It’s got to be difficult being Hugh Hefner. A life surrounded by thousands of bouncy post-op women and actual vats of cash would be difficult for any man.

On top of that he’s got to keep crazy hours sneaking about at night with his secret elite paedophile organisation. They’re always hiding under kids’ beds and in their closets with sweaty fists tightly gripping inside-out underoos. And at his age – that’s a lot of sleep he’s skipping.

It’s probably untrue, to be quite honest. But one ‘reincarnated’ Greek goddess is suing him because she thinks it is.

As any secret, predatory, paedophile gang worth a spit will tell you – to thrive in total anonymity you’ve really got to get a famous face to front your organisation. Seriously. That’s probably because when you get found out it’ll make you more relatable (if not down-right likable) to the public. Enter Hugh Hefner, then.

Or don’t, actually. You see, chances really are he’s been too busy promising button-bursting 18-year-olds babies for the past six decades to really have time to assault sexy toddlers in their own nurseries. One lady though – she’s suing him for billions under that very claim. If you think it sounds crazy so far – you ain’t heard nothing yet. This is apparently from a letter/statement the unnamed accuser sent to the Superior Court of California:

“Yes, sir I am asking for 3 billion dollars from Mr. Hefner. He’s been after me since I was a baby. Along with a pedifile organization here in L.A. When I was bout 5 yrs. Old He mysteriously was underneath my bed and he grabbed my arm and said that he and forsay the beatles and he mentioned the names of them. I asked like in my head since I’m a hat everyone in the world here’s my thought’s, a good way to establish peace…”

We know what you’re thinking – Hugh Hefner should be arrested this very minute! But wait – there’s more:

“Hugh has made it with the pedifile organization hard to work, my stuff ens up disappearing and my family that I grew up with there’s so jeoulousits like insanous but Hugh Hefner is the one That was the start of helping the pedifilement Hugh Hefner and the head person’s of the pedifile family…”

We’re not done yet:

“I consider my hat my telepathy from God and I also carry the beautifiliest angel lusefer in me cause I remember being the Goddess Venus see me and odeseyues God of wine and Zeus, in which I have a different perspective on such a God well you know well built, a body like a brick house like a God that rules…”

Well she makes slightly more sense then Kendra, right? Of course she does.

Now sit back and take a breath. Touch the top of your head to make sure it wasn’t just blown off. Still there? Good. If it’s not you should find all the pieces and get them on ice.

We’re still not done with the crazy quotes, you know. That lady babbled on for like three pages in small print. Of course – you probably would too if you thought your story would fill your wallet with a literal three billion dollars of Hefner-dough. Imagine how much therapy that could get this lady? Well with that in mind, we certainly hope this thing makes it all the way to court on a day the judge particularly hates old men with silicone stuck to the roof of their dentures.

If you want to see more crazy lady-ranting you’ll have to download the rest for yourself. Skip on over to TMZ and find the PDF file. Guaranteed to be the weirdest, saddest, bleakest, most dismal, distressing and depressing thing you’ve read all day.

Kinda makes you question this thing called life, doesn’t it?

-Sniff-

Now if you’ll excuse us, we’re in a warm bath and apparently we need to find a longer extension cord for our toaster.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

The Adventures Of Willy The Wizard No 1: Livid Land is a wonderful book wherein the protagonist possibly vanquishes evil by rubbing it incessantly with his magical buttock.

Since Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire basically has the exact same plot, sentence structure, verb-to-noun ratio and pie graphs, the heirs of the Willy Wizard estate have recognised it as unapologetic plagiarism. As such they are now suing JK Rowling either until she agrees to show them the exact location of Hogwarts, and to allow Willy Wizard a full seven-book scholarship there, or for 813 million dollars.

We honestly don’t remember which.

When JK Rowling first decided to write Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire for the sole purpose of furthering her unholy satanic agenda, she probably had no idea why her dark lord, as he spoke from the belly of a freshly slain cat, demanded she do so by plagiarising a boring author that nobody ever heard of and would likely never read.

But that’s just what she did. Allegedly. Well of course you know she probably didn’t do it, but that’s what two descendants of Adrian Jacobs are claiming. They are bound and determined to squeeze Rowling for £500 million in a British court of law. Either that or they’re bound and determined to get their dead dad a butt-load of publicity with a lawsuit like this.

