TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Rita to Anna's Men: Nothin' Wrong with Gay Sex

12/30/2008 9:35 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

The famous "Seinfeld" line, "Not that there's anything wrong with that" is forever part of the pop culture lexicon. And if Rita Cosby has her way, it will be a legal defense, too.

Birkhead
Cosby claimed in her questionable Anna Nicole Smith book that Larry Birkhead and Howard K. Stern had a sexual tryst -- which was allegedly videotaped. Stern has filed a defamation lawsuit against Cosby.

Now...in a response filed earlier this month, Cosby says her claims can't be defamatory because "engaging in a homosexual tryst, even if videotaped, does not reflect poorly on someone and in the 21st Century it most certainly is not a 'criminal lewd act.'" Cosby should bottle her gall and sell it for $60 mil.

And speaking of $60 mil... that's how much Stern is suing Cosby and the publishers of her book "Blonde Ambition" for.

493 COMMENTS

No Avatar
31.

Howard Supporter    

In her book, Cosby reported that Stern and Birkhead, father to Smith's daughter Dannielynn, engaged in sexual relations, and that a videotape of the two men having sex existed and was viewed by Smith, who died last February.

." The declaration was filed in support of a motion to dismiss Stern's lawsuit, which seeks $60 million in damages from Cosby and her publisher, Hachette Book Group. Other doc uments filed in the case reveal that Cosby, 44, was paid $405,000 for "Blonde Ambition," which sold poorly, and that Hachette editors acknowledged in affidavits that the book was not fact-checked by the publishing house and that the "author is responsible for the truth of the contents of the book." =



2030 days ago
32.

Now Hiring    

16. She conveniently forgot to produce the sex tape for the court which is why she was sued in the first place.

Posted at 9:58PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Rita will lose

________________________________________________

Rita has sources.................end of story. Stern needs to prove that it does not exist.

2030 days ago
33.

Now Hiring    

. In her book, Cosby reported that Stern and Birkhead, father to Smith's daughter Dannielynn, engaged in sexual relations, and that a videotape of the two men having sex existed and was viewed by Smith, who died last February.

." The declaration was filed in support of a motion to dismiss Stern's lawsuit, which seeks $60 million in damages from Cosby and her publisher, Hachette Book Group. Other doc uments filed in the case reveal that Cosby, 44, was paid $405,000 for "Blonde Ambition," which sold poorly, and that Hachette editors acknowledged in affidavits that the book was not fact-checked by the publishing house and that the "author is responsible for the truth of the contents of the book." =





Posted at 10:52PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Rita will lose

__________________________________________________

She had multiple sources.............google the law please!

2030 days ago
34.

Now Hiring    

Why isn't Larry suing her? Ask yourself that question. Could it be he was a source for the book?

2030 days ago
35.

Attention Ho    

32. 16. She conveniently forgot to produce the sex tape for the court which is why she was sued in the first place.

Posted at 9:58PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Rita will lose

________________________________________________

Rita has sources.................end of story. Stern needs to prove that it does not exist.

Posted at 10:52PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Off Shore accounts

Exactly! There is also the fact that those sources didn't know each other.
Bottom line.....the onus is on Stern to prove it is false....which he cannot do.

2030 days ago
36.

Attention Ho    

34. Why isn't Larry suing her? Ask yourself that question. Could it be he was a source for the book?

Posted at 10:55PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Off Shore accounts

He sure was and he fought his subpoena! LOL


"Cosby sought confirmation from the Bahamian Police and received a confidential fax verifying that Birkhead spoke with police and made charges that Stern engaged in money laundering, tax evasion and other offenses"

2030 days ago
37.

ARTOFWAR    

The definition, of defamation character is defined be what ever the characterization,
of which the the person that claims to have been defamed by, another
happens to be.
In other words if you feel that what another entity has said about you is not in your character, and untrue than it is indeed,
defamatory.
Tom Cruise has sued on this very same issue, and has won every time. Well they were all settled out of court. Which means he won.
It is indeed a defamation of character to that person, no matter the issue, if he or she feels they have been wrongly characterized.
Unfortunately defamation of character, is not a crime, but a civil matter.
And in as it is a civil matter, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
If it were to go to court.
In other words Larry, has to prove he is not gay. And just how do you do that, in front of a jury? ARTOFWAR.




2030 days ago
38.

Only swim in the Ocean    

105. Hachette Books throws Cosby under the Bus.

Filing for Summary Judgement against HKS, Hachette Books states that Cosby alone was responsible for vetting the facts of her book and that as Publisher they only edited the book to be sure it was clear and readable. Hachette goes on to ramble about the wild headlines and articles of the day about HKS and LB and how that made it plausible to it as a company that anything and everything Cosby included in her book was likely true.

