Search Results for "kardashian"

Meet Five Celebrities Who Have Had Worse Tax Days Than Yours

In celebration of Tax Day today, we here at Law Law Land offer tribute to our favorite celebrity/IRS run-ins.  Now, lest you think this is just another list airing dirty celebrity tax laundry, think again.  This is a classy publication, as you well know, so if you’re looking for dirt on which celebrities owe what, look elsewhere. . . like here, or here, or here.  Instead, on this national day of tax collection, Law Law Land is pleased recognize five (or more) of our favorite celebrity tax stories of all time… so far.

Honorable Mention:  Timothy Geithner

In our Honorable Mention category of “Really, Are You Kidding Me?,” we recognize former Treasury Secretary (i.e., head of the U.S. Treasury, the folks you make that tax check out to) Timothy Geithner, who underpaid his personal federal income taxes from 2001 to 2004 by failing to report and pay social security and self-employment tax on income received from the International Monetary Fund.  Mr. Former Secretary subsequently amended his returns since he “should have been more careful.”  We imagine he regretted his “unintentional” decision not to report that income when appearing before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearings to control the United States’ piggy bank.

Honorable Mention:  Nick Diaz

In our Honorable Mention category of “How Dumb Can You Be?,” the award goes to MMA fighter Nick Diaz, who recently announced during a post-match press conference that he has “never paid taxes in his life” and “is probably going to jail.”  Well, if Nick had only read about some of the other people on this list, then he definitely would have seen that coming! Continue reading the full story . . . »


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

A Law Law Land Correction (and a Litigant Speaks!)

An interesting footnote to last week’s post, revisiting our “5 Cases to Watch” for 2012.

Last week, I wrote that while talent manager Rick Siegel’s legal war with his former client — which had since morphed into a crusade against California’s Talent Agencies Act writ large — was over, the fight had been taken up by Siegel’s colleagues at the National Conference of Personal Managers, which, in November 2012, brought a direct constitutional challenge against the Talent Agencies Act in federal court.  As part of my preview of the case, I noted that the case “may still be a long shot — anytime someone tries to claim that a law violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery, you have to raise your eyebrows a little.”  But this week, I received a reader correction from Mr. Siegel himself, who writes:

Ken,

The 13th Amendment claim isn’t about slavery.

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution states in part:  “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

So to be constitutionally compliant, the benefit of one’s labor can only be voided should there exist: (1) a statute stating that such labor was criminal; and (2) a finding been forfeited must have been found duly convicted of that crime.  Every other California occupational licensing scheme where one loses the right to contract has statutory notice that the unlicensed engagement of activity is a criminal offense and makes that engagement either misdemeanor or felony, the TAA expressly states that per § 1700.44(b) that no TAA violation can be considered criminal.  As the action can’t be seen as criminal, the penalty violates the 13th Amendment.

The original post has been revised to refer to “involuntary servitude” instead of slavery.  Lawyers for the State of California, the Association of Talent Agencies, and celebrities who just like being able to not pay their estranged personal managers may, of course, disagree with Mr. Siegel’s interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment, but let it never be said that Law Law Land doesn’t strive to be fair and precise in its snark.

As for me, I’m just psyched to have gotten (politely) called out by a celebrity of recent history in California law.  Can’t wait for Kim Kardashian to email the blog next!


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

Becoming Immune to Reputation Damage: Tips from Kim Kardashian?

This blogger is proud to say that I have never watched any show featuring a member of the Kardashian family (okay, okay, unless you count their step-brother Brody Jenner…you know I could never resist The Hills).  I normally try to pretend to steer clear of anything Kardashian, as I fall into the camp of people who wonder, “why the heck is she famous, anyway?”  (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question — I know it’s because of her video debut.)  But I can’t resist writing an update about the Old Navy commercial we posted about back in March 2011.  (Extra shout-out to fellow blogger Megan Rivetti for anticipating Kim K.’s lawsuit, which wasn’t actually filed until July.)

Kim’s lawsuit claims that Old Navy and its parent company The Gap Inc. violated her right of publicity and misled and confused consumers, and seeks $15­–20 million in damages.  (For more on the right of publicity, see here; for more on consumer confusion, see here; for more on how the actress who starred in the Old Navy commercial is totally re-living Kim Kardashian’s life in other ways, see here.)  But now The Gap’s lawyers are moving in on Kim’s “private life” (and the use of air quotes has never seemed more appropriate).  Among other things, they have sought financial records that show how much stores Bebe and Sears earned by making deals with Kim and why Bebe dropped Kim, and information about “Kim Kardashian’s reputation as a singer and dancer.”   As Eriq Gardner of THR, Esq. points out, one reason The Gap may be seeking information about Kim’s business dealings is to make out an argument — often used in defamation cases — that the plaintiff is “libel-proof” because her reputation is so ruined that no additional damage could be caused.

