Cristina Perez - Five Minute Recess

This is the final installment of a three-part blog series addressing the influence of celebrity in legal issues.

In the two previous blogs, I built the case for and against the power and pull of celebrity in legal issues. Since those blogs were posted, O.J. Simpson has been found guilty of kidnapping and robbing two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a casino hotel room. What happens from here is anyone’s guess, which seems to be a theme in the life of O.J.

There is, of course, the usual assortment of other celebrity legal news to which we can apply the power question. Will Lindsay Lohan get her request to keep her deposition off camera at her girlfriend’s upcoming trial? Fortunately Paris Hilton seems to be sufficiently preoccupied with running for “fake president” and hasn't gotten into any legal trouble lately.

Alec Baldwin

For this, the final installment of “VIP Legal,” let’s shift the focus to some of the most personal and often nasty Hollywood cases to play out in court—family court cases.

In his new book, actor Alec Baldwin accuses the family law system of favoring women over men and states that the system doesn’t work. It’s understandable that he would have strong opinions on the subject as a former litigant in the system in his divorce and child custody cases. But does his opinion count as legitimate, objective proof that the system is broken?

The sole purpose of custody cases is to determine what is in the best interests of the child. It is not to give parents what they feel they are entitled to or to settle all their personal differences. In these big-money cases especially, are parents putting their hatred toward each other first and their child’s best interests second?

People can go back and forth complaining about the legal system, the psychologists and the endless costs involved, but keep in mind that either involved party can say “stop” at any time. It’s hard to complain that the legal system is broken when it’s the litigants who are controlling the lawyers. Anyone in the world can call off their lawyers, celebrities or otherwise. Once that happens, there is no more legal wrangling or maneuvering.

The fact is that in family custody cases, the courts don’t like to get involved unless the parents can’t agree or if there is neglect or abuse. Unfortunately, when the big green monster gets involved—I’m referring to money, not jealousy—parents sometimes forget that their only priority should be to protect their child’s best interests.

As a friend of mine says, “You have to love your child more than you hate each other.” Case closed.

What do you think about the power of celebrity in legal issues? Sound off in the comments below. See you in court!

This is part two of a three-part blog series addressing the influence of celebrity in legal matters.

In part one of “VIP Legal,” I discussed the pros of celebrity in legal cases, using the trials and tribulations of O.J. Simpson as an example.

Judge Cristina Perez

When it comes to a courtroom advantage, O.J. and other celebrities of similar stature and bankroll have the power to hire the best attorneys money can buy, while also having the power of familiarity to persuade public opinion.

Before you cry foul, however, remember that celebrity is a double-edged sword, and with the pros comes a whole set of cons.

With fame comes notoriety and with notoriety comes some strong opinions. As Exhibit A, I present Paris Hilton. Strip away the media circus, public conjecture and hearsay about what everyone thinks she deserved, and the facts are pretty straightforward. This was a simple DUI case, although any situation that puts the safety and lives of other people at risk is never simple. I’m speaking purely from a legal standpoint. The point is that nobody else, generally, in Ms. Hilton’s situation would have received 45 days in jail for a nonviolent misdemeanor. However, in this case, the personal details of Ms. Hilton’s very public life apparently had become impossible for the judge to get around.

By the time Paris stood in front of the judge, her “party girl” lifestyle had led to a string of mostly alcohol-related run-ins with the law. This, of course, could also be said of Hilton’s BFF Nicole Richie, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and others. But the judge clearly decided to make the point that he thought Paris was being so disrespectful to the law that he had no problem at all making an example of her for aspiring party girls everywhere to see.

Fame has its price, and being such a big, public target to have opinions projected onto is a big part of it. Is this fair? From a legal standpoint it’s not. I’ll let you decide how fair it is in the overall scheme of things in the balance of celebrity pros and cons.

Meanwhile, in a courtroom in Las Vegas, the once wealthy, popular and powerful O.J. Simpson is a sad-looking figure. He has made a mess of his life, if you believe predominant public perception that calls him a killer. All he had to do after his not-guilty verdict in the double murder case was to lay low, move forward and lead a normal life with the hope of changing public perception of him. All he really had to do was live a boring life. Instead, he just makes bad choices—over and over again. His celebrity makes it even more difficult than it would be for less notable others to hide those bad choices and sweep the consequences under the rug.

