This got us thinking, what are some other historical publicity stunts that backfired? Here are five of some of the biggest:
Aqua Teen terrorist attack.
O.J. Simpson,
In 2006, HarperCollins's thought it would be a good idea to publish a book written by O.J. entitled "If I Did It." Following the public's outrage, a big wig at the publishing company was fired and the project was scrapped.
A train wreck, literally.
In 1896, railroad companies decided to stage a controlled crash in Texas for publicity. With thousands of spectators watching, the trains collided head on as planned, but then unexpectedly exploded, killing three people and injuring countless others, including the event's photographer, who lost one of his eyes.
No Fly Zone.
In 2009, the Department of Defense flew Air Force One low over Manhattan to take some photos. The flight terrified many New Yorkers, causing "mayhem" as people who thought we were under attack again scrambled to evacuate. A White House aide resigned, authorities apologized and cancelled a similar photoshoot planned in D.C.
Please stop. Sincerely, Mr. President.
Harry Reichenbach was a big time press agent at the turn of the 20th century who promoted films like Return of Tarzan. He staged several outlandish publicity stunts, including a fake suicide, and a kidnapping to Mexico. His antics finally resulted in President Woodrow Wilson writing him a letter pleading with him to please stop his nonsense.
Where will Kate's blunder rank in history? Will Obama write to her asking her to please stop? Heh, never say never! What other publicity blunders would you add to this list?
1055 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1055 of 1055 Newer› Newest»Paige and Gypsi tweeted that the release of the cookbook has been delayed. Is that just the out-of-the-country books?
Over And Out said... 4
Paige and Gypsi tweeted that the release of the cookbook has been delayed. Is that just the out-of-the-country books?
__________________
Gypsi lives in the US. Interesting.
HCI has to be concerned that the cover of People and Kate's name being mentioned on many shows during the month of August only garnered 141 sales.
Tweet-le De Tweet-le DUMB said... 5
Over And Out said... 4
Paige and Gypsi tweeted that the release of the cookbook has been delayed. Is that just the out-of-the-country books?
__________________
Gypsi lives in the US. Interesting.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Yes, someone tweeted a while ago about it being delayed and it was thought it was because they were overseas. I saw Paige's tweet and thought, well, she's still not in the US. But then with Gypsi's reply, it makes you go hmmmmm.
Hi Fleecing the Sheeple,
I do know who most of the DWTS contestants are. That happens when you have weekly subscriptions to People and TV Guide. I have to be able to discuss pop culture at work and with my children. That's my excuse!
Was it Kim at HCI tweeting some of the passive aggressive tweets? Whoever that was about sounds like all is not well over at HCI!
Gypsi lives in the US. Interesting.
-----------------------
I was wondering about that, Tweet-le. I thought that she did, but then I thought that I may be confusing her with someone else and maybe she lives in Canada. I can't keep up with these fans! Amazon is still saying September 24, but how can she go to a signing at the end of September if the book isn't out then? Or perhaps it will be released on that date, but not delivered until October?
Milo and the uber fans are going to have a hissy if they have to wait another week! However will they cook for their families!
The first go-round with this cookbook had several delays and it was never released in the US, Canada or the UK. This alleged delay does not look good for TFW' s dream, sealed with a kiss and everything.
Amazon is still saying September 24, but how can she go to a signing at the end of September if the book isn't out then? Or perhaps it will be released on that date, but not delivered until October?
__________________
Over, I don't get it either.
This evening, in reading over certain items of the lawsuit, I was struck by the 'demand' for a jury trial. Since we know TFW won't be seeing any real money from a 'win' (unless Jon has money from any past settlements stashed away), I think in TFW's twisted mind, this will be a performance for her. I think she thinks this will be her opportunity to win people over (the jury) and show us, once and for all, how very lovable she is.
Wanna wager on how many of her fans will make the trek to "support" her in the courtroom? I bet even she didn't think of that - oh, the horror! She'll have to play nice with them as well!
Joy, you forgot to mention that Brant is also one of the regulars on one of my favorite shows, "Army Wives".