Who knew a book Publisher would claim to be so gullible and just a follower in the crowd, not a leader with integrity responsible for immortalizing hard facts in its books.

Anyway, the best part is that Hachette was only interested in the book if something 'not in the headlines' was included. Hachette says Cosby was unwilling to share information at first because she was shopping the book to other Publishers besides Hachette. Hachette makes it clear that when Cosby finally divulged she would have a gay sex story about HKS and LB, the company was hooked and advanced her $405,000.

The gay sex is the only reason Hachette bought in to the book. The gay sex was the only reason anyone ever interviewed Cosby about her book after it was published. The story of the encounter and the existence of a 'tape' is a lie!

Cosby, in her Motion, confirms that she relied on Clark for the information about the tape (we've seen that Clark's 'investigation' is just newspaper clippings and blog screen shots basically) and Jackie Hatten for the information of the alleged encounter she 'witnessed'. (JH has been MIA since the book was published, despite HKS's attempts and Hachette's attempts to flush her out). Cosby even claims that 'nannygate' should not be held as evidence of actual malice because she tried to buy false information from the nannies AFTER the book was published, not before, so it doesn't conflict with her 'state of mind' before publication that Clark and Hatten were telling the truth. Cosby even claims that being labelled as gay is not a big deal in America anymore (what planet does she live on?).

Too bad Hachette; your selling point for the book (sex tape) was not true and was the one thing any normal person (like a NY Juror) would have expected you would confirm to the absolutely true.

Too bad Cosby; mountains of paperwork whining about your 1st Amendment and how gullible you were to have believed nuts like Clark and Hatten doesn't cut it. Nobody would have known you wrote a book except for the gay sex part of it (the rest is preposterous gossip and unfounded opinions of various and sundry characters) and you didn't do your due diligence.

Posted at 5:35PM on Dec 16th 2008 by Only swim in the Ocean

2030 days ago
39.

Now Hiring    

36. 34. Why isn't Larry suing her? Ask yourself that question. Could it be he was a source for the book?

Posted at 10:55PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Off Shore accounts

He sure was and he fought his subpoena! LOL


"Cosby sought confirmation from the Bahamian Police and received a confidential fax verifying that Birkhead spoke with police and made charges that Stern engaged in money laundering, tax evasion and other offenses"

Posted at 11:01PM on Dec 30th 2008 by HK$ is Going Down (in more ways than one) ;) LOL

____________________________________________________________

Larry fought that subpoena and tried his hardest to get out of Daniels inquest hearing............it is amazing what a back room deal and money can do to change ones mind. He forgets that Daniel was Dannilynn's brother.

2030 days ago
40.

Attention Ho    

34. Why isn't Larry suing her? Ask yourself that question. Could it be he was a source for the book?

Posted at 10:55PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Off Shore accounts


Quotes from the court docs:



"Birkhead told Cosby that he believed Stern was stealing money from Anna."



Yikes! Ouch!

2030 days ago
41.

Only swim in the Ocean    

113. Why Cosby's Motion for Summary Judgement Will Be Denied - Some Thoughts

• Only a Jury can decide if 'nannygate' is relevant or not to Cosby's 'state of mind'.

Cosby argues that going to The Bahamas after her book was published and after she was sued by HKS does not mean that she had any doubt about the nannies' story and the presence of a gay sex tape of HKS and LB. But, Cosby also says in the same Motion that she is not liable for defamation because most of her book is simply a rehash of 'news' published elsewhere.

Well, Hachette Books' Motion and Cosby's Motion both make it clear that without the gay sex story, the book would never have been accepted for publication. The gay sex allegations had never been in the news previously while the bulk of the book dealt with otherwise well-covered ground. Would a Jury buy Cosby's line of reasoning here?

• Only a Jury can decide if being accused of being gay is or is not defamation.

Cosby describes some other (unknown) country then the USA when she says being labelled as gay is not defamatory 'in the 21st Century', especially, as she goes on to say, in the Los Angeles milieu. Stating that reality TV is actually real (who believes that?) she adds that HKS and ANS on her TV show often bantered about ambiguous sexual orientation and HKS was seen 'in drag' and so on and therefore, what would HKS care if someone said he was gay? But, in the same motion, Cosby contradicts herself and describes the strong likelihood that LB would be very upset at such an accusation because of his All-American boy persona.

When you argue out of both sides of your mouth, a Jury is required to decide which, if either side, is telling the truth.

Cosby's contentions are made despite the recent defeat at the Polls of measures to recognize gay marriage in many States, including CA. This is also against the well-known background in 'Hollywood' that men who are known publicly as gay are box office poison and severe measures are routinely taken to hide male stars' private sexual activities if they are gay or bisexual.

• Reference to partial Court docs from another case opens the door to further inquiry.

