Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Stories Like This Show Why Taxpayers Are Against Rent Control

Rent Control was a very good idea, but like many good ideas it was exploited by avaricious people of privilege; and those it was intended to help are hurt by the backlash.

Cyndi Lauper, whom I thought I liked, has shown her true colors as a greedy, self-serving millionaire out to get everything she wants, irrespective of who is hurt by her actions.

Lauper is demanding that the courts lower her rent from $3,250 to $508, because she says the apartment she rents with her husband was protected by rent control laws. She says that since the apartment was sublet to her for many years at an incorrect rent, the original rent-controlled price should be applied.

Lauper and her husband already have a deal at $3,250 for their Upper West Side apartment.

A lower court agreed and stipulated that Lauper's rent should be $989 a month. This is an amazing victory! But this isn't good enough for the money-grubbing star. She wants more! She wants to pay less than minimum wage earning families in the slums, and she expects the taxpayers to absorb the cost of the circus, er, court, in which she wants to fight her battles.

What scum!

There is a remarkable (and immoral) real estate market in New York City and for a rich-bitch like Lauper and her wealthy husband to make a mockery of the rent control laws is a sin.

Screw Cyndi Lauper and her tedious husband David Thornton! They should be ashamed of themselves.

I encourage everyone to stop purchasing their products. They clearly have plenty of money already and don't know how to use it properly anyhow!

They want to mess with American ideals like fairness, then hit them where it counts: in their bulging wallets.

I joined the Cyndi Lauper website forums and posted this question to the lout:
I love living in New York and I wonder if Cyndi has ever written about living in the greatest city in the world, the benefits of being so near so much, the amazing fun offered by the diverse cultures, and the luck of being a millionaire with a famous husband and suing to live in a rent-controlled apartment?

New York rent-control was intended to keep housing affordable for poor people. When millionaires take advantage of the laws, it ruins things for the neediest. What's it like to be a millionaire mooching off the neediest in the greatest city in the world?

Of course her apologists came rushing to the fore; but their arguments were embarrassing. Defending Lauper and Thornton in this case is untenable. They are greedy.

Cyndi Lauper for Cheap Rent - Yahoo! News



Dick Mac Recommends:

Rent
Various Artists






54 comments:

Liz said...

I'd love to see some of their pathetic replies! This millionaire chick wants to pay less rent than I do! Incredible.

DM said...

It's remarkable Liz. One guy wrote that since she made so little on her first album, it's about time she caught a break! Another said that because the landlord had broken the law, then Cyndi was justified in pursuing the suit! No sense of societal responsibility, only a sense of her own needs.

sl103 said...

Yes of course Cyndi Lauper should let a Corrupt multi-millionaire building owners who throws poor people out on the street all the time make even more money by scamming the system.

Everyone who dares to fight
the corrupt is brought down by the left.

sl103 said...

Cyndi does AIDs Benefits for free.

She gave up big money by supporting the hotel workers (canceling a New Year's Eve show she was going to do in SF).

She just did a benefit to raise money for the children of a Music Business acquaintence who died of Cancer).

She's always do charitable things,
which you give her no credit for.

Now you want to take the side of a corrupt building owner who scams the system to charge $3200 per month for a rent controlled apartment.

If the Building owner wanted to pay $20M more for the Building
he could have bought one at the fair market value (with no rent controlled apartments),
why didn't he just do that?

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

That's just it, the building owners buy these buildings very cheap b.c they have rent controlled apartments,
but then they use schemes to throw the old people out on the street, so they can charge the "Fair Market Value"

But the owner didn't pay "Fair Market Value" for the buildings in the first place.

The solution would be to make the building owners either pay the
fair market value for the buildings,
or take away the buildings from them when they use these illegal schemes, but Why you want them to profit from them I'll never know.

DM said...

sl103:

I don't take the landlord's side at all! I am critical of the landlords in this article, too.

My point is that the poor can't afford a fancy lawyer to fight back against the landlords, and when millionaires (no matter how generous or charitable) refuse to accept a compromise settlement, they darken the road for all who truly need the laws.

You are misguided to make this a left/wrong issue. You have missed the point of my article:

Rich people should not be using the courts that are paid for by the working people to extract more benefits than they already have. If Cyndi says I want a reduction to $500, and the courts says you are entitled, but the accrued rent control increases make it $900, she should have said THANK YOU. Instead, she insists that her rich-fuck lawyers should get her the $500, after the judges gave her a fantastic deal! THAT IS AVARICE! It is vulgar and makes her just like all the other fuckheads raping the working- and middle-class taxpayers.

Read what I wrote, sl103!

sl103 said...

http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/press/nyt/fb041397.html

Here's an article about that building, it seems like all the older tenants hate this building owner (b.c they are using schemes to throw them out of there).

Now if the Owners really
want bulidings without rent control why don't they just buy them at the "Fair Market" value?
(of course not, this way is much cheaper).

DM said...

sl103:

I don't disagree with you about the landlord. I have not once defended the landlord.

My article is about Lauper refusing to accept a very VERY generous decision by the courts. She got her victory, but she demands more. She was given an Upper West Side apartment rent at $900 a month!

When wealthy, privileged people make a mockery of the courts, it makes it all the more difficult to keep laws in place to defend the poor.

Also, rent-control is all but dead in NYC because the right-wing was able to illustrate that so many rich people benefitted while poor people suffered. That was inaccurate, but it's a stereotype Lauper is perpetuating and it hurts the needy.

Why are you defending her in this?

She lookd pretty damned greedy and self-serving, no matter how many AIDS benefits she has done!

sl103 said...

Okay but Cyndi's one of the few stars who actually did start out poor, she lived on the Street,
she spent 12 years singing in bars,
she was bankrupt in 1981,

She did get screwed by her record label in the 80's,

so she doesn't let super rich people screw around with her anymore, and I don't blame her,
(been there, done that).

DM said...

I do not question Lauper's struggles as an artist.

I have faced bankruptcy and chosen to pay my bills rather than dump them on American taxpayers and consumers, so don't wave bankruptcy as a standard that proves her sincerity.

If I had an apartment at the Apthrop and sued to regain rent-regulation, and the judge said: OK, but the time passage makes it $900 not $500, I would be celebrating, not suing!

Therein lies the rub.

We are all charitable and generous, each and every one of us in our way. We all work hard, each and every one of us in our own way. We all have struggles (look at poor Oprah).

If the courts handed me a bouquet of roses, I would not have sent them back. I would have sent a thank-you note!

$900 for her apartment is a steal!

sl103 said...

Cyndi and court history.

Blue Angel (her band at the time)
decided to fire their manager,
so