I used to post fairly regularly on Polly's blog. I've read her book and I don't have a problem with it. It uses the G's as the focal point, yes, but it's about the broader issue of reality TV and its effect on families and especially the children of the participants. I didn't view it as "making money off the G kids". Al's book was a piece of salacious trash. I lost all respect for Polly, though, when she was an active participant in the "drunken Jon and the chickens" hoax (aiding and abetting her buddy Al). IIRC, she never did print a retraction or an apology for that fiasco. Polly's blog is moribund, if not actually dead. She hasn't posted in almost a year and the last comment was made sometime in March.
I'm still not able to wrap my mind about TFMJG's filing of this law suit. I must be dense, because I just don't see what she wishes to accomplish here. It sounds like the filing is all over the map and many of the charges are just speculation and supposition. Of course, her main goal is to destroy Jon by any means possible. I hope she gets slapped down once and for all. Unfortunately, she's like the Phoenix. She'll find some way to rise from the ashes (yes, I know. I'm mixing my metaphors).
formerly Readerlady
I've known OF Tony's new partner since I was a kid because she was on Saved By the Bell! She was actually a child star although she might have been a consenting adult at 18 before she snagged the role. I believe she was Zack's girlfriend or maybe Slater's, a waitress at some beach club they worked at.
Otherwise I don't know much about her as a person but I vaguely remember some sort of special about Hollywood moms the must have aired ages ago, maybe even eight years ago. Probably on E!.
I remember she was very kind and down to earth, but a straight shooter and VERY funny. She must be pushing at least her 40s now, I still wish they would give Tony someone younger and an athlete, but I have a feeling at least she's going to give it her all.
I am with the rest of you I barely knew half the other cast if at all. I don't think it's that we're out of the loop, I think it's that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.
They once said they would never turn to reality stars/Real Housewives people, now half the cast seems to have done a reality show.
Tucker your post earlier this morning was so incredibly spot on.
I hope I summarize this right, you said something to the effect of Kate went into this with the end goal in mind. Her hypothesis was that Jon was bad and she was going to FIND that evidence that he was bad. If other things came out, that didn't matter, because the point was to prove Jon was bad. IMO, she got her fans worked up into a tizzy solely to see what dirt would come out on Jon. She could care less what they wanted out of this or helping them, she only wanted what she was interested in.
Also, it is very sad that she said she went in with the full intention to sue. She even said so. That shows an inflexibility and stubbornness to consider any other reasonable alternatives such as therapy, mediation, or heck even hashing it out over dinner and drinks. Going in with the mindset I WILL sue and disregarding any other alternative is sad and unhealthy. Any lawyer with their salt would explain to their client that lawsuit is a method of last resort and they would urge them to exhaust all other alternatives first. Consider it Plan Z, not Plan A.
I have seen this very same phenomenon with police work or other investigative work. You start with a hypothesis. In this case, Jon and Robert are evil and are involved in a conspiracy with the haters to bring Kate down. Then, you pick and choose pieces of evidence that fits that theory, and ignore everything else. Eventually the evidence runs out so then you have to distort things or twist and distort something completely inconsequential into something to any rational person it's not. In other words, you will make that apple into an orange no matter what it takes. It is a bad way to approach this situation and a bad way to approach life in general.
This is how innocent people end up on death row. Two words: MICHAEL MORTON. They decided he killed his wife, and literally IGNORED key pieces of evidence that proved he didn't do it, such as his own young son saying that daddy wasn't home and that a stranger killed mommy. Ignored and BURIED. Had they gone in and just looked at the evidence objectively instead of already deciding Morton was guilty, maybe Morton wouldn't have been robbed of raising his child. This is when I really appreciate posters here like Silimom who said hey, I'm not willing to write the cookbook off just like that. I want to sincerely try at least a few of the recipes first and do so in an open and objective manner. I say that's great and shows an open mind not to mention incredible reasonableness.
One key piece of evidence that is blatantly being ignored here, is the literally hundreds, gosh we might be even pushing thousands, of people who have spoken out against this family no different than anyone else has. These include FAMOUS people like Katie Couric, Eric Roberts, Elizabeth Vargas, Dr. Laura, Murt, Petersen, Arngrim, and their whole crew, various psychologists, the small time or locally famous like Nina and Em Tanner, and many others. It's like this fact doesn't even exist. The rest of the world has spoken: they do not appreciate this woman. We are but one voice in the crowd.
