Hatcher appeared to testify during the sentencing phase of the trial on behalf of the prosecution. Appearing in the capacity of an expert on cases involving child abduction, Chris Hatcher testified to the similarities he had determined between Smith's actions and those in other child murders which he had studied. After presenting a general overview of the hallmarks common to these types of homicides, Chris Hatcher identified similarities in Smith's actions.  Under cross-examination, Chris Hatcher conceded that he was only testifying in general terms about the

psychology of child killers rather than about Smith in particular.

 

Smith was subsequently found guilty of the charges against him and appealed the sentence, whose validity was ultimately decided in the Supreme Court of California in 2005. In his appeal, Smith argued that the witness testimony provided by Chris Hatcher was inadmissable on several grounds. Smith questioned the legality of allowing an expert to testify about possible mental illness evident in the conduct of the defendant as an aggravating circumstance in commission of the crime. Smith also said that the testimony provided by Chris Hatcher did not sufficiently consider his mental illness, since the psychologist at no time examined him or provided a diagnosis of his mental health.

 

In considering the plea, the Supreme Court decided that introducing the testimony of Chris Hatcher was admissable because it helped establish the identity of Smith as both a sadist and a pedophile. In considering the plea, the Supreme Court noted that it was acceptable to introduce information concerning a defendant's mental state if it were more "probative" (meaning likely to lessen the sentence found by jurors) than "punitive" (inclining the severity of the punishment to be issued). The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony provided by Chris Hatcher was probative and therefore permissable and rejected the claim filed by Smith.

 

Chris Hatcher also testified in the 1985 trial of Cameron Hooker, who, along with his wife, kidnapped and sexual assaulted Colleen Stan for seven years. Chris Hatcher was one of the first witnesses to testify for the prosecution, and his testimony about Hooker and behavior patterns he manifested was considered crucial in obtaining a conviction on seven of the eight charges filed against him.

Fantasia Barrino

Fantasia Barrino

 


Fantasia Barrino

 

Fantasia Barrino is an American singer who has been involved in a number of separate legal disputes. One of her first major legal problems occurred in September of 2006, following the 2005 publication of her memoir "Fantasia: Life Is Not A Fairy Tale." In the book, Fantasia Barrino stated that, among other things, her father Joseph prioritized her musical pursuits over her education and often asked for money when visiting. In response, her father filed a lawsuit seeking $10 million from publisher Simon & Schuster for libel. No public resolution to this trial was reported.

 

In 2008, one of her houses was almost foreclosed upon. Fantasia Barrino had taken out a $68,000 loan from Broward Energy Partners, which had paid that sum to cover her taxes owed. After only receiving $10,000 in repayment, Broward sued. The house was transferred to the custody of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office for foreclosure in January of 2009. However, a private settlement agreement was reached before this took place.

In August 2010, Fantasia Barrino was named in a lawsuit filed by Paula Cook, who was divorcing her husband Antwaun. In her complaint, she said that Fantasia Barrino had knowingly begun with an adulterous relationship with her husband, and that she and her husband had only separated in June of 2010. The complaint also alleged that Fantasia Barrino had filmed sex tapes with her husband. After reading the complaint against her, Fantasia Barrino issued a statement saying that all the allegations against her were false. Following the complaint, Fantasia Barrino attempted suicide but successfully recovered.

 

During the divorce hearings of November 2010, Fantasia Barrino was required to appear in court to testify. During her testimony, she said that she had become pregnant with Antwaun's child and received an abortion on her own initiative. She also testified that Antwaun had told her he was separated from his wife when they began a relationship that lasted 11 months. The judge ruled in her favor after investigations determined that Antwaun and Paula Cook had separated in September of 2009, 10 months earlier than Paula Cook had claimed. This ruling precluded Paula Cook from filing suit under the Alienation of Affection Law, which permits lawsuits against those responsible for the failure of a marriage.

 

Following the divorce trial, Fantasia Barrino and Antwaun Cook continued their relationship. In 2011, Fantasia Barrino was preparing to star in a dramatic biographical drama about the singer Mahalia Jackson while pregnant with her second child. However, a report in the New York publication "The New York Post" alleged that the production company making the film was considering making the project with Fantasia Barrino in response to concerns from Jackson's relatives about how her affairs might tarnish the image of the singer and movie. The production company denied the statements, disclaiming responsibility for all statements made by an employee not authorized to speak about the project.

Harry Perry

Harry Perry

 

Harry Perry

Harry Perry is a musician who has been performing on the Venice Beach boardwalk in California since 1973. In 1997 he was one of two parties in a lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Police Department concerning his right to perform on this public area.

