Larry Birkhead is Indeed the Father of Baby Dannielynn

Proving what most of us already knew, DNA tests have in fact confirmed Larry Birkhead as the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby girl, Dannielynn.


Larry Birkhead said outside of Bahamian court earlier today, "I hate to be the one who told you this, but I told you so. My baby's going to be coming home pretty soon."

Anna's friend and attorney Howard K. Stern was named as the father on the birth certificate. Stern has claimed all along that he was the father of Dannielynn, but that has proved to be a ploy conspired with Smith to keep Birkhead from getting custody of the baby girl.

"I'm obviously very disappointed, but my feelings toward Danniellyn have not changed," Stern said outside of the courtroom.

Stern also told reporters that he will not fight Birkhead for custody.

"We're going to do what we can to make sure that the best interests of Danniellyn are carried out," Stern said. "I'm going to do what I can to make sure that he gets sole custody."

Stern also stated that Birkhead is free to start spending as much time as he wants with his daughter. Gee, what a guy.

Virgie Arthur, Anna's mother, also sought custody of the child but seemed pleased with the DNA results.

"I'm happy that Dannielynn will know who her real father is," Arthur told reporters outside of court. "I look forward to working with Larry to raising my granddaughter and doing the very best for her."

The DNA analysis was also confirmed by Dr. Michael Baird, an expert in genetic evidence.

Baird, who analyzed the results of a March 21st DNA test, announced the results outside the court.

"Essentially, he's the biological father," Baird said.

Source: KIROTV7

Paris Hilton Considers Suing MTV

Paris Hilton is pissed about a skit that MTV plans on airing that makes fun of her drunk driving incident last September.

She is threatening to sue MTV if they air the parody.

The piece was filmed in January for the premiere episode of "ShortCircuitz", but she has turned on her heels and decided that she doesn't want to make an appearance on the show.

In the sketch a Paris-like floozy gets pulled over by a cop, consults her 'What Would Paris Do' bracelet and then dry humps the officer who tells her that she is 'too fabulous' to arrest.

The episode is due to air tomorrow.

The clip was filmed before Hilton was arrested a second time for driving with a suspended license.

Hilton's lawyers are demanding that MTV trash the sketch or face possible legal action.

Oh, boo hoo. I say GO MTV! Anytime Paris can't get her way I say right on!

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Howard K. Stern Ordered to Pay $10K

Howard K. Stern's appeal on DNA testing was just rejected and he was penalized by the three-judge panel in the amount of $10,000.


TMZ.com has learned Stern was ordered to pay $5,000 in attorney's fees to the Registrar General and $5,000 to Birkhead's lawyer, not Debra Opri, the Bahamian one.

This could clear the way for the unsealing of the DNA test results, that should happen in court this week.

Typically, these penalties (called "sanctions") are imposed when an appeal is frivolous.


Source: TMZ
Photo: SAWF

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Howard K. Stern Admits He is Not the Father of Dannielynn

Howard K. Stern has reportedly admitted he's not the father of Dannielynn to Larry Birkhead.

Oh, it's about time, don't you think?

Howard is willing to sign over paternal rights to Larry Birkhead, as long as he gets paid for them.

Now that Anna is gone, it's rumoured that Howard is willing to release Dannielynn over to Larry in exchange for ongoing control of Anna's estate. he also wants to become Dannielynn's trustee.

It is also rumored that Howard is claiming the Bahamian home and boat.

Birkhead has not yet commented publicly on any negotiations taking place between the two men.

Spicy
Source:NineMSN

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

P. Diddy Sued For Assaulting a Man & Hitting on His Girlfriend

P. Diddy allegedly assaulted a man outside a post-Oscars party last week.

Estate agent Gerard Rechnitzer claims Diddy punched and pushed him and his girlfriend outside Hollywood nightclub Teddy's.

Rechnitzer, 27, says it all started when he left to use the bathroom at Teddy's and when he returned he found his fiancée surrounded by six guys, including P. Diddy.

He adds that he waited and watched Diddy as he flirted with his fiancée for about five minutes, then Rechnitzer asked her to leave with him.

Diddy, ignoring pleas from her fiancée, then told the woman he was having a party and invited her. Rechnitzer again asked her to leave with him. That's when Diddy punched him in the jaw.

An ambulance was called and Rechnitzer filed a report with the police. Of course Diddy left before they arrived. Rechnitzer declined the offer of medical treatment.

