There’s one simple fact of life that none of us – not even celebrities – can escape: jury duty. I mean, you can try and get out of it, but if you’re registered to vote in your state of residence, chances are you will get called for it at least once. That happened to Madonna, but it seems like maybe she’s the exception to the rule. She’s just too famous to serve.
The singer showed up Monday at a NYC courthouse but was excused 2 hours later. And get this … she never had to sit with the commoners in the jury assembly room. She was allowed to hang out in the clerk’s office.
A court official says Madonna was released because they had more than enough jurors to fill the needs of the courts.
So the question … if there were enough jurors why release her instead of others? The court official says her presence would create a distraction in the jury selection process.
Yeah, I mean, obviously she was released because she was famous. Her presence in the jury would draw too much attention to the case at hand, and that’s not really a good thing. Anyone who shows up to court with her own security detail is not really going to cut it. It kinda sucks, though – just another thing celebs get away with. I know some people sorta like jury duty, though. It’s a day (or a week or more) off work where you can sit and surf the internet (which I don’t think you’re supposed to do, but people do it anyway). I got out of it when I was called – knock on wood – but I’m sure I’ll be doing my civic duty again soon.
July 8, 2014 at 6:00 am by Jennifer
I don’t know how many of you frequent Oh No They Didn’t, but it’s a great place for celeb news and absolute fucking mayhem when it comes to the big stars and their hardcore stans. It often devolves into gif wars and total nonsense, but sometimes some absolute gold comes out of it.
Take, for instance, the fact that ONTD posted a story on the fact that Lady Gaga posted a photo online claiming it was from one of her concerts, when actually it was from a big music festival. They were calling her out for doing it and they posted the story – as most sites do to promote traffic – on their Twitter account. Gaga, however, was too pressed to just keep quiet and for some reason brought Madonna‘s name into it, implying that it was Madonna stans who had posted the story to begin with to bring Gaga down.
— Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) July 5, 2014
I mean… why? I find it interesting that Madonna’s name was even mentioned. Clearly she’s that obsessed with the fact that she’s a cheap rip-off of Madonna who will never come close to her career longevity and legendary status, but like… okay. She just looks bitter and rather sad. Sorry your career is ending so quickly into it, Stefani, but please sit down.
July 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm by Jennifer
Gwyneth Paltrow is a hot ass mess, and something she just cannot do – besides get the stick out of her ass – is “let loose”. I literally cannot imagine the woman not in pressed linen pants or, say, eating a large pepperoni pizza in pyjamas that are stained sort of a weird purple colour because she accidentally put them in the wash with the darker stuff. She’s just not capable of it, and that’s why her new Max Factor campaign is a massive fail.
For the ads, which are part of Max Factor’s 100 years of Glamour anniversary/Modern Icon campaign, Goopy dresses up like four beauty icons: Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Audrey Hepburn and Brigitte Bardot. She carries off exactly none of them.
See what I mean? I know that Max Factor as a brand wants to convey a certain level of glamour and seriousness – especially since they aren’t exactly marketing to the teen crowd – but like… why? Why Gwyneth Paltrow as the face of your brand at all, really? I would lay $100 bet on the fact that she’s never touched an item of their makeup (other than, say, for photoshoots) and would turn her nose up at drugstore beauty purchases. After all, they’re not organic and don’t contain ingredients that were milked from the teats of forest squirrels or whatever she’s into. It’s just not believable.
What do you think?
July 2, 2014 at 11:00 am by Jennifer
The Met Gala was on Monday night, and while all the celebrities donned their fanciest frocks and enjoyed a night out on the town, Madonna was busy… posting naked selfies to Instagram in yet another attempt to remain relevant. Girl, no. Just really, really no.
Madonna posted the photo above along with the following caption:
What i wanted to wear to Met Ball but Anna said Not this year! So I’m gonna work on music instead? #artforfreedom
Obviously she was never even going to the Met Gala in the first place, but she thought that would be a funny “joke” and again, another way for her to try to appeal to the masses. No shade on Madonna’s body – she’s definitely in shape and has a great one, but we do not need to see that shit – especially not from a 55-year-old mother of four. Do you and be sexual and embrace your body and all of that, but maybe keep it off social media next time.
May 7, 2014 at 6:00 am by Jennifer
Unfortunately, the image of Madonna dressed as Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones for Purim is burned into our minds forevermore. However, even though it was an absolute mess, everyone had to admit she did a pretty impressive job in looking the part.
Well, turns out, there’s a reason for that: it was Emilia Clarke‘s actual costume from the show!
“It’s my real costume. I thought I was dreaming. I got an email from amazing HBO publicist Mara, saying, ‘Madonna would like to borrow the costume, is that okay?’ I thought, ‘God, this must be a dream. This can’t be real.’”
Oh girl, it is real, unfortunately. Here’s Emilia’s interview on Late Night Starring Jimmy Fallon if you want to hear more…
March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm by Jennifer
Remember when MIA performed with Madonna during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2012 and she decided it’d be super fun to give the middle finger, because she’s 12 and ~a ToTaL rEbEl~? Well, that little stunt is going to cost her $16 million, which – let’s be honest – homegirl clearly does not have.
Here’s the deal: the NFL is apparently suing MIA for breaching her performance contract and wants an extra $15.1m in restitution on top of the original $1.5m it’s been seeking for the past two years. I guess the $15 million is what advertisers would have paid during that performance slot? Not sure how that’s got anything to do with MIA since they wouldn’t have advertised during a halftime show, right?
Anyway, LOL to this:
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT ME TO SIGN , THAT IVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR 2 YEARS ON TOP OF 16 MILLION pic.twitter.com/PMurD3oVFL
— M.I.A (@MIAuniverse) March 17, 2014
@madonna ummm ….. can i borrow 16 million ?
— M.I.A (@MIAuniverse) March 17, 2014
And here’s a bit more of what’s going on via The Hollywood Reporter:
“The claim for restitution lacks any basis in law, fact, or logic,” say M.I.A.’s response papers, filed on Friday.
The music superstar tells the arbitrator that the “continued pursuit of this proceeding is transparently an exercise by the NFL intended solely to bully and make an example of Respondents for daring to challenge NFL.”
Wow, what a massive mess.