 

In 1995, Harry Perry was informed by the Los Angeles Police Department he was in violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, which prohibits the sale of goods, as well as soliciting of donations on specific public areas of the city, which explicitly include the Venice Boardwalk. Because Harry Perry sold his music in recorded form and requested donations from passers-by, he was in violation of the law.

 

Two exceptions to this prohibition exist in the Los Angeles Municipal Code. One applies to non-profit organizations soliciting or selling goods which have a religious, ideological or social component. The other exception applies to vendors of newspapers and periodicals. The Los Angeles Police Department argued that Harry Perry should apply for non-profit status in order to enter into compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

 

The case was ultimately ruled on by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In reviewing the case, the court found that while the municipal code had a justifiable purpose in attempting to provide more access for licensed merchants on the Venice Boardwalk, it could not be demonstrated that the presence of a musician such as Harry Perry was more intrusive than that of a licensed non-profit organization. Additionally, they noted that because Harry Perry is a member of the Sikh religious faith, his statements constituted a form of religious faith protected under the First Amendment, and that the fact that he sold his recordings rather than giving them away was irrelevant. The court therefore ruled in favor of Harry Perry.

JonBenét Ramsey

JonBenét Ramsey

 


JonBenét Ramsey

 

The murder of child pageant star JonBenét Ramsey was one of the most high-profile criminal cases of its kind in the 1990s. The prominence accorded to the case and the media coverage has not entirely ended to this day, since the case of JonBenét Ramsey has never been formally closed.

The basic facts in the case of JonBenét Ramsey are not greatly disputed. JonBenét Ramsey was a 6-year-old child pageant participant at the time of her death in 1996, which occurred on Christmas Day.The following day, Patsy, the mother of JonBenét Ramsey, called the police to report that she had found a ransom note in her house demanding payment of $118,000 for the return of her daughter. That day, her husband John began searching the house when they discovered the body of JonBenét Ramsey in the basement, heavily bound with a number of restraints.

 

An autopsy was inconclusive as to whether sexual assault had been an element of her death. At the time of the initial police investigation, the Ramsays advanced their theory that the death of JonBenét Ramsey had come about as the result of a break-in by someone in the internet. However, both public and police suspicion regarding the death of JonBenét Ramsey concentrated heavily upon her parents. The evidence tying the parents to the case was never more than circumstantial. For example, in 1997 several handwriting experts issued analyses concluding that the ransom note seemed to have been written by Patsy.

 

In light of the inconclusive nature of the investigation, independent investigation efforts intended to either condemn or exonerate the family of JonBenét Ramsey continued. The family maintained that they believed an intruder had been responsible for the death of JonBenét Ramsey and hired former FBI behavioral scientist John E. Douglas to conduct an investigation. Douglas published the results of his investigation in 2001, concluding that the death of JonBenét Ramsey was in all probability the result of a kidnapping which had been mishandled.

 

In 2008, a major new development occurred when new DNA tests were performed. The results were obtained from clothing worn by JonBenét Ramsey at the time of her murder and showed that none of the DNA could be traced to any family member. The results led to an apology from the Boulder County District Attorney, documented in a letter that announced the family's complete exoneration.

 

Despite the official dismissal of any suspicion against the surviving family members of JonBenét Ramsey, public opinion in the case still is open to a number of interpretations and theories. For example, in 2012 detective Jim Kolar publicly asserted that key evidence ignored at the time of the initial investigation made the theory of assault and murder by an intruder possible. As part of his evidence, Kolar cited a basement cobweb that should have been brushed away by any intruder entering the house. The investigation into the death of JonBenét Ramsey remains technically ongoing.

Randy Lanier

Randy Lanier

 


Randy Lanier

 

Race car driver Randy Lanier was awarded a prize for being "Rookie Of The Year" at the Indianapolis 500 race in 1986 after finishing 10th in the race. However, by January of the following year he had entered the court system of Illinois on charges of being the head of a marijuana smuggling ring. Prosecutors charged that Randy Lanier had been involved in drug smuggling since 1978.

 

Randy Lanier began his racing career on a regional basis in 1982 alongside brothers Don and Bill Whittington, who would later be indicted alongside him on drug smuggling charges. In 1987, a federal grand jury in Illinois ruled that Randy Lanier was guilty of being part of an enterprise directed at distributing over 1,000 pounds of marijuana over a period stretching back six years. Additionally, Randy Lanier was soon after charged in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida with similar offenses of participating in a marijuana smuggling ring. When he failed to appear in that court in February 1987, a search was launched. Randy Lanier was located in Antigua on October 26, 1987, along with his girlfriend Maria D. Maggi.

