Friday, July 10, 2009

Best blog post forever

Paris Hilton is on the stand. And Judge Moreno is getting in on the act. In one exchange, Moreno was puzzled by the title of Hilton's current reality show, "My New BFF." "What does that mean?" he said. After Hilton gave the full title "Paris Hilton's My New Best Friend Forever" the judge remarked "This will be my best case forever." Without missing a beat, Hilton replied "You're my best judge forever."

Hat Tip: Curt Anderson

The trial is being heard by Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, who reacted with surprise when Hilton gave him a little wave before testifying. "I've never had a witness wave at me before," the judge cracked.
At one point, Hilton was testifying about how full her schedule was during rehearsals for her next film, 2008's "The Hottie & The Nottie," when Moreno interrupted.
"Was it better than this one?" the judge said, referring to "Pledge This!".
"It was really good," Hilton answered with a giggle. Along with the heels, Hilton wore an all-black sleeveless dress tied at the back and sported diamond rings and a bracelet.


Rumpole said...

4 pics and counting.

Anonymous said...

The Chief definitely did not say that this is is best case forever (despite what Paris may have heard)...he said "I don't want this to be my best case forever" (in other words, "let's finish this stupid case!")

Anonymous said...

The whole thing is a travesty. Bring a case that is destined to fail and all the lawyers and judge win. The investors lose. The judge gets to ham it up and have a good time batting around the lawyers. Her attorneys get paid to litigate a case they can't lose. The reciever side make big bucks fighting the case, and in the end the people who theoretically are supposed to be getting some money get poopey.

Anonymous said...

uh, and that's different than any receivership, how exactly? receivership is a racket.

Anonymous said...

You're right, I guess I'm just jealous.

South Florida Lawyers said...

I was interested in the expert for Paris who testified that there is no way to quantify publicity as translating into ticket or DVD sales.

This seems like a threshold issue that the Court should have addressed before trying liability -- if there is no way to prove damages, then why have the trial on liability?