Here’s what it says on All Headline News:

“Legal papers filed by Jacobs’ estate list similarities between the books, including “shared references” to a wizard train and prison and a magical contest where the boy wizard must rescue human hostages taken captive by half-human creatures. In addition to £500 million [$813 million] in damages, the estate is seeking an injunction to prevent further sales of the offending book, or a share in the tome’s profits”

If that’s not enough for you – here’s what a Willy Wizard fan wrote about the book on Amazon.co.uk:

“This book is great for kids, it very much appears to resemble Harry Potter. I love this book, ive grown up with it and it has been signed by the author Adrian Jacobs. i really do recommend this book to every child. it is very hard to get a hold of and is extremely rare. Its about Willy the Wizard who goes to wizard college on a train and adventures begin to happen, you will really have to read this book yourself its great!!”

If this lawsuit works and the Willy Wizard people end up with part-ownership in all of Rowling’s bank accounts, let us simply state we once wrote a book called ‘The Wizard’s Willy.’ It was about a magician who died but most of his genitalia lived on for another 100 years helping those in need. We haven’t actually read Willy Wizard, but the title alone definitely borrows heavily from our little-read masterpiece.

We’re just saying that we’re probably owed a little something too. British courts – save us a seat.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

At some point in time the American Express credit card company received an application with Courtney Love’s name on it and decided that yes, they would like to entrust her with more than a quarter million dollars.

Had they paid attention to the small print in their company policy where it clearly states ‘it is ill-advised that any money ever be lent to people who poop out their mouth and call it a record,’ then perhaps they could have avoided this lawsuit all together.

Oh that’s right – we said lawsuit. The credit card company claims Love refuses to pay back $352,059.67.

It’s all been downhill for Courtney Love ever since her husband died and couldn’t write music for her band to record anymore. Also, it’s been down hill since she smeared her lipstick 15 years ago and apparently everyone feels to awkward to tell her. She’s also been all downhill since she was born so very unattractive.

All in all the woman has had a rough go.

And its getting rougher. American Express claims she owes them $352,059.67, and she claims she shouldn’t have to pay them back since she wrapped the money in a taco and then kept it in her bum until the whole wad smelted.

That last part we heard her say in a dream.

This is what American Express says about the whole mess (according to Reuters):

“[American Express] sued the musician in Los Angeles on Wednesday, alleging she owes more than $350,000 in unpaid charges and other fees on her AmEx Gold card. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, seeks $352,059.67 for the unpaid balance, damages, attorney’s fees and late charges, and says Love’s charging privileges were suspended after she “failed and refused” to make payments.”

Well that’s their side. Loves side is actually quite different. According to TMZ:

“Love’s lawyer writes: “AmEx knows the claim has no merit. We have told them this for a long time. AmEx’s lax policies allowed fraudulent transactions to be charged to my client’s card.”…Keith Fink, Courtney’s lawyer, tells us that 104 AmEx credit cards were taken out under Courtney’s name or the name of her business — and that all the charges attributed to Courtney weren’t made by her. He also said it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out nobody takes out 104 credit cards!”

Well Love’s lawyer Keith Fink, we’re inclined to side with you. It would be completely outrageous for a normal person to get 104 accounts for the exact same credit card brand. You should check up there with the smelted tacos before you get to court though. You wouldn’t want an ill-timed fart to blow your case.

That would be embarrassing on at least two different levels.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

And that’s fine. But even Sharon Osbourne has her limits. Cross them and she’ll sue your flipping bum off. That’s what Sharon Osbourne did to The Sun after it claimed she was working Ozzy Osbourne ‘to destruction’ to keep her rich, and she’s won a substantial payout from it.

So whatever you do, don’t say that Sharon Osbourne is trying to kill her husband with work. But feel free to laugh at her funny Skeletor voice. That’s probably OK. If it isn’t, we’re screwed.

We genuinely can’t understand why, but Sharon Osbourne seems to be everywhere at the moment. One minute she’s being rumoured to appear on Strictly Come Dancing, the next she’s getting all Lady Macbeth about Dannii Minogue.

We’re not sure why this is happening, and we’re not certain we approve of it, but at least now that Sharon Osbourne has won a crapstand of money by suing a newspaper for libel, hopefully she can disappear again for a while.