 

After being brought back to the United States, Randy Lanier was detained. During this time, a later court ruling by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Randy Lanier had prepared for his court appearance by directing Maggi on how to distribute and manage his assets in such a way that they could not be located by the US government.

 

Randy Lanier finally appeared in court in 1988, when his case was heard in Illinois. The case of Randy Lanier was heard alongside that of two other defendants and took fourteen weeks to reach a resolution, including five jury deadlocks during the course of deliberation. Although he was a non-violent offender, the charges at this time had increased to charges that he had organized the import of over 600,000 pounds of marijuana from Columbia. As such, the mandatory minimum guidelines for drug offenders dictated that he receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Government prosecutors requested that he be assessed a criminal forfeiture of $68 million in funds, but the jury ruled that he was only liable for $60 million in criminal forfeiture.

 

Following the imprisonment of Randy Lanier, his girlfriend Maria D. Maggi encountered her own legal problems. In November of 1991, she was indicted by a grand jury on charges of money laundering and obstruction of justice and sentenced to a total of nine years (108 months) in prison. An appeal to overturn the verdict in 1994 was unsuccessful. In 1995, her sentence was reduced to 97 months.

 

Since his indictment, Randy Lanier has turned his attention towards both attempting to overturn his sentence and towards various prison activities in his current Florida prison unit, including teaching yoga in a voluntary incarceration unit known as "The Challenge Program."

What You Didn’t Know about the Steve Harvey Divorce

What You Didn’t Know about the Steve Harvey DivorceOverview of the Steve Harvey Divorce:
Born January 17, 1957, Steve Harvey is an American actor, entertainer, comedian and television personality, best known for his starring role in the hit WB sitcom The Steve Harvey Show. Currently, the comedian is the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Steve Harvey Morning Show and the current host of the popular television game show Family Feud.

Harvey first performed stand-up comedy in the early 1980s in various nightclubs in Ohio. As his act got more popular, Harvey garnered the attention of television and film executives throughout the country. In 1997, Harvey got his big break, when he was asked to tour with the Kings of Comedy, along with other notable comedic stars such as, Bernie Mac, Cedric the Entertainer and D.L. Hughley.  

Steve Harvey has been married three times; he has four biological children, all from his first marriage, including twin daughters. Of the two previous divorces (Harvey is currently married) the drama and subsequent settlement was the most scrutinized with former wife and the mother of Steve’s children, Mary Lee Harvey.

In January of 1989, Steve Harvey, while in Arlington, Texas for a comedy show met Mary Lee Shackelford, a young woman who was working for Fashion Fair Cosmetics. The couple, after falling in love at first sight, married later that year.

The Steve Harvey Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between Steve Harvey and Mary Lee Harvey; the Steve Harvey Divorce was finalized in 2005, which ended the 17-yearlong marriage between Steve and Mary Lee Harvey. Although the case of the Steve Harvey Divorce, which was considered by various media outlets as a celebrity, the impact of the dissolution of a union is thought to be universal; amongst the events and undertakings within a divorce proceeding, a divorce has the potential to elicit heightened emotions, such as sadness and loss. Furthermore, the reasoning for the breakdown of a marriage – regardless of the degree of celebrity status – will typically provide a legal framework for the terms and conditions latent within a divorce settlement:

This particular divorce garnered media attention as a result of Mary Lee’s settlement demands: Mary Lee claimed that she deserved a large percentage of Steve’s assets as well as claims to his future revenues from comedy. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Steve: the Steve Harvey Divorce Settlement offered Mary Lee $1,000 dollars per month for child support and disallowed her from retaining all property and business owned by Steve.

The Plea of ‘Contest’ and Challenge within the Steve Harvey Divorce:
An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. In the case of the Steve Harvey Divorce, both Steve Harvey and Mary Lee Harvey seemed unable or unwilling to negotiate mutual terms of the divorce or reach an agreement upon the identification of fault. Mary Lee was enraged over the settlement; she sued her former husband in the Harris County District Court for swindling her during the divorce settlement. Mary Lee alleged that Steve and his lawyer cheated her into settling quickly and hid the fact that Steve was guilty of adultery, poor and neglectful parenting as well delivering physical and mental abuse. Mary added that during the Steve Harvey divorce she was not made aware of her rights to hire an independent lawyer—Mary used the same attorney as her husband who convinced Mary to settle on the $1,000 per month deal.

As a result of these claims and the fact that Steve has amassed a fortune of over $20 million dollars, Mary Lee’s case was ultimately settled out of court, where it was expected that the ex-wife received somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million dollars.