Cosby uses part of Opri's Motion to Compel Arbitration (from the LB v. Opri case) that details Opri's allegations that LB had a relationship with a man at the time that she was involved in his paternity battle. Cosby fails to point out that the Judge in that case dismissed the Motion in strong language, pointing out that Opri had failed to answer any of LB's detailed and well-supported claims of malpractice, fraud and conversion against her as well as the claims that Opri and Cosby had a quid pro quo relationship. The same Judge also found Mark Speer was not credible as he related what was purported to be first-hand information about conversations and agreements between LB and Opri. Would a Jury conclude that both Opri and Speer were blowing inflammatory smoke in an effort to hold LB up to public ridicule and advance their case? How reliable are the Opri and Speer allegations?

Cosby brought up the case but failed to mention that both Opri and Speer were found to be unable to answer LB's claims either truthfully or completely or at all. Cosby in her Motion acknowledges Speer as a source.

• A Jury is needed to explore the vast territory of material, but undisclosed, facts and relationships.

Could Cosby have mentioned any less the whole O'Q Team, especially Clark and Wilma? Cosby has exhibits attached to her Motion showing the major source of the inflammatory headlines (that she feels gives her cover) came from O'Q media interviews. Also, the gay sex stuff didn't come from the nannies and JH, it came from Clark/Wilma and JH. The only selling point in her book was based on second-hand information that was false and not verified before publication.

Where does Cosby show how Clark absolutely convinced her that the sex tape existed? Saying you watched the ANS TV Show and wouldn't have been surprised to learn of a gay sex tape doesn't cut it in the real world. Where is JH to publicly confirm that any of her tales are true? Cosby leaves out the 'public view' that JH was a nut case from the first time she appeared on TV and that JH denied being a source on the day the book was published and then vanished. Cosby leaves out that Clark appeared on TV vehemently denying that he was a source for her book.

Cosby's large number of glib explanations, partial explanations, obvious selection of parts of whole docs that make a different point then the one advanced by her and the lack of explanation for the crucial players and her 'connection' to them makes her Motion for Summary Judgement untenable. A Jury is required to decide if Cosby's notions about societal norms are correct, the characters she has relied upon are actually trustworthy and if her actions speak

2030 days ago
42.

NoodleMonkey    

It seems like everyone with whom ANS surrounded herself were/are greedy, low-life synchophants...it's pitiable really.

2030 days ago
43.

Attention Ho    

Hachette Quotes:

"Plaintiff cannot possibly prove that he is entitled to punitive damages and thus that claim should be dismissed."

"Under New York law, even if plaintiff was able to demonstrate that Hachette published Blonde Ambition with actual malice (which he cannot) he is not entitled to an award of punitive damages unless he can prove common law malice.
Plaintiff must prove that Hachette acted with "hatred, ill will, spite, criminal mental state or that traditionally required variety of common law practice.""

~snip~

"Indeed, Plaintiff does not even allege that Hachette acted with hatred, ill will or spite toward Plaintiff."

LOL


Same goes with Cosby. He can't prove malice.

2030 days ago
44.

Now Hiring    

Quotes from the court docs:



"Birkhead told Cosby that he believed Stern was stealing money from Anna."



Yikes! Ouch!

Posted at 11:05PM on Dec 30th 2008 by HK$ is Going Down (in more ways than one) ;) LOL

___________________________________________________________

Birkhead also told Tony Potts he would hold the people who enabled his daughters mother to death with drugs responsible for it, instead he moved her next door to the Quack and invited them all to her birthday party. Does not look good for a man that wants people to watch his new reality show does it?

2030 days ago
45.

Cool    

30. Exactly what i've been saying along. It is only defamatory to be called gay if it defames , in this day we pride ourselves by not resorting to the typical HKS middle school mentality, so what if they're homos , who cares ? Just don't bring that thing near me.

Posted at 10:51PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Meal In A Crust


20. No Juror anywhere in the USA would buy the notion that it is not defamatory to lie about two men having sex. Cosby shows with this contention just how sick & twisted her mind is.

Posted at 10:16PM on Dec 30th 2008 by Only swim in the Ocean


There are many factors to take into account in this as well:

California's passing of the Proposition 8 further capitalizes on the 'majority' still viewing gay citizens as unworthy to the same civil rights as others.

Both men are single, regardless of sexuality, shouldn't that be their privacy? HKS might be asked by a female suitor if he is or if he isn't gay/bisexual in the future? Would that bother any other single straight men, to have to defend himself for the rest of his life?

Rita offers absolutely no evidence but the views of virtually unknown wanna-bees, that have either disappeared, retracted their statement, or admits it was their own opinion. Hatchette defends itself with the author is responsible, which is professionally irresponsible for any publisher, especially one of its caliber.


I agree with the stars : )

2030 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web