CELEBRITY LAWSUITS: Celebs Rumors

+111

All news where CELEBRITY LAWSUITS is mentioned

nypost.com
Sean Combs has been untouchable for decades — but now people are out to ‘take him down’: source
swarming Combs’ homes in Los Angeles and Miami Monday in a TV thriller-style surprise raid. The cross-country invasion was reportedly related to sex-trafficking allegations, law enforcement sources told The Post.Meanwhile, a dazed-looking Combs, 54, was seen at the Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport Monday afternoon after his private jet was stopped by feds on the tarmac — apparently bound for a Caribbean spring break with some of his seven kids.Around the same time, the entrepreneur’s alleged “drug mule,” Brendan Paul, 25, was arrested on suspicion of cocaine and marijuana possession in Miami.It all happened almost one day to the month since Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones — a former producer and videographer for Diddy — filed an explosive lawsuit claiming the music mogul repeatedly sexually assaulted him from September 2022 to November 2023.Jones accused Combs of groping his genitals and grooming him into having sex.Diddy’s attorney Shawn Holley previously told Page Six that “Lil Rod is nothing more than a liar” who filed the $30 million lawsuit “shamelessly looking for an undeserved payday.”After news of the raid broke, old videos and interviews resurfaced online — some showing Usher, who was only 13 when he was sent to Diddy’s “Puffy Flavor Camp” at the impresario’s luxe Scarsdale mansion.Usher, now 45, told Howard Stern in 2016that he had seen “very curious things taking place” at the “camp” and that he would never send a child of his somewhere like that.“It was pretty wild.
nypost.com
Prince Harry demanded to know who downgraded his police protection: ‘I would like that person’s name’
lost his bid for taxpayer-funded UK security protection for his family and will now have to pay out of pocket for his family’s security when visiting the UK.Court documents have revealed that Harry even asked for the identity of who demoted the level of his personal protection on home soil.“I would like that person’s name,” Harry said, according to the 52-page ruling published Wednesday.Sir Peter Lane, the judge of the High Court in London, ruled that there was no unlawfulness in the initial decision to strip the Sussexes of their security.Harry could now potentially be made to foot a large bill to reimburse taxpayers’ legal costs after he was unable to prove that he had been treated “unfairly.”The exiled royal argued that he was not given the “same degree” of protection after quitting royal life, and even compared his situation to the dangers his late mother, Princess Diana, faced before her tragic death in 1997.Harry told a hearing that security concerns were preventing him from visiting his home turf.However, Judge Lane said that “there is no merit in this contention.”“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” Harry last year told the court in a written statement read out by his lawyers.
nypost.com
Prince Harry wins damages over phone-hacking by UK newspapers
appeared as the star witness at the trial in June – had sued Mirror Group Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People.Harry and about 100 other claimants – including actors, sports stars, celebrities and people who simply had a connection to high-profile figures – have taken legal action over allegations of phone-hacking and unlawful information-gathering between 1991 and 2011.Harry said he was targeted by MGN for 15 years from 1996 and that more than 140 stories which appeared in its papers were the result of unlawful information gathering, though the trial only considered 33 of these.“I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information gathering,” Judge Timothy Fancourt said.“I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent, and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper.”The judge concluded there had been widespread hacking and unlawful activities at the paper of which senior executives were aware, although nearly all those on the board of the company had not been told.MGN, owned by Reach had argued the accusations were not supported by the evidence.“We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago,” an MGN spokesperson said.“Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologize unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”
DMCA