Bitchy Pants said... 13
I'm still not able to wrap my mind about TFMJG's filing of this law suit. I must be dense, because I just don't see what she wishes to accomplish here. It sounds like the filing is all over the map and many of the charges are just speculation and supposition.
___________
Same here. I just can't figure out how, on March 5 she told ROL she wanted to sue Jon but no lawyer would take her case and within a month BV had developed a huge conspiracy case. I really don't get it.
Don't know if anybody has already posted this link, but this business attorney titled his column "Kate Gosselin Sues Jon Gosselin for Violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Did She Adequately Plead a 'Loss'?"
Here the link.....
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/kate-gosselin-sues-jon-gosselin-for-viol-70027/
You know, LaFaire is how a mature adult handles a problem. She sued for money owed to her very shortly after she realized she was owed it. She didn't make a big deal about it, she just quietly filed suit to get her money. She won. She didn't make a big deal about that either. An appeal was filed, and LaFair realized, you know what, I'm going to be fighting this forever. My point was made, it's not worth my time, my money or my sanity--time to quietly back out. And she did, never to say a thing about it again. Mature adults behave the way she did.
"My point was made, it's not worth my time, my money or my sanity--time to quietly back out. And she did, never to say a thing about it again. Mature adults behave the way she did."
_____________
I can understand her thinking, but when dealing with someone like Kate, a narcissist living in an alternate reality, all that did was convince her she was invincible, perhaps even gave her the impetus to try another lawsuit.
If the cookbook is delayed, I would think I would receive an alert from Amazon letting me know when it will be released. I'll keep an eye out for it. The Amazon website still says September 24.
Tweet, I 100% agree. However LaFair can't worry about how the other party will take it and whether it will just empower a narcissist. She has to do what is best for her, her sanity, and her family, regardless how it might have made the other party feel.
Good point, Admin. I can understand that. It's just a shame that good people's actions empower bad people.
Shout out to...Susie Cincinnati...Howdy neighbor!!
I've been too busy these past weeks with getting my youngest son, who just graduated from USMC bootcamp (semper fi), ready and settled into college life to read anything about TFW's lawsuit. I just read a few tabloid articles regarding this and I was a little surprised at the lack of support for TFW in all of the articles and comment sections. There is usually pro and con regarding TFW or at least crap said about Jon, but almost everything I read was negative towards TFW. What happened to all her fans?
If Kate sued me and I WON? I'd never dismiss it in an appeal. No way.
I was looking at TFW's "cook" book over at Amazon which led me to read some comments about her IJWYTK book where one comment linked to Dana Hoffman's old "I'll Rest When I'm Dead" blog.
Good grief Kate has been at this grifting, poor me, life's not fair jag for a long time. There's something serioiusly, seriously wrong with her thinking. No, it's not news, but it's amazing that she's gotten away with it for soooo long.
"Volunteers have helped, some, but nowhere near enough," Kate was quoted.
Berk's County, you have my deepest sympathy.
Here is a ruling in a CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case) that discusses the legal definition of the term "loss."
In Andritz, Inc. v. Southern Maintenance Contractor, LLC, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant violated the CFAA by misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The court found that:
Plaintiff simply fails to allege that it suffered any damages that fall within CFAA's statutory definition of “loss” or “damage.” Plaintiff does not allege that there was any impairment to its computer system or data as a result of Defendants' conduct. After the alleged theft of the data, Plaintiff still had access to the data just as it had before Defendants' actions. The alleged CFAA violation is not that Defendants deleted or altered any data but that Defendants used the data inappropriately. Plaintiff also does not allege any damages related to responding to the offense or conducting a damage assessment, nor does Plaintiff allege that it lost revenue or incurred costs because of an interruption of service. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that it lost revenue because Defendants copied Plaintiff's proprietary information and intellectual property and then used that information to steal customers away from Plaintiff. While a remedy may exist for such conduct, Congress did not provide one in CFAA. See Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 468, 477 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (finding that lost revenue due to unfair competition and lost business opportunity does not constitute a loss under CFAA). Andritz, Inc. v. Southern Maintenance Contractor, LLC, 2009 WL 48187 (M.D. Ga. January 7, 2009).
