Flashback Friday! Volkswagen Ads post-Volkswagen Lawsuits?

September 25th, 2015. By AbiK

Yes, it’s time for a flashback Friday! Remember all those great Volkswagen ads of years gone by? Simple. Witty. Dare I say…trustworthy. Best of all, they poked humor at themselves. They totally got how folks were like “wtf??” when they saw a car that resembled something you’d step on in a heartbeat. And they ran with it. Yesiree…totally ran—straight to the bank. And flower children everywhere made the VW Bug the automotive emblem of their age. Complete love-fest.

But that was then. Fast-forward to September 18, 2015 when news broke about something called a “defeat device“. It sounded like something you’d grab in Minecraft to kill the Ender Dragon—but alas, it turned out to be much more sinister. As we all now know, it’s what VW installed in its diesel autos to suppress emissions so that the cars would pass emissions testing on a dynamometer—aka a stationary “rolling road” used to test cars (and no, we didn’t know what that was either until a week ago). Those emissions, however, when on an actual road, were spewing upwards of 40x more toxic fumes than permitted. Uh-oh! Where’s the love now folks? To die-hard VW fans, it’s a jilt they’ll never get over.

And now there’s a stack of Volkswagen lawsuits piling up.

But it’s worth looking back…at some of those VW ads of yore, and imagining those same ads circa 2015. Yes, the ads on the right are totally fake–just to be clear. But it’s easy to see how they could well be art imitating life right now… so here goes…

Waldorf Wedding Shooter Turns Tables, Sues Waldorf

September 15th, 2015. By LucyC

It’s all fun and games—or dancing and dessert tables—until someone’s firearm goes off. And BAM! Party over. Well, that’s the backstory of this wedding tale gone litigious.

So now…to over-react or not to over-react, that is the question. It’s also the premise of a lawsuit brought against the venerated Waldorf Astoria Hotel—a brand that infers good taste and behavior—at a minimum. BUT—you knew there was a BUT—one day, in the city of New York, back in the month of June, a man went to a wedding packing his Ruger 9mm, as one does. Problem was, it went off, grazing a fellow wedding guest’s head. The Waldorf management, acting in the best interests of their guests’ safety, shut down the party immediately afterwards. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, not if you’re Vladimir Gotlibovsky, owner of the Ruger with a mind of its own. He’s being sued by the bride, one Anna Goldshmidt, for, quite believably, ruining her $750,000 “dream wedding.” Well, look on the bright side, it would certainly put your vows into perspective.

So Gotlibovsky, who doesn’t seem to understand why the event was shut down, is suing the hotel, saying they over-reacted to the incident. Really? I wasn’t aware that random misfiring of guns is the usual run of events at society weddings. But hey, haven’t been to one for while.

Gotlibovsky claims the hotel should pony up at least half the sum he is being sued for. He’s claiming the hotel “unilaterally and without justification canceled the reception.” Guess he thought it was time to circle ’round for Hava Nagila. Wonder what he thought would justify shutting it down, bodies on the floor?

Gotlibovsky, owner of a Brooklyn liquor store “was not responsible for the cancellation of the wedding reception,” his lawyer, Christopher Chang, says in the filing. Ok…

“The fact of the matter is after the firearm discharged, the hotel was secure and the reception could have gone forward,” Chang told The New York Post. The firearm discharged—so it’s an animate object…

I don’t know—if this were a plot on Hawaii 5-0 there would have been a SWAT team descending on the hotel, helicopters, ambulances, the entire neighborhood would have been locked down, Steve McGarrett would’ve been on the scene and you’d be hearing “Book’em Danno” in the time it takes you to say “maybe shoulda left the gun at home”. Now that’s likely over-reacting. But closing the reception? Seems pretty SOP to me.

A Waldorf spokesman did not return a request for comment. Silence is golden indeed.

According to Gotlibovsky’s lawyer, the couple’s parents paid for the June wedding, so the newlyweds cannot sue to recover the costs of the party that went wrong, just for emotional damages. (Huh?)

Needless to say, the bride is pissed—make that PISSED. Turns out Gotlibovsky is a relative—and his behavior is known. In her lawsuit, The Post reports, Goldshmidt states that Gotlibovsky was drunk and failed to holster his pistol even though he’d accidentally discharged it in the past. That would certainly liven up the dinner conversation. Better practice your witty repartee in case your table mate is packing. Being dull could prove lethal.

As for the guest who was grazed—Maya Rafailovich? She was taken to an ambulance after her close encounter with the bullet.

Goldshmidt claims in her lawsuit that the incident caused her “severe embarrassment in front of all her friends, relatives and other guests.” At a minimum, I would think.

“Her dream wedding was canceled and can never be recaptured…there will never be a wedding album; [and] what was to be the happiest day of her life turned into a disaster,” the suit states.