The trouble all started when The Sun printed an article in 2007 claiming that Sharon Osbourne was forcing Ozzy Osbourne to perform a gruelling string of concerts just because she wanted some new jewels or shoes or another dehumanising round of cosmetic surgery or something. And this is Ozzy Osbourne we’re talking about, remember – a man who looks like he has trouble remember what trousers are for – so obviously forcing him to sing Crazy Train night after night would be impossibly cruel, right? BBC News reports:

The article, published in October 2007, claimed that Mrs Osbourne was “driving her frail husband Ozzy Osbourne to destruction” and was working him “so hard she will kill him”. It alleged that she was forcing the Black Sabbath star to perform in a series of live shows in order to fund her exorbitant spending. The article continued: “Sharon will keep Ozzy on the road until, like Tommy Cooper, he dies on stage”.

Anyway, long story short, it’s all bollocks. Sharon Osbourne didn’t try to kill Ozzy Osbourne. She doesn’t need to – Ozzy Osbourne is perfectly capable of almost dying by himself, as any number of amateur quad-biking enthusiasts will tell you.

And, as such, The Sun has paid Sharon Osbourne a substantial, undisclosed sum of money in libel damages. But, let’s look on the bright side, at least it’s only money – Sharon didn’t lob a cup of coffee in their faces and then try to physically rip them limb from limb in front of a gaggle of bewildered bikini models. She does that, we hear.

So ‘trying to kill Ozzy Osbourne to fund her lifestyle’ is off the list of things we can say about Sharon Osbourne. Are we still allowed to say that her daughter looks like a sullen Moomin, though? Because it would sort of suck if we weren’t.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

As far as our top five list of attractive dictators goes, Hitler’s not even on it. You know who is though? General Mao. Sure he was mean, but he had the jaw-line of a god. Adolf was ugly alright – but don’t tell that to Eva Braun. She used to lick sugar off his greasy cheek bones (Germans think that’s an exfoliator). Imagine how dumb she’d feel once she found out he was ugly.

Hideous as he was, though, Hitler apparently had good taste in globes. And that, through a series of strange events, now has Tom Cruise hovering on the brink of a huge gaping lawsuit.

As vile as he was, there were still two admirable traits clearly owned by Adolf Hitler. The first is that he was a real patriot, at least that’s what our great aunt Adolpha told us through what we suspect is a Spanish accent. The second is he owned a really nice globe – nice enough that Tom Cruise went way out of his way to include a replica of it in his recent German one-eyed romantic comedy, whatever it was called. We haven’t seen it yet.

The problem there is the actual physical look of Adolf’s globe was copyrighted by what must be a very lonely fellow. That’s right, the globe itself is a full-fledge copyrighted item, and Cruise and company approached nobody about using it in a film. Page Six can get you up to speed:

“Robert Pritikin – who penned such jingles as “Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat” and has a $40 million art collection – owns several Hitler artifacts, including the Fuehrer’s notorious globe, which he used to plan U-boat attacks from his compound in the Bavarian Alps.

“The globe was replicated and prominently featured in “Valkyrie,” the thriller about a real-life plot to assassinate Hitler – and that has Pritikin mulling legal action. In 2007, Pritikin paid $100,000 for the globe and had its likeness copyrighted to keep it from being used in propaganda by sick neo-Nazi groups.”

A solution the Rice-A-Roni guy has in mind is that Tommy-boy could buy all of his Hitler related paraphernalia and then donate it to a museum or something. Other items Pritikin may have in mind for quick sale include Hitler’s crusty inside-out underpants, the actual withered portion of Hitler’s lip that his tiny mustache used to call home, and a montage of several German puppies. That last one we’re told is quite cute.

If any of that is true it sounds absolutely terrible – but not that all of the Rice-A-Roni guy’s ideas are bad. For instance we’re really thinking about copyrighting all flat maps made during the greater WWII era. And if that works we’re also gonna reserve the image rights to Abraham Lincoln’s stove pipe hat and the white horse that’s always in the background whenever George Washington posed for a prayer painting.

Then we’re just gonna sit back and let the inevitable cash flow in. Thanks for that, Hitler-rice guy, from the bottom of our pocket book.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Well, not if you’re Joe Satriani. Joe’s claiming that Coldplay ripped off chunks his song If I Could Fly in Viva La Vida, and he’s suing the band for everything they’ve got – so essentially a U2 songbook, some tatty faux-Napoleonic jackets and a scrawny wife who always looks miserable.