Loss might include harm to reputation or goodwill, which is why they included the language about damage to Kate's reputation.
However, it will be extremely difficult to prove that Kate suffered any harm to her reputation solely from the information recovered from the computer hard drive and/or discs - in light of Kate's own words and actions on the show itself, her behavior while on DWTS, her behavior while filming an episode of Sarah Palin's show, photographs depicting her angrily spanking her daughter while standing outside her home, etc., etc. It's a very weak case.
Leah Remini recently left Scientology and filed a missing person's report on the head of Scientology's wife. She has the balls to take the cult on, and I respect her for that. I think she'll get a lot of votes for that alone.
Thanks, Millicent. All the defense would have to do is look at blogs and comment sections starting about 2008 or so. Just like Denni (above), North America don't like Kate. At least most who have even heard of her don't.
Yep. What loss has she suffered? She still had access to her computer. She still found work. She already had a lousy reputation before Robert's book. That filing was nothing more than a grab for headlines and intimidation by both Kate and BV. Thanks for the link to that blog. Lawsuits are scary and expensive for the average person, that's why it is a fear tactic to make someone settle even if the suit is a bunch of BS. Hang in there, Jon and Robert.
OT about the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Dh and I went there yesterday morning and spent the entire morning driving around. we saw two big black bears in the wild! We saw quite a few snakes. We saw thousands of butterflies, I am not exaggerating. We saw several eagles. We saw a couple of different waterfowl we could not identify, kinda like herons.
We learned that when the nicer lady at the visitor center tells you to stay on certain roads because you can get thru them without a four wheel drive, believe her! We learned that our prius can get thru some roads that we didn't realize it could! We had an adventure that was such fun!
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981848118
"Kate admitted in her story to Bullyville:
Fortunately, because most companies are accustomed to dealing with this sort of negative nonsense, they stood by me as a rule and we successfully saw our endeavors come to fruition! I am so grateful to the many corporations, family and friends who have chosen to see me for who I really am and know the truth and goodness that defines me.
Kate herself admits it is “negative nonsense” right there in black and white. And that negative nonsense has no effect on her endeavors to further promote herself by her own admission. And by the sounds of it, she has a cadre of supporters to stand by her.
So Kate, in your own words, you’re having fun with your tweeties, your business contacts are used to dealing with negative nonsense and stand by you and you have a support group to rely on. Are you experiencing “negative nonsense” or bullying? Maybe you should rally your fans and encourage them to help kids who are really suffering from bullying instead of elbowing your way onto the bullying bandwagon and pushing off and devaluing the heartache of those who are truly experiencing the grief and distress of real bullying."
What does the "M" in TFMJG stand for? ... The Former M???? Jon Gosselin.
Thanks!
TLC stinks said... 28
Yep. What loss has she suffered? She still had access to her computer. She still found work. She already had a lousy reputation before Robert's book.
-------
I agree that all of the above is true and I'm simply playing devil's advocate. Could it be that she was told, and has proof, that she was turned down for a job or lost an already contracted job because of the negativities on her Twitter account and because of Robert's book? Without any kind of substantive proof, I don't see how there can be a case.
"What started out as a mission to find the source(s) of excessive internet bullying and hate directed towards me..."
------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of the word "excessive" is puzzling.
According to that statement, she expects to receive Internet hate. So she's getting worked up over this because the volume of hate is at a level greater than what she thinks is acceptable? So if she's expecting to be hated, what reason does she have for suing anybody for despising her?
Her statement implies understanding that getting brickbats along with bouquets and bon mots is part of the territory. She's already stated [in the past] that most of the attention she receives is of the negative kind.
Craziness said... 28
Leah Remini recently left Scientology and filed a missing person's report on the head of Scientology's wife. She has the balls to take the cult on, and I respect her for that. I think she'll get a lot of votes for that alone.
********
I like her for the same reasons. Looking forward to seeing her dance!
TFMJG = The Former Mrs. Jon Gosselin.
I applaud Leah for speaking out about Scientology. I always enjoyed her on King of Queens.
Maybe in Kate's mind, "Can we sue?" is another way of "piecing and patching" together some income.