For O.J., Paris and the other celebrities who find themselves in legal trouble, the spotlight shines brightly and without mercy. But what they choose to do with that attention is entirely in their hands and most of the time within their control.

Check back for the final installment of “VIP Legal: Celebrity in Court” next week. Until then, see you in court!

This is the first part of a three-part blog series addressing the influence of celebrity on legal system.

O.J. Simpson could potentially get more jail time for his current court case (the Vegas armed robbery/kidnapping) than he would have if he had been found guilty in his infamous double murder trial in 1995. If he’s convicted, that is.

O.J. Simpson

When it comes to the power of celebrity in court, the verdict can be a big question mark. Paris Hilton was found guilty, Phil Spector’s case ended in a mistrial, George Michael was just let off on charges of cocaine and cannabis possession, Britney Spears seems to continuously walk the custody line in her multiple court battles, Robert Blake was acquitted in his trial and Michael Jackson … left the country. The list of celebrity court battles and their various outcomes runs as long as the court transcripts from those trials.

What is the value of celebrity in legal issues? It seems like when a celebrity is “let off”—either by a not-guilty verdict or a lesser punishment than the public feels the person deserves—we notice, more so than when a celebrity is found guilty. Is it because a guilty verdict isn’t as newsworthy? Lock them up, throw away the key and onto the next story? Or is it because, as far as celebrity legal troubles are concerned, we start with the baseline assumption that celebrities are more likely to get the VIP treatment in court? Therefore, when the celebrity is acquitted or receives a lesser punishment, there is the vindicating, massive, public outcry: “Oh, I knew it!”

Politics has always been personal. That’s an undisputable fact. Public figures like politicians, athletes and actors are gaining more star power than ever in history, courtesy of socially driven technology, a very hands-on, around-the-clock media and a public with an unquenchable thirst for the intimate life details behind the headlines. What has resulted is possibly the most public and thoroughly dissected presidential election in our country’s history.

Gov. Sarah Palin

Cable news viewers have come to expect that when news breaks, they will get the essentials that they “need to know.” What often comes with that is a sordid mess of personal information that even the most experienced pundits have trouble selling as a legitimate news story.

As a news viewer and voter, at what point does “politics as usual” become tabloid journalism? When do the Sarah Palin headlines start sounding a lot like Paris Hilton ones?

Look at the recent breaking news headlines about the GOP’s vice presidential candidate. Shortly after Gov. Palin’s candidacy was announced, the media gleefully came forth with another surprising announcement: Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Reaction from running mate John McCain, the man who had thrust her into the spotlight in the first place, is that he knew about it all along and quickly pronounced this a “private family matter.” On the Democrats’ side, Sen. Barack Obama agreed: Hands off, folks, family matters are off-limits.

In January 2006, following Hollywood’s prestigious Golden Globe Awards, Best Actor Nominee Heath Ledger was seen on video doing cocaine and other drugs. The actor, who died earlier this year from an accidental prescription drug overdose, was not alone at the time.

Two distinctly separate types of journalists kept him company in the private hotel room. The first, an anonymous reporter from People magazine, who apparently had an interview scheduled with the actor. The second, a pair of photographers from Splash News, a paparazzi agency.

In a recent lawsuit, the “Jane Doe” reporter accuses the paparazzi duo of supplying Ledger’s drugs and secretly filming him–and also her. People Magazine Jane’s motives behind the lawsuit seemed a little fuzzy though. Was she standing up for the privacy rights and preserving the integrity of Ledger? Or was the lawsuit more self-serving? Jane’s lawsuit stated that her appearance on the video tape has “damaged her ability to work.”

Jane Doe’s attorney seemed to settle the motive argument in his outburst during this week’s hearing on the case.

When my parents arrived to the U.S. in the early 1960s, they spoke little to no English. Yet they each made a concerted effort to learn the language of their new country. And that is just what they did. Spanish was my first language. In fact, I was born in New York but raised in Mexico for several years while my father attended medical school. When we returned to the U.S., the first thing my parents did was enroll my brother, sister and me in school. I did not speak English at the time and I was forced to learn, so I learned.