According to The Post, David Jaroslawicz, attorney for the bride, noted that Gotlibovsky’s case against the Waldorf “doesn’t talk about the fact that he handed [the gun off to his brother] and it disappeared,” meaning hotel management didn’t know it “was an accident and not a willful shooting.” Ah!

However, he agreed that the event shouldn’t have been called off. “I think they panicked and canceled it,” Jaroslawicz said of the Waldorf. He believes that security could have screened guests as they moved from the lobby reception to the ballroom. So now there needs to be security screenings for weddings? Would that include removing shoes and belts? Where do you draw the line? Maybe there should just be a wee note at the bottom of the wedding invitation—something like “no firearms allowed”. That’s clear enough. Certainly you wouldn’t want anyone bringing a gun to the actual wedding—what if they “object” ?

FYI—Gotlibovsky holds a permit for the gun and has not been criminally prosecuted over the incident.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Who Owns Kenzo? This Dogfight’s a Catfight!

September 10th, 2015. By LucyC

Gal pal pooch poaching or not? That’s a question the lawyers will have to duke out—pardon the pun. So, what happens when you suddenly find yourself so busy with acting assignments and television appearances—you know—gotta catch a plane Tuesday, back in three months, gone again the following week—that you may have to find a new home for your beloved pet? Hey—it’s obvious—call your friends. Sorry, email your friends, that’s how it works these days.

According to the email train that’s what Ibukunoluwa Oyerinde did—emailed her friend Ellen Webb asking if she could take little her Maltipoo, Kenzo. Sidenote: According to the NY Daily News, Oyerinde is a Nigerian-born former Miss Africa USA finalist who has appeared on the pages of Elle and Essence magazines–so she’s globetrotting for her bookings. So re: the dog, what did she mean by “take”? Oyerinde claims she meant temporary housing and Webb claims Kenzo was a gift—of sorts. Enter the lawyers and we all know where it goes from here.

Webb’s attorney, Robert Hantman, told The New York Post, “It is obvious that the complaint has no merit and is a transparent attempt to garner publicity.”

However, Oyerinde’s lawyer, Jim Kirk, has, as you would expect, a completely different take on matters, stating, “At no point—and I think Ms. Webb would have to acknowledge this—did my client ever say Kenzo now belongs to you or the dog is now yours.” Kirk said his client tried to settle the matter privately for weeks.

In the suit, the 26-year old actress claims that back in April she asked Webb to watch the dog while she went to the UK to film a TV series.

So far so clear—but then it all goes to hell in a dog carrier…

According to an email exchange on April 24, Oyerinde appeared to give the dog to Webb’s mother and sister. BTW—these emails were provided by Webb to The New York Post.

“Been super crazy on my end,” states a text from Oyerinde to Webb about the dog last June. “I want to keep him but reality is that I will not be able to.”

In another text from Oyerinde to her 31-year old friend, Oyerinde said, “I can’t have a dog now . . . Who should I give him to?” She then asks whether Webb’s mom and sister want Kenzo.“Yea they do,” Webb texted. Well, that seems clear enough, no? “I think that’s what I need to do,” Oyerinde wrote back. Yes that’s pretty clear.

But hold the phone sweet Mary—on June 22, another exchange of messages shows that Webb said she didn’t like how Kenzo looked after returning from a dog boarder. “I just haven’t been able to focus on what’s going on with him,” Oyerinde replied. I’m now lost. Who has the dog?

Maybe Webb, because according to her, she heard nothing from her friend until August 23, when Oyerinde showed up at Webb’s apartment to reclaim Kenzo, which clearly didn’t happen and so a confrontation ensued. Webb refused to give the dog up.

Did either one of them think to pick up the phone? Or is that too old school?

The Police weighed in, telling them they needed to settle the matter in civil court.

According to Webb, these texts prove Oyerinde’s lawsuit has no merit. “I’ve done nothing wrong,” Webb told The Post. “I’ve rescued animals all my life. I thought I adopted him.”

Could they co-parent? It has been known to work. If they put the pooch into counselling now, I’m sure he could lead a productive life and, with time, adjust to his new surroundings.

Ironically, little Kenzo may just be the envy of every dog in every pound and animal shelter in the US right now.

Paternity Test Shows he’s 50% a Dad (sort of…)

September 1st, 2015. By LucyC

A night on the town recently got a whole lot more expensive for one unsuspecting father. This is certainly a weird one—in fact it’s been called precedent setting. The whole thing started out routinely enough—a mother of twins filed for public assistance in Passaic County, N.J., claiming that one man—her romantic partner—was the father of her twins. But, no, not so much, DNA testing proved—the twins have separate fathers. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported on this case in May, stating that Judge Sohail Mohammed of State Superior Court in Passaic County found that the man who the woman claimed was the father of her twins was deemed to have fathered only one of the children. Not surprisingly, there are only a few cases of this reported in the US.

What happened—apart of from the obvious? Well, Mom, who was referred to only as T.M., while filing for benefits, had revealed during testimony that she had indulged in a little extra curricular the same week she had liaised with her “romantic partner.”  So, the Passaic County Board of Social Services filed an application to establish the paternity of A.S. (the father) and force him to pay child support for the twins, who were born in January 2013.