Kate is pitching this little lawsuit/hissy fit because, even though she has said that companies she works for stand by her, she isn't getting what she really wants--a new show. Forget the blogs and running and the cookbook. She got a taste of seeing herself on TV, of walking red carpets, of being catered to day and night, and then she lost it all. She is desperate to get it back
TFW claims she's struggling financially and needs to be back on TV to support the kids. That's a lie, and her own actions prove it. If she were struggling even a tiny bit, she would not be buying a new Audi (or even owning 3 cars just for herself), filing frivolous lawsuits, or taking "me-time" vacations to the Kentucky Derby, or to visit her sister. There is no financial struggle. This is all about shutting up Jon, Hoffman, and her critics so she can get back on TV. Period.
I'm a little irritated that she keeps claiming that she needs a show to provide for the kids. As always, she's just using the kids to get what she wants. Funny how she had the money for her own trips in the last few months, but the kids didn't get a vacation. She has thousands of dollars to use to bully Jon. Or she can use that money to take the kids to the beach. Which does she choose? Bullying. Forget what the kids want. And it's pretty obvious that her case is not pro bono. If her lawyer can't afford a craft beer, then he can't afford to represent her for free. It's her money that's driving this. So, she takes somehting away from the kids (a vacation), yet makes sure that she gets whatever her cold little heart desires. That "poor me" crap, as Auntie Ann said above, has been going on for a very long time. It's time for it to stop. Other parents with large families pay their own way. Time for TFW to do the same.
It was easy for Kate to get through all the "negative nonsense" before because she had TLC's muscle behind her. The only thing behind her now is her backside. When the cohosts of TV shows laugh at you on national television, you got squat.
I only know of Lisa Rimini from watching The Talk twice. She did not leave me with any positive feelings there. I heard she was let go and I wasn't surprised.
"What started out as a mission to find the source(s) of excessive internet bullying and hate directed towards me..."
------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of the word "excessive" is puzzling.
************************************
what I got out of this was that she's blaming Jon & Robert for what she calls excessive internet bullying and hate.
Implying that they're either paying other people to hate on TFW, or are making up zillions of sock accounts and doing it themselves.
Neither of which seems like it's within the realm of reality. They'd have to have a lot of sock accounts.
Either, or both, of them may have posted stuff, but I can't see that any individual would be able to post the vast amount of negative comments by themselves, nor have the funds or ability to recruit so many other people to do it for them.
She acts like it's a single person orchestrating all the negative stuff from their leather couch.
Oops, make that LEAH RImini. Autocorrect messed up part of that and I messed up the rest.
Craziness said... 28
Leah Remini recently left Scientology and filed a missing person's report on the head of Scientology's wife. She has the balls to take the cult on, and I respect her for that. I think she'll get a lot of votes for that alone.
&&&
I never heard that before. Good...for....her.
I just read her bio. She WAS a child star. She moved to L.A. when she was 13 with her mom to act and started getting roles right away.
She sounds a little bit Jenny from the block. She WILL stand up for herself. Apparently she got in a bit of a twitter war with Sharon Osbourne sometime back! Interesting, since Jack Osbourne will be on this season.
And this: " Writer/director Paul Haggis, who had previously been the most famous person to publicly disavow Scientology, wrote an open letter published by The Hollywood Reporter in which he thanked Remini for standing by him after his split from the Church and praised her "enormous amount of integrity and compassion."
I am so relieved for Tony.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981848118
"Kate admitted in her story to Bullyville:
Fortunately, because most companies are accustomed to dealing with this sort of negative nonsense, they stood by me as a rule and we successfully saw our endeavors come to fruition! I am so grateful to the many corporations, family and friends who have chosen to see me for who I really am and know the truth and goodness that defines me.
=========
Has this been forwarded to Jon/Robert/attorneys as proof that she suffered no losses due to negative publicity? Would it be admissible evidence?
Fortunately, because most companies are accustomed to dealing with this sort of negative nonsense, they stood by me as a rule and we successfully saw our endeavors come to fruition! I am so grateful to the many corporations, family and friends who have chosen to see me for who I really am and know the truth and goodness that defines me.