Why wasn’t the comparison between the songs pointed out sooner? Because everyone knows that if you own a Coldplay album and a Joe Satriani album, you must be drowned like a witch, that’s why.

The problem with music is that there are only so many notes available to an artist, and only so many combination of notes they can use before songs start sounding familiar. That’s why sometimes you get a situation where Avril Lavigne writes a song that sounds a bit like Hey Mickey, a bit like The Rolling Stones, a bit like Peaches and a bit like some band we’ve never heard of and yet somehow worse than all of them.

It’s not plagiarism, it’s just an unfortunate coincidence. But what’s really unfortunate is when a band makes a song that sounds like another artist’s song and both performers are crap and the note progression in both songs is so woeful that it makes us want to saw through into our belly, feed our arm up through the hole and punch the bad noise out of our brain with our fists from the inside.

Which, hey, seems to be what’s happening with Joe Satriani and Coldplay.

In 2004, Joe Satriani – the guitar bore who makes music for people who don’t like music – released an album with the punchworthy title Is There Love in Space? The album contained a song called If I Could Fly, which nobody paid any attention to at first because it was boring and almost certainly the sort of thing that Noel Edmonds would enjoy using as his on-hold music.

Flash forward four years, though, and Coldplay have released song called Viva La Vida on an album of the same name which was boring and almost certainly the sort of thing that Noel Edmonds would enjoy using as his… hey, wait a minute!

Long story short, Joe Satriani’s now suing Coldplay for ripping him off. BBC reports:

In court papers filed in Los Angeles on Thursday, he said the song used “substantial original portions” of his 2004 instrumental If I Could Fly. Satriani, 52, wants a jury trial and is seeking damages and “any and all profits” for the alleged plagiarism.

But how similar are If I Could Fly and Viva La Vida? Luckily YouTube is all over this. Look…

OK, they are kind of similar. But it won’t be up to us to decide who’ll win this lawsuit. However, if Joe Satriani does win, it’ll be a terrible blow to Coldplay – not just a financial blow but, because one of Coldplay will actually have to admit to owning a Joe Satriani album, a blow to any notion that the band understands what good music sounds like.

But regardless of who wins the lawsuit, there can only be one loser here. And that’s us – the knowledge that two artists have chosen to use a melody so obviously stupid has pretty much obliterated what little remaining faith in humanity we had. If you need us we’ll be weeping in the corner.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

But, anyway, David Duchovny has feelings, and those feelings are easily hurt. For example, why do you think that David Duchovny hasn’t directed a movie since 2004’s House Of D? Because that movie was so hamfisted and borderline offensive that nobody dares let him behind a camera again? No, it’s because the critical reaction hurt his feelings. Probably.

Something else that hurts David Duchovny’s feelings is when people say he’s been having sex with people he hasn’t been having sex with. So when The Daily Mail claimed that David Duchovny had a full-blown sexual affair with his tennis coach, his feelings were hurt immeasurably. You couldn’t put a price on how hurt David Duchovny was. But if you had to, it’d be $1 million. And David wants that money now. Now. No, really. Now.

When it comes to David Duchovny, there are certain things that you can and can’t say about him. For instance, you can say that X-Files: I Want To Believe was such a disappointment that you’d be happy if he never worked again, or that his TV show Californication is so bad, largely because of his own doughy face, that just thinking of the word ‘Californication’ makes you want to pull your jaw out and smash it into your eyes now.

You can even say that – as a self-confessed sex addict – it seems as though David Duchovny is just a big greedy child who lacks the basic self-control to respect his wife, whether it’s by having sex with other women or just hammering his sweaty little mushroom into a stump in front of the internet until his lap ends up looking like like a large and unusually hairy glazed Krispy Kreme doughnut. We’re pretty sure you can say that.

But what you can’t say is that David Duchovny had an affair with his tennis coach Edit Pakay. The Daily Mail said that earlier this week, and now David Duchovny’s suing it for a million dollars. Fox News reports:

Duchovny filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday for defamation and invasion of privacy against The Daily Mail, seeking no less than $1 million in damages. On October 18 the well-known tabloid claimed that the “Californication” star was having a “full-blown sexual affair” with his tennis teacher Edit Pakey and that he had planned to leave his wife of 11 years to be with her.

