If some publication accused you of going out to a strip club and getting lap dances from women all night and that your marriage to the mother of your future twins was in trouble, and it was all a lie, do you think you might want to sue? I mean when you get home and your wife reads all of that stuff and you don't sue, she is just going to assume it is all true, especially considering your reputation.
So, when Star Magazine said in their issue this week that Charlie Sheen and his former co-star Michael Boatman (love him) went to a Vegas strip club and partied with a bunch of strippers and had numerous lap dances, you would think that the response would be more virulent from the Sheen camp.
Instead we get, "Star magazine never lets the facts get in the way of good hatchet job. Had the reporter bothered to check, he or she would have learned that the reason Charlie was in Vegas was for a contractual appearance on behalf of Planet Hollywood's Prive. Charlie was in Vegas only four hours. He arrived and left the same evening, not on October 28, as Star reports. Star's reporting of his alleged behavior is as inaccurate as the rest of their story."
Uh huh. The same article talked about how he and Brooke are having problems. My guess is that he is spending far to much time in front of the computer looking at porn and not enough time with Brooke. I don't know what she really expected. This is Mr. Porn And Hookers we are talking about here. I think the only thing that would slow him down would be bankruptcy or some social disease. Oh, or maybe Denise Richards in her car while Charlie is walking down a deserted alley at night.
If someone said these things about me and they were not true, someone would be getting sued and not just a half-ass statement from my publicist.
So, when Star Magazine said in their issue this week that Charlie Sheen and his former co-star Michael Boatman (love him) went to a Vegas strip club and partied with a bunch of strippers and had numerous lap dances, you would think that the response would be more virulent from the Sheen camp.
Instead we get, "Star magazine never lets the facts get in the way of good hatchet job. Had the reporter bothered to check, he or she would have learned that the reason Charlie was in Vegas was for a contractual appearance on behalf of Planet Hollywood's Prive. Charlie was in Vegas only four hours. He arrived and left the same evening, not on October 28, as Star reports. Star's reporting of his alleged behavior is as inaccurate as the rest of their story."
Uh huh. The same article talked about how he and Brooke are having problems. My guess is that he is spending far to much time in front of the computer looking at porn and not enough time with Brooke. I don't know what she really expected. This is Mr. Porn And Hookers we are talking about here. I think the only thing that would slow him down would be bankruptcy or some social disease. Oh, or maybe Denise Richards in her car while Charlie is walking down a deserted alley at night.
If someone said these things about me and they were not true, someone would be getting sued and not just a half-ass statement from my publicist.
I think they're both aware that Brook is just in it for the money, and she's willing to put up with things for as long as it takes to get past that clause of the prenup.
ReplyDelete"Mr. Porn And Hookers" That is AWESOME!
ReplyDeleteI always saw the lawsuits as the ultimate move to make when you were trying to save face. Looks good in the press, and then when it quietly goes away later because the suit has no merit, no one even remembers and the star has their rep salvaged, at least a little. Tony Parker, anyone?
ReplyDeleteLet's play a game.
ReplyDeleteWho is Charlie Sheen's publicist? Why could this be important?
Ok Jax you first...
And Ent come on! You know the answer to this one. This is like a backwards BI.
ReplyDeleterare, your posts are doing a fine job of distracting from my work today ... thanks .. and keep up the snark!
ReplyDeleteI am in the sandbox not playing nice today.
ReplyDeletewhy would anyone care if sheen was getting lap dances? Brooke could care less i'm sure.
ReplyDeletehmm Rare...let me get back to you on that..i imagine i'll dig up some interesting shizz.
ReplyDeleteor sit back and let someone else..lol.
Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Danny DeVito, Geoffrey Rush, Gene Simmons, Helen Mirren, Charlie Sheen, Kelly Ripa, Andy Garcia, Kelsey Grammer, Hank Azaria and John Goodman.
ReplyDeleteAlso repped by Stan Rosenfield...but i cant find anyhting that sticks out..
Ohhh yesssssss. And why is that important........
ReplyDeleteI am too close to this one to point but you are on the right track
was this a trade off of some kind, to hide a darker secret, maybe not of charlie's but of one of his other clients?
ReplyDeleteum if Charlie sues then they wont put all the other actors in the mag repped by Stan?
ReplyDeletei dunno!
WAIT! one of the lapdancers was Sarah Larson and then everyone would know George had in-house ho?
this is even better than a blind .. it has really got me thinking .. smell the wood burning??
ReplyDeleteCharlie is the poster boy for male neutering.
ReplyDeleteHaven't red the post yet, but I KNOW this poor girl has a better-fitting dress that she can wear.
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
Oooh, Rare, can I play?
ReplyDeleteIs it because Rosenfield PLANTS all the stories, a la Jay Bernstein?
That's all I got. And if that was a FAIL, please be kind.
Elsie
This is great! Popcorn anyone?
ReplyDeleteCharlie hasn't really sued anyone except Denise (that I can remember). Actually, I think that's a good strategy for him. Deny everything and leave it at that. If he sued for the lies, then the true stuff would stand out. With this guy, you know there's a lot of true stuff.
ReplyDeleteor maybe it was just true? lol.
ReplyDeletec'mon rare you are leaving us hanging!
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he and Clooney have the same rep should tell you he can't sue..the skank stories always turn out to be so true.
ReplyDelete