So let’s take a look at the contours of the so-called “libel-proof” defense. Continue reading the full story . . . »


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

A(nother) Law Law Land Thank You, and the Top 11 of Twenty 11

I don’t know where this “Terrible Twos” thing comes from, because here at Law Law Land, we’ve had a fantastic second year — thanks, as always, to you, our dear readers.  We’ve laughed together.  We’ve cried together.  We’ve made vaguely inappropriate pornography-related puns together.  We’ve said goodbye to some old bloggers, and hello to some new ones.  We’ve launched our new site, and made impossible promises for the next.  We’ve seen our unorthodox campaign strategy for repeating as the Blawg 100 champions — which is, the strategy of actively trying not to repeat as champions — succeed beyond our wildest dreams.  Yep, all in all, it’s been a fine year.  I think this deserves yet another round of applause, don’t you?  (As always, Corey Haim knows what to do.)

 

So we’re rewarding ourselves by taking the rest of the holiday season off, and seeing you in 2012.  But before we go, we wanted to bring back a post we enjoyed from last year (and let’s face it, it’s really about what we like, amiright?) — like our site, of course, updated for the times.  And so, we present to you the Top 11 of Twenty 11:  the eleven most popular Law Law Land posts of 2011, as chosen by you, the readers, with your browser clicks. This year’s list is the model of equanimity:  our 11 entries come from 10 authors and cover virtually the entire universe of Law Law Land content.  We are nothing if not eclectic here at Law Law Land, and apparently, that goes for our readers too.  In reverse order: Continue reading the full story . . . »


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

Losing all Faith in Love (and Reality Television)

I tried, Law Law Land readers, I really, really tried. I struggled, but alas, I was not strong enough to stop myself from writing about the Kardashian divorce.

The 72-day marriage (if it can even be called that) of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (herein referred to as “KK,” or maybe “666” would be more appropriate), is chock full of legal issues. What about the prenuptial agreement? (“Ironclad,” I’m sure, but speculation is already swirling about whether Kim’s “shady behavior” has rendered it “worthless.”) What to do with the gifts? (Apparently Kim is donating $200,000 to charity in lieu of returning the gifts. I’m sure the people who bought her the $375 candy jar, or $6,500 vase, or $1,250 serving spoon, or $1,600 teapot, or $840 ashtray are thrilled about that decision and the tax write off she gets. And no, I did not make up those items or prices). Why isn’t gay marriage legal and this is? (Beats me, but it really makes you think about that whole “sanctity of marriage” argument.)

No, you aren’t having a stroke, it really is that big and shiny.

But the burning issue I want to write on? What happens to THE RING? (I think the 20.5-carat sparkler deserves all-caps treatment.) Continue reading the full story . . . »


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

Old Navy Is Definitely “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”

By now, I’m sure many of you have seen the Old Navy commercial starring Kim Kardashian Melissa Molinaro, a curvy, dark-haired Kim Kardashian lookalike who bursts into song and dance while looking “super C-U-T-E” in her Old Navy duds. Like many of you, I did a double take when I saw this commercial for the first time. Upon closer examination (read: once I caught a glimpse of the star’s normal-sized backside and nimble dance moves), I realized the star of the commercial was not Kim, but just a woman with a striking resemblance to the reality TV star/fashionista/walking proof of the decline of Western civilization.

After the commercial first aired in February, articles devoted to Old Navy’s use of Kim’s spitting image popped up all over the Internet. Molinaro herself has called the comparisons to Kardashian “extremely flattering” — but of course, who’s to say whether Kim herself would agree? So, naturally, upon first viewing Molinaro’s commercial, the lawyer in me immediately thought, “Can Kim sue Old Navy for using her lookalike in a commercial without her permission?” Then, the blogger in me thought, “I should write a blog about this!” (Then, the normal human being in me thought, “What have I become?”) So, let’s see if the law is on Kim’s side. Continue reading the full story . . . »


This Post Has No Comments.
Be Sociable, Share!

WP Like Button Plugin by Free WordPress Templates