Because David Duchovny apparently wasn’t having an affair with his tennis coach – who incidentally, it’s claimed, wasn’t even his tennis coach – the report caused him ’substantial harm’. A million dollars’ worth of harm, in fact.

For what it’s worth, we haven’t had sex with any tennis instructors recently either, so if there are any newspapers that would like to pay us a million dollars for that as well, we’d appreciate that. Just so everyone knows.

So when the producers of No Country For Old Men started to muck around with Tommy Lee Jones’ salary, it was always going to end up with one of two scenarios – either Tommy Lee Jones was going to chase them through the woods with a gang of fearsome US Marshalls until they’re forced to jump off a waterfall, or he’d just sue them.

So he sued them. Tommy Lee Jones has launched a lawsuit against the producers of No Country For Old Men because he says they paid him $10 million less than they said they would. $10 million is lot of money which, having seen No Country For Old Men, equates roughly to $5 million for every word that Tommy Lee Jones spoke in it, so no wonder he’s narked off.

No Country For Old Men was a phenomenal success. Not only did it win just about every movie award under the sun, but it also ended up taking hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, which is fairly odd for an almost-silent movie about a man with a funny haircut getting some kids to bandage him up with a T-shirt.

The success of No Country For Old Men has led to greater things for everyone involved – Javier Bardem got to have it off with Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz at the same time, Josh Brolin’s getting to play the president in his next movie and it lent Woody Harrelson the authority to compare Wesley Snipes to a tree in official letters.

Yep, everyone’s done well out of No Country For Old Men, except for Tommy Lee Jones. He’s apparently been gypped out of $10 million by the movie’s producers, after he apparently signed a contract where they promised him all kinds of woolly fluff. BBC News reports:

Legal papers filed in California stated the 61-year-old had taken a lower fee than normal to appear in the film. But Paramount Pictures pledged “significant” bonuses to him if the movie was a hit and Jones did not receive these, the papers alleged.

Significant bonuses? No wonder there’s so much confusion – that doesn’t actually mean anything at all. Personally if we were the movie producers, we’d have tried to let Tommy Lee Jones keep the hat he wore and one of the dog corpse dummies from the film on the basis that they’re culturally significant. Plus, you know, he might have been able to get a couple of quid for them on eBay as well. What’s he complaining for?

Actually, in fairness, we’re completely on the side of Tommy Lee Jones here. It’s not nice to go unrewarded for work you’ve done, especially when you’ve already been rewarded for it and you’re quibbling over bonuses for your particularly easy, incredibly overpaid role in a movie that basically just asked you to play a quieter version of every single other character you’ve played in all other movies you’ve ever been in.

Honestly Tommy Lee Jones, we should organise a march for you or something.

But you mustn’t. You mustn’t look at Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s babies – especially if you’re looking at the paparazzi photos secretly taken with a high-powered telephoto lens that were recently taken. Look at those and Brad Pitt will sue your sweaty loner arse all the way to the moon and back. He’s said so himself.

But don’t get the wrong idea – Brad Pitt isn’t going to unusually strong legal measures to protect the privacy of his family. He’s doing it to protect you. Those babies are so genetically perfect that if you even glance at them you’ll instantly leave your wife because their beauty will show her up to be the ugly old trollop that she really is.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s new twins Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon have really captured the world’s imagination since they were born earlier this month. They’re rich, they’re famous, they’re a little bit French and they’re probably the focus of up to eight or nine separate opportunistic kidnapping plots. What’s not to love?

Well, how about the fact that we don’t know what they bloody look like for starters? For all we know Vivienne Marcheline has a hand for a nose and Knox Leon looks like a giant boggle-eyed manatee.

Some brave members of the paparazzi have been trying to help us all out, though, by secretly sneaking into Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s French estate and taking pictures without anyone finding out. These gallant photographers deserve our praise on two counts, firstly because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie enjoy kicking the paparazzi’s arse whenever they can, and secondly because it’s probably a bit illegal.