Legal papers state that "Combs, also known as 'Diddy', also known as 'P. Diddy', also known as 'Puff Daddy', also known as 'Puffy', hereinafter Defendant Combs, suddenly said to the Plaintiff, 'What the f*ck you looking at dude?'

"Then he shouted, 'I'll smack flames out of your ass!' "

Wow, that's all he could come up with?

The documents also state that Diddy "intentionally, wilfully, knowingly and unlawfully attacked, assaulted and battered" Rechnitzer causing him to "fly backward several feet" and hit a parked car.

The suit is also alleging that P Diddy pushed Rechnitzer's girlfriend and "attempted to spit on another female member" of their group.

Diddy's attorney Benjamin Brafman said, "The case will be vigorously defended.

"It's just another example of an opportunist seeking to fabricate a lawsuit based on a flat-out lie to try to take advantage of Mr. Combs' celebrity status.

"Mr. Combs did not hit anyone and Mr. Rechnitzer suffered no injuries or damages whatsoever. There is no case. It is that simple."

Spicy
Source: Monsters and Critics

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Perez Hilton Sued Over Aniston Topless Pictures

Universal City Studios has filed a lawsuit against Perez Hilton for publishing topless pictures of Jennifer Aniston.

Perez is accused of copying a picture of Aniston - that was taken and stolen during production of The Break Up - and then posting it on his blog.

The case, filed in a Californian court, seeks a bar on further publication and the return of the pictures. Hilton has argued though that the picture is just as available for viewing on other websites and that because Hilton published the picture "for the purpose of commentary and satire," his actions constitute fair use.

The studio wants an injunction on future use of the picture and a court order "directing the US Marshal to seize" the copyrighted material.

Oh please, let's not get our panties wedged too far up there..

Perez has a great point. You can get these pics anywhere on the internet, on PLENTY of celebrity forums out there. They are everywhere. Yet they are only coming after the bloggers..?

Spicy
Source: ITV.com
Photo Source: Getty via GoogleImages

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Does Paris Have a Chance?

Court TV discusses Paris' lawsuit and what her chances may be of winning.

From CourtTV.com:

"..Hilton claims the site invades her privacy, violates her "common law right of publicity" and infringes her copyright, among other charges.

Does Paris Hilton have a legitimate case? We spoke with David J. Porter, a litigation attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Pittsburgh, PA, to find out.

Q: What rights does Paris Hilton have on the items and documents that were auctioned off?

A: Assuming the Hanisses purchased the items at a legal foreclosure auction, they would have the right to dispose of the items largely as they wish. That includes re-selling the items to a third party, such as Persa. The fact that some of those items may be copyrighted does not prohibit the re-sale.

[However] if Ms. Hilton holds the copyright on some of those items, then the fact that the items were purchased in good faith at a legal foreclosure auction is not a defense to her copyright infringement claim.

[That] claim applies only to the three poems that she registered last week for copyright protection, and as to those, the new owner, even if he is a bona fide purchaser, may not do certain things, such as reproduce and sell them or publish them on the Internet for commercial gain.

Q: Are there laws protecting private documents such as medical records, licenses and passports?

A: There are statutes protecting medical records and other confidential documents, but they mostly apply to government agencies, financial institutions, schools, health care providers and the like. Most privacy statutes would not be applicable to individuals such as the defendants in Ms. Hilton's lawsuit. However, certain privacy laws may prohibit the disclosure or publication of personal records, and Ms. Hilton has invoked those in her complaint.


Another aspect of the common law of privacy prohibits the public disclosure of private facts about an individual. But the rental agreement that Ms. Hilton, or her moving company, had with Public Storage may have provided (I have not seen the rental agreement) that upon failure to pay rent, all of the property in the rental unit could be removed and sold, auctioned off, thrown away or otherwise disposed of. If that is true, then the defendants may be able to argue that the materials were not as "private" and "confidential" as Ms. Hilton now alleges in her complaint. Merely because the items are commercially valuable (because they were Paris Hilton's) does not automatically make them "private."

Q: Has the site's owner invaded her privacy?

A: It depends upon which invasion of privacy claim is at issue. The right of publicity is one type of privacy that is protected by law, and the Web site owners may have invaded that element of Ms. Hilton's privacy notwithstanding, or one might say, especially because she is a celebrity whose name and image are commercially valuable.