But Whoa Nelly!—not so fast. When the paternity test results came back last November, everything went pear shaped, and the case became one for the legal textbooks.

Karl-Hans Wurzinger, the laboratory director of the Identity Testing Division at Laboratory Corporation of America, provided expert testimony, stating that basically the woman’s twins were fertilized by different fathers during the same menstrual cycle. Yes. You read that correctly.

Dr. Wurzinger, it turns out, has published a study on this phenomenon, showing that one in 13,000 reported paternity cases involved twins with separate fathers. This case, he testified, was one of those. Talk about luck of the draw.

So, how does all this work medically? According to Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, it’s called superfecundation, a rare phenomenon classically illustrated in medical textbooks with a black baby and a white baby who are twins. (They might need to revisit that illustration at some point.)

What Mom likely didn’t know when she had her tryst, is that a sperm can be viable for up to five days. So, in this case, if T.M. had sex with one of the men, ovulated, and then had sex with the other, all within five days, one egg could have been fertilized by one man, while the other’s fertilized another, Dr. Wu said.

Interestingly, thanks to the spread of assistive reproductive technologies, Dr. Wu said, this phenomenon has become more common. She reportedly gave the example of men in gay couples sometimes both contributing sperm to a pregnancy.

“That’s why we’re seeing it more often than we were in the past,” Dr. Wu said, “when we were relying on nature and women who have more than one sexual partner in the same cycle around the time of ovulation.” (New York Times)

Oh boy. Sex is already complicated enough—but this just adds a whole new layer of “are you kidding?” Not to mention additional grounds for lawsuits.

As for the man originally named as father of both twin? He will now have to pay child support for the toddler whom a DNA test proved his paternity—which, according to USAToday, is a whopping $28 per week.

Worse than Ashley Madison Hack? Maybe a Mail-Order Bride…

August 25th, 2015. By LucyC

Is it international infidelity month? First Ashley Madison goes to the mat over a massive data breach—and is now facing a class action in Canada for failing to live up to its promises… read into that what you may, and this week news of a yet another partnership gone sour —this one between a “Russian mail order bride” and a millionaire financier. He was fooling around on his wife—not through Ashley Madison but through a catalog called “Meet Truly Beautiful Russian Women by Mail”. (Getting a picture here?) However, all did not go according to plan, but then these things rarely do. According to legal papers, the Russian mail-order bride was not playing by “the rules” (whose rules, I wonder). The whole thing is positively Shakespearean.

The backstory is that in 1993 Ekatarina Petuhova, aka Katherine Nelson, hooked up with A US citizen named Neeraj Nelson. According to court papers, the marriage didn’t last long because Mr. Nelson discovered Ekatarina was having sex with an Armenian pimp named “Gari”, shortly after she landed in LAX. (A remedy for jet lag, possibly?) Nelson had the marriage annulled shortly after the wedding, as you do in these scenarios. He never even consummated the marriage, he told a judge. “After having been used by Ekaterina, I would never again place an ad to meet a Russian woman! I have learned a lesson,” Neeraj says in his September 1997 filing for an annulment. So, human trafficking in any other nationality would do?

Whatever. As it turns out, Petuhova wasn’t stateside long enough to get any relevant US paperwork, so was facing deportation.

Enter Delphi Financial Group CEO Robert Rosenkranz, who was and is married. Somehow, he met Ekatarina. They dated, as you do when you’re married—witness Ashely Madison—hey, life is short—and naturally, she became his mistress for four years. Until something went sideways. Possibly Rosenkranz reneged on the deal after finding out that Ekatarina was a mail-order bride. She’s claiming Rosenkranz duped her into signing a deal to end their relationship and keep quiet about it in exchange for $100,000. That’s peanuts. Seriously? So, Ekatarina has lawyered up and sued.

The “she said/he said” thing goes something like: Petuhova has denied Rosenkranz’s claim that she tried to hold him up for $10 million. Rosenkranz sent a message to Ekatarina stating “I may have cheated on my wife, but you were a mail-order whore.” (New York Post). And he wasn’t whoring around?

Regardless of the amount, Rosenkranz has refused to pay Ekatarina—whom he compared to Glenn Close’s character in “Fatal Attraction,” according to court filings. Instead, he obtained an order of protection in Manhattan Family Court.

Last week, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten threw out most of Ekatarina’s claims against Rosenkranz. She now faces possible jail time for taunting Rosenkranz and his family through Twitter after a judge had barred her from contacting them.

Well, on the bright side, at least she’s got a roof over her head and three squares a day, maybe not ideal but it’s a retirement of sorts. Wonder what Shakespeare would have made of all this…

Oh—p.s.—Ekatarina told The NYP she eventually received a green card from a second ex-husband, whose name was not mentioned in the legal papers.