However, don’t start getting excited by the prospect of any Brad Pitt/ Angelina Jolie baby action just yet, because Brad has caught wind of these secretly-taken photos, and he’s just about ready to shit out an aneurysm about it. E! Online reports:

The actor’s attorney is threatening legal action against any media outlet that publishes photos snapped “surreptitiously” of Pitt, Angelina Jolie and their family, including new twins Knox and Vivienne, on the grounds of their French estate. “The taking of the Photos constitutes a malicious violation of Mr. Pitt’s privacy, including under the laws of California and France,” the attorney says.

We have to admit that we’re a little bit outraged by Brad Pitt’s threats to sue anyone who prints photos of his babies.

True, the photos do probably constitute a serious breach of privacy, and as a result Brad and Angelina will live the rest of their lives in a paranoid fug of hounded terror, but isn’t it every human’s right to be able to glance at a picture of a famous baby, mumble about it only looking like a sodding baby and forget about it instantly?

Apparently not. And anyway, it is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s right to keep the identity of their new babies a secret, not just because of the obvious security threat but because the children haven’t asked to be photographed. They’re just unconsenting pawns in all of this, and it’d be unfair to take advantage otherwise. It’s not like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie plan to sell photos of the twins to the highest bidder, is it?

Oh wait…

But Spector (enter dark looming clouds) didn’t like bagels with cream cheese, small personal-size boxes of raisin bran or apples with tiny, brown, centimeter-deep puncture wounds on them. No, the continental breakfast definitely would not do. So maybe he ordered room service every single day instead.

Well whatever he did it looks like he was paying for extra of something – the hotel is currently suing him for $110,000 they claim he owes them. Will the hotel ever see this money? Probably not – but Spector’d no doubt be happy to throw in some unneeded “Wall of Sound” if that would help at all.

You know, the kind he used to toss around so freely circa 1970.

Phil Spector spent an awfully long time at trial over the murder/death of 40 year old Lana Clarkson, the woman that was found dead at his house. All arguements one way or the other temporarily ended when the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared.

Mistrial or no mistrial though – Spector had been renting several rooms at the Westin Bonaventure for he and his legal team. From what we’ve seen he kept up on payments the first four months, but then he began to let things slide – which probably really upset the bellhop who was standing there with his hand out.

According to the LA Times, the hotel claims:

“Spector stopped paying the bills for rooms four months into his stay at the Westin Bonaventure, a few blocks from the Criminal Justice Center where his trial was held, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“Spector had an agreement to pay in advance every two weeks, according to the suit. The Westin provided Spector with special accommodations, including “heavenly beds,” complimentary workouts for his attorneys and a secured “litigation war room” guarded with key-card access, said Shari L. Rosenthal, an attorney for the Westin.”

The trial started April 24, 2006 and ended September 26, 2007. If he only paid the first four months ‘rent’ that means he was there for over a year without paying a dime. Perhaps the hotel’s reluctant permittance had something to do with all those unresolved murder allegations.

Still, we don’t know about you, but with rates like that we’re booking a room. Actually, make that two rooms, preferably adjoining, and have somebody roll breakfast in on a cart every morning around 9:30.

Please no gross looking apples.

To read more see ‘Hotel sues Phil Spector over $100,000 unpaid bills’ On The Associated Press Website

Sometimes though, the place is just a target for lawsuits that state it has religious undertones that persecute Muslims because of their head dress & facial scruff – and that’s just the women!

Disney of course denies all this – but it hasn’t stopped one young man from suing them on this very premise. He tried to get a job with them – and was denied because of his turban and facial hair.

Apparently, he didn’t apply for anything in the Aladdin department.

Sukhbir Channa is a man with a name that looks absolutely crazy when fully written out. He’s also a man who got denied employment at Disney World – and he is not pleased about it. To show his displeasure he’s forged a lawsuit in the fiery depths of Jahannum using nothing but molten ore, incredible heat, a pen, some paper and a lawyer.

TMZ reports:

“In his suit, Sukhbir Channa says when he applied for a job at Disney World in 2006, he was told his turban, beard, and long hair didn’t conform to the “Disney look”. Here’s the goofy part: just a few months before, in 2005, he says he marched as a toy soldier in a Disney parade with no problems– but then his turban was hidden by a big toy soldier hat.”

The suit is seeking $1,000,000 in damages to compensate for the several hours a week of minimum wage he probably would have made twirling a baton that had a set of mouse ears on each end. That would be enough to buy him a hot dog on park premises.