It is possible to violate even a celebrity's right of privacy by disclosing embarrassing private facts. But the question in this case is whether the materials that were acquired through the foreclosure auction were truly private facts. Some of the facts that were disclosed on the Website were of a nature that many people would deem private and embarrassing. But the circumstances under which the materials came into the defendants' possession (apparently legal, even if inadvertent), the fact that Ms. Hilton may have compromised her own expectation of privacy by agreeing to provisions in the Public Storage rental contract and the mere fact of Ms. Hilton's celebrity may all work together to weaken her claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts.


By definition, celebrities have given up many aspects of their privacy. However, it would be incorrect to say that celebrities do not have a private life. There is a sense in which a celebrity establishes through her behavior and statements the boundaries of her private life, and the specific facts about a celebrity's life may determine whether it is more or less difficult to disclose embarassing private facts about her. That is particularly important in this case, because some would say that Ms. Hilton is a celebrity precisely because she initially sought and continues to cultivate celebrity status. Also, she became a celebrity in part because of the public disclosure of facts and images that many people would deem private. Ms. Hilton's disclosure of her personal life for public consumption in exchange for the benefits of celebrity may make it more difficult for her to argue that certain aspects of her life that most people would consider private are off-limits.

Q: What about her copyright infringement claim?

A: Ms. Hilton's complaint does not allege that she has registered, or applied to register, the copyrights on any of the photographs or videos at issue in this case, or even that she holds the copyrights on those items. That is apparently why her copyright infringement claim is so narrow: it only applies to the three poems.

Once the copyrights on those poems are registered, Ms. Hilton may recover actual damages, which in this instance probably means the profits that the defendants obtained by posting the copyrighted works on the Internet and inviting people to access the Website for a fee of $39.97.

[But] how many visitors to www.parisexposed.com were drawn to that Website because they wanted to read her poetry rather than because they wanted to view the other salacious items on the Website?

Q: Do you think Paris will win this case?

A: Of course it is difficult to predict the outcome of a lawsuit based on nothing more than a complaint. But Ms. Hilton appears to have some strong claims (copyright infringement as to the poems; common law and statutory right of publicity), while some of her other claims do not appear on their face to be as strong. Most civil cases filed in the United States are settled out of court. But if it does not settle, then I would say that Ms. Hilton is likely to prevail on some (but not all) of her claims.

Spicy
CourtTV
Thanks Rina

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Paris Sues ParisExposed.com

Paris Hilton helped to shut down ParisExposed.com by serving the owner with a federal lawsuit.

The defendants are Nabil and Nabila Haniss of Culver City, Calif. They paid $2,775 for the storage items and then sold them for $10 million to entrepreneur Bardia Persa, creator of ParisExposed.com.

The site was launched January 23rd, and shut down less than a week later. But not before the world got to see pictures and video of Paris skanking & drugging around. The site also included medical records (yes, she had a prescription for Valtrex), passports and all sorts of goodies.

Paris claims that the items went into storage a couple of years ago after her and her sister, Nicky, had moved out of a house that had been burglarized. She also says that it was the moving company who was supposed to pay the storage fees.

Ok, Paris, how long did you expect this moving company to pay for your 6,000 sq. ft. storage unit? It had been TWO YEARS!

Paris released a statement which accompanied the lawsuit,

"I was appalled to learn that people are exploiting my and my sisters' (sic) private personal belongings for commercial gain," and she worries that some of the info may be used "to steal my identity, or even worse, to harass or stalk me."

Paris is looking to shut the site down, which looks to have already happened, and have all items returned to her. Because you know, there's a lot of sentimental value contained therein.

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Niki Taylor Suing E!

Niki Taylor filed a lawsuit against E! Entertainment for alleged federal slander including intentional infliction of emotional distress regarding it's documentary of Taylor in "Blvd. of Broken Dreams."

She is also alleging fraud, breach of contract and invasion of privacy.

Niki is claiming that E! falsely represented the viewpoint of an upcoming show about Taylor's life. She says that E! told her that the show would be about her current life and conquests, and not her past life in which she had endured the loss of a sister and a life threatening auto accident.

Niki is especially upset at how the show and a producer labeled Niki as a celebrity "who risked everything ... and lost."

On E!'s web site "Blvd. of Broken Dreams" is described as, "In a place between heaven and Hollywood, dreams turn tragic and fame goes sour fast."