This week the Ladies Professional Golf Tour (LPGA) announced that it would implement an English-only policy that will require players to pass an oral English exam to determine their proficiency in the language. If they don’t pass, they will face suspension from the Tour. Rumors are already flying about how this rule was aimed at Korean players.

On the one hand, it makes sense that the Tour wants players to speak English. It would be easier for players to deal with the media. And, from a monetary standpoint, it would make the high-paying sponsors and pro-am players delighted when they can actually speak with and understand the Tour players they play with.

On the other hand, it appears that the approach was not well thought out. Is this a smart move—not only for the LPGA but for what it might say about American sports in general? If we create policies like this as a barrier for every foreign athlete in every sport, aren’t we being hypocritical?

Major League Baseball, the PGA, NFL, NHL and NBA do not require their players to speak English.

Consider these issues as well:

Ding! Ding! Here we go again with another public divorce battle that every entertainment journalist seems to take great joy into comparing to a boxing match.

What is it about models and bitter, public divorces lately? First, as documented in my previous blogs, there was Denise Richards and her apparent battle to make the details of her divorce from Charlie Sheen as public and accessible to their children as possible. Recently, the news outlets have launched into a fresh frenzy, with dirty details emerging about the divorce of Christie Brinkley and her estranged husband, architect Peter Cook, after their 10-year marriage (which ended in 2006).

Instead of a war of “he said vs. she said,” this battle, at first glance, appears to be fairly one-sided: She said he cheated, he pleads no contest to that charge. But even such a seemingly clear-cut admission of guilt hasn’t stopped Brinkley or Cook, via their respective attorneys, from finding other ways of taking jabs at each other.

"Cristina's Court" Winner of the 2008 Daytime Emmy for legal/courtroom program

When Jack Wagner said "Cristina's Court" was the winner of the 2008 Daytime Emmy for legal/courtroom program, my initial reaction was a bit of disbelief and I truly said to myself: "Huh?"

This win for "Cristina's Court" is evidence of our team's hard work and love of the law and people. The nominees were so diverse, and we were privileged to have been included among this group. "Judge Judy," "The People's Court" (the show that started it all), "Judge Hatchet" (a tribute to her community and the profession) and "Judge David Young," one who makes us think outside the box.

I am so grateful to our fans, staff and producers of "Cristina's Court." I give special thanks to Lisa Lew and the genius—Peter Brennan—my executive producer. That sounds like my speech, but I am truly thankful to those who work on, support and, most importantly, watch the show.

The recent California Supreme Court decision (4-3) to legalize same-sex marriage has and will continue to stir the social, political and religious pots. The conservative Court ruled that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

This is a historic decision especially in light of the fact that in 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure that said, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” There is a proposed constitutional amendment that would override the Court’s decision and is expected to appear on the 2008 California general election ballot.

From a purely economic perspective, some scholars believe that gay marriage will boost the economy by as much as $63+ million through revenues from weddings of California resident couples, weddings and tourism of out-of-state couples, as well as revenues from marriage licenses. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at.

So, was the Court’s decision the right one? Is this a social issue? Economic issue? Moral issue? On this one, you be the judge.

See you in Court!

30+ Million Viewers Tiger Woods wins the 108th U.S. Open

Were you one of the estimated 30+ million people that watched the U.S. Open last weekend (in prime time on the East Coast) and the playoff on Monday? That’s right, I’m talking about golf. (Surprise! A little change of direction this week.)

When I first met my husband he had a girlfriend—golf. It was there before me and will always be there. I guess I’m his mistress, which is fine. At first, I didn’t understand his fascination with a sport that took so long to learn and play. As time went on, I came to gain not only an appreciation for the game but even began playing. I enjoyed it. A few holes, a beer, a few more holes and another beer. I got some sun, hung out driving a cart and in the end generally had a good time. Oddly, I sometimes wish I had more time to play. When it comes to TV and golf, I also at first couldn’t understand watching others play. But then there are the big tournaments—the majors, and I began to watch enjoy them. Those are the only ones I watch. My favorites are the Masters and U.S. Open.

So, last weekend’s biggest golf tournament was one of the most, if not the most, exciting sporting (not just golf) exhibitions of all time. Sure, it’s only golf, but talk about drama.

One could not have written a better script . . .