Disney was called to give the other side of the story, but he’s been dead for at least 50 years or something, and his previous phone number now belongs to a Taco Bell. We also tried calling the actual Disney corporation, but nobody here could figure out how to dial an area code.

Eventually our mother was called for a comment as her number is first on our contact list and therefore not difficult to dial. She said:

“Did you hear? Nanna fell again.”

Investigation is currently underway to determine if Disney somehow made our Nanna fall, because she too has a beard.

Harry Potter fan Steven Vander Ark is slowly coming to realise this, because he's trying to publish a third-party Harry Potter reference book, Harry Potter Lexicon, and JK Rowling is doing her best to sue his balls off about it.

It just goes to show that JK Rowling won't allow any unauthorised Harry Potter merchandise to hit the shops. But, hey, that doesn't mean you have to tell her about that container of shoddy Far-Eastern lead-painted Dobby The House Elf choking aids that we've just had shipped into the country, OK?

You'd have thought that JK Rowling would have had enough of Harry Potter by now. Yes, admittedly the Harry Potter series has bought her global fame, an impossible level of wealth and the adoration of every literate child on the planet.

But, still, having to pretend to be grateful every time a waddling brat hands you a scrap of paper with a shitty crayon drawing of Ron Weasley when all you want to do is pick them up by their hair and throw them down the nearest well must be exhausting.

However, JK Rowling refuses to leave Harry Potter alone. Although the series of Harry Potter books may be over, JK Rowling still has the money from the next two – or maybe three – Harry Potter movies to come, plus whatever pennies she can wring out of the still rubbish-sounding Harry Potter theme park and the hopeless-sounding Harry Potter musical.

And yet, JK Rowling still plans to coin it in some more by cobbling together a Harry Potter encyclopedia that she can flog to the millions of kids who'd buy a dirty AIDS needle if it had the words 'Harry Potter' stamped on them.

Trouble is, it looks like another writer might beat JK Rowling to the punch. And JK Rowling is fuming about it, as the Associated Press reports:

In papers filed for a lawsuit in Manhattan, J.K. Rowling says she feels betrayed by a fan, Steven Vander Ark, for his role in trying to publish an unauthorized reference work, "Harry Potter Lexicon." Ark is editor of a Web site containing a fan-created collection of essays and encyclopedic material on the Potter universe, including lists of spells and potions found in the books, a catalog of magical creatures and a who's who in the wizarding world… "I am deeply troubled by the portrayal of my efforts to protect and preserve the copyrights I have been granted in the Harry Potter books," she wrote in court papers filed Wednesday in a lawsuit.

That's the main problem. In the past JK Rowling has been hugely supportive of the various Harry Potter fan-sites – and often uses them to communicate with her fans – but as soon as one of them tries to collate anything into something that stops JK Rowling from squeezing every last penny she can out of the speccy little wizard, she throws a shit-fit.

So who's right and who's wrong here? Is JK Rowling right to see Harry Potter Lexicon as a shameless cash-in designed to deflate her own pre-announced ideas? Or is Steven Vander Ark right to think that JK Rowling's being a terrible control freak who can't stand seeing other people happy? Or are we right to want to take every Happy Potter book, DVD or piece of merchandise ever made, throw it on a big fire and skip around it sort of like the Nazis did but this is OK because it's about Harry Potter?

Oh, we're right? There's a surprise.

Read more:

JK Rowling Bashes 'Harry Potter Lexicon' – Associated Press 

So many other people want lips like Teri Hatcher's – essentially normal-looking lips that have kissed Superman – that Teri Hatcher was signed up to be the face and mouth of lip-plumper product Hydroderm. However, Hydroderm says that Teri Hatcher broke her contract by also promoting rival lip-plumper product City Lips, and is suing her for it. However, Teri Hatcher's lips aren't taking this sort of nonsense sitting down, so Teri Hatcher is publicly declaring that she didn't breach any kind of contract.

This is big news, folks, probably the biggest news of the day that you can't even bring yourself to giving even half of a mouse's left bollock about.

Admit it, you want Teri Hatcher's lips. We want Teri Hatcher's too, but only so long as they're sawn off and put in a jar first. We'd hate for them still to be attached to Teri Hatcher when we get them. Her voice sort of annoys us.