Taylor responded in a statement saying, "My life is far from a 'boulevard of broken dreams."

"Blvd. of Broken Dreams" was played over and over in different time slots last week on E! despite pleas from Taylor's lawyers that it be pulled from the lineup.

Spicy
Source: http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/articles

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

'Dead or Alive' Frontman Suing Over Botched Lip Enchancement Surgery

Pete Burns, lead singer of the 80's band, 'Dead or Alive' is suing a doctor for £1m over plastic surgery gone very bad.

Burns said he looked like he had been 'mutilated with a Stanley knife' after surgery to correct original problems left his top lip hanging off.

Said Burns of the recent surgery:

"It has taken away my life and my career. I saw doctors in London who said the only option was to amputate my lips. I was suicidal. Eventually I found a doctor in Italy who knew the product and said he could remove it. I had 17 months of procedures and now I am back again having more...What happened to me after a series of injections was far worse than any nightmare I could have envisaged. Not only was it agonizingly painful but it was physically repulsive in the extreme. It was impossible to lead any life whatsoever. I was unable to leave my house as I was so distorted with swelling. At times it leaves me seriously suicidal and depressed and I could have problems for the rest of my life."

Spicy
Source: DailyMail

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

Bet on Whether Perez Will Win or Lose

Bodog.com Entertainment has just posted odds on whether or not X17 Inc. will win their $7.6-million copyright infringement lawsuit against celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton.

The results of this lawsuit are very important and could greatly affect the way in which images may be used and shared online. The odds being offered by Bodog.com Entertainment are:

Will Los Angeles paparazzi agency X17 Inc. win its $7.6-million copyright infringement lawsuit against celebrity gossip blogger and self proclaimed "Queen of all Media" Perez Hilton?

o YES 1/1 (Even)
o NO 5/7 (-140)

As it stands, the NO option is the favorite with odds of 5/7 (wager $7 to win $5). While the YES option is the underdog with odds of 1/1 (wager $5 to win $5).

For more details on these and many other odds offered by Bodog.com Entertainment, visit: http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/celebrity-props.jsp

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack

X17 Talks of Suing Perez Hilton

"We've had trouble with a lot of bloggers," X17 co-owner Brandy Navarre said. "But he's the biggest, and the most arrogant and pigheaded about it, frankly."

X17 says Perez has remained 'unrepentant about his part in the suit, and is unconcerned about a recent cease-and-desist letter he received from seven similar paparazzi companies.'

"If the law says I am wrong, if a jury of my peers says they think my actions are wrong, then I will listen to them. But I don't think they will," Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) said.

"Especially if they see that the person who is suing me admitted she is suing me because I am arrogant. A judge would dismiss that."

I am certainly no Perez fan but I will say this. X17 is not a very professional company, by any means.

Perez has gotten so under their skin that they have publicly fought this war like the drama queens they are. I believe it was X17 who started the blog called "Fuck Perez Hilton." Classy, Brandy.

They also started a lame ass petition and have only gotten a mere few hundred signatures.

If they are having such a fucking cow about people not paying for their stalker images then why are they posting them on a public blog?

Now they are targeting other blogs with snide blind items such as this..

"Guess which Jokers of Journalism think they and their not-so-Good partner site are Justified in stealing our images for their Joke of a website? Criticizing the media and then Jerking around with images that aren't yours Just ain't cool. Guess we'll Just see them in court!

P.S. - First, it's not Just Jared or Perez. Second, we got the following comment -

December 15, 2006
10:21 AM
Posted by: Anonymous

Might I make a suggestion?
If you'd offer a larger variety of licenses so bloggers could use your photos legally, you'd not have to worry so much.
While I certainly understand being upset about theft of one's intellectual property, you're only hurting yourselves by being litigious.

Guess what, we DO offer special rates for blogs (Socialite's Life, PopSugar, and Sawfnews are already clients) -- email us at X17@X17online.com for more info!

At least their Celebrity, Media, and Manhattan blog will have a front row seat in court!"

Obviously referring to Jossip's "Mollygood."

I think someone (Brandy) at X17 has a major anger issue,
They are like chickens with their heads cut off..running around, screaming shit, having a fit. I would guess if they are going to sue Perez that he will likely countersue for all the crap they have said/posted about him on their blog.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Both parties involved are assholes, so it should be one great big stinkfest.

Subscribe to Celebrity Smack