=========
Has this been forwarded to Jon/Robert/attorneys as proof that she suffered no losses due to negative publicity? Would it be admissible evidence?
&&&
Yes, this can be admissible.
This is what happens when you run your mouth. You end up having a heck of a time proving damages should you ever try to go on a suing rampage.
If the cookbook is delayed, I would think I would receive an alert from Amazon letting me know when it will be released. I'll keep an eye out for it. The Amazon website still says September 24.
==================
Maybe they haven't all gone out yet. Paige and Gypsi both said they got alerts.
Yes, this can be admissible.
This is what happens when you run your mouth. You end up having a heck of a time proving damages should you ever try to go on a suing rampage.
**************8
Doh! Kate should add this recipe to her cookbook,"How to Cook Your Own Goose."
Marie
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 15
I've known OF Tony's new partner since I was a kid because she was on Saved By the Bell!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tony's partner is Leah Remini, who was not on Saved by the Bell. Elizabeth Berkly is paired with Val.
Tony's partner is Leah Remini, who was not on Saved by the Bell. Elizabeth Berkly is paired with Val.
&&&
Yes she was. They both were. From Wikipedia: "She is best known for her role as Carrie Heffernan on the CBS sitcom The King of Queens and as Stacey Carosi on the NBC sitcom Saved by the Bell."
Trust me, Saved by the Bell was my childhood. She was on it. :)
Elizabeth Berkly: I'm so excited, I'm so excited! I'm...so....SCARED!! Emmys all around.
And, TFW also flat out says that negativity is something companies are USED to dealing with, it comes with the territory.
Companies "are accustomed to dealing with this sort of negative nonsense." Are ACCUSTOMED.
So to try to say she is somehow different when she just admitted that apparently negativity is SO common for other celebs ...? There's a real disconnect there.
So, if this happens to everyone else so often companies are used to it, and you barely lost any work for it, how are you different again? Why doesn't every celeb sue then?
Maybe in Kate's mind, "Can we sue?" is another way of "piecing and patching" together some income.
===============
True, but you first have to piece and patch to get the funds together to sue. It becomes a piecing and patching vicious cycle! If you win, you've patched. If you don't, you have to piece some more in order to get it going again.
Fleecing The Sheeple said... 45
If the cookbook is delayed, I would think I would receive an alert from Amazon letting me know when it will be released. I'll keep an eye out for it. The Amazon website still says September 24.
==================
Maybe they haven't all gone out yet. Paige and Gypsi both said they got alerts.
I just checked my email account and there was no news from Amazon. I also just checked my order status on my Amazon account and it is still scheduled to arrive by September 24.
At one point, I believe, the date was moved back from an August delivery to the September delivery (or something like that - please correct me if I'm wrong).
Do you think it's possible both of these fans only now saw that alert?
Or maybe it's just that I'm super special and Amazon loves me more then them (because I spend more money then they do, probably). Yeah, that must be it. ;-)
Tony's partner is Leah Remini, who was not on Saved by the Bell. Elizabeth Berkly is paired with Val.
=============
IMDb is an excellent source for finding celebrities and their shows:
Leah Remini:
Saved by the Bell (TV series)
Stacey Carosi
– The Last Weekend (1991) … Stacey Carosi
– Boss Lady (1991) … Stacey Carosi
– My Boyfriend's Back (1991) … Stacey Carosi
– Fourth of July (1991) … Stacey Carosi
– The Game (1991) … Stacey Carosi
LOL! The following is from a DWTS article on televisionwithoutpity.com They have TFW's number!
"Granted, Dancing with the Stars has always used to the term "stars" pretty loosely. It's also been pretty lenient with the whole "giving attention to headline-grabbing celebrities, whose only discernible talent is staying in the spotlight and being a barnacle on the ship that is society" thing. Case in point: former seasons have included the likes of Kate Gosselin, Nancy Grace, Bristol Palin, Tom DeLay and Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino."
She was on Saved By The Bell. Smaller part but she was on the show.
Great, add TWOP to the list of people to sue.
Look, she is a laughing stock. In the world of celebrity, if you follow it at all, she is a laughing stock. What is she going to do, spend the rest of her life suing?
New post! Leah Remini is my hero.
New comments are not allowed.