But so many people also want Teri Hatcher's lips that they'd be just as happy to make their own lips look like Teri Hatcher's – and for that they'd need Hydroderm lip plumper, the product that signed Teri up to be its public face in 2005. You must have seen the Hydroderm adverts – the ones of Teri Hatcher crying and stumbling around a crockery shop knocking dinner-sets off shelves with her gigantic lips that make her look as if someone tried to force-feed her a bright-red bouncy castle before getting bored halfway through and wandering off. "Hydroderm: For Making People Think You Can't Speak Properly," that was the slogan. You must have seen them.   

Anyway, as we reported earlier in the week, Hydroderm is suing Teri Hatcher for breach of contract because it claims that Hatcher was also promoting City Lips lip plumper at the same time, and wants $2.4 million plus $400,000 expenses back from her. But Teri Hatcher has decided to fight back, by telling the media that it's all a lot of arses, blaming. According to the Associated Press:

In his response, filed Thursday, Hatcher's attorney, Joseph Taylor, wrote that the actress did not make deals with other cosmetic companies, did "absolutely nothing wrong and has been ready, willing, able and eager" to work for Hydroderm, having participated in an all-day photo shoot and having made herself available for TV appearances.

So who's right and who's wrong here? We only wish we could care. But, for the sake of a quiet life, let's hope that Teri Hatcher wins this lawsuit, because if she stops being allowed to promote products for lip plumper then it's inevitable that she'll end up using her granny-claws and dangle-boobs to model other stuff. Granny-claws and dangle-boobs.

Read more:

Teri Hatcher Defends Herself Over Deal – Associated Press 

But that's not the case, no siree. The Red Hot Chili Peppers hate the David Duchovny show Californication because it shares its name with one of their singles and albums, although we forget which one. And so furious are the Red Hot Chili Peppers over the apparent theft of the Californication title that they're suing Showtime for it. That's bad news for Showtime, but we can understand why the Red Hot Chili Peppers did it – after all, if TV shows start stealing their names then it ultimately weakens their brand of drearily insipid identikit bass-solo loving white rich-boy MOR funk-rock that only people's dads really like if they're honest.

We feel for David Duchovny, we really do – The X-Files finished long ago, and yet the poor man is still typecast as a sort of alieny space boffin. Not even writing, directing and starring in a terrible film where Robin Williams plays an amusing disabled man could make the public see David Duchovny as a man who writes, directs and stars in terrible films where Robin Williams plays amusing disabled men instead of Fox Mulder.

So David Duchovny must have been thrilled when Californication was pitched to him – he'd get to play a failed novelist in boob-heavy faux-aspirational lifestyle comedy-drama that's so cloyingly self-satisfied that watching it is like wading through an ocean of congealed sperm on the planet Smug. Californication is the show that will stop David Duchovny being typecast because it's also the show that will stop David Duchovny getting cast.

Sadly, though, Californication is also the title of an eight-year-old Red Hot Chili Peppers album as well as being the title of one of the band's key singles – the one that they've endlessly rehashed for all of their subsequent singles. And, as anyone who knows anything about the Red Hot Chili Peppers knows, they don't like to be messed around with unless the messer wants a strongly-worded Fleamail entry written about them.

But for Californication to call itself Californication when it knew that there was a Red Hot Chili Peppers album called Californication is too much for even Fleamail to cope with. This, the Red Hot Chili Peppers have decided, is an issue that needs to be  solved with a lawsuit. That's why the band is suing Californication's broadcaster Showtime for unfair competition, dilution of the value of the name and unjust enrichment, and lead singer Anthony Kiedis said in a statement that:

"Californication is the signature CD, video and song of the band's career, and for some TV show to come along and steal our identity is not right."

However, the man who created the TV show Californication says that the Red Hot Chili Peppers didn't invent the term at all, and that it was used in an issue of Time magazine in 1972 to describe the plight of Oregon and Colorado locals worried about California's apparently haphazard expansion.

So who'll win this almighty battle between Californication and the Red Hot Chili Peppers? Personally we're not sure that a lawsuit is enough to sort this mess out – which is why we propose that the Red Hot Chili Peppers and everyone involved in producing Californication are packed into CERN's Large Hadron Collider and blasted into each other at the speed of light. There wouldn't be a traditional winner as such, but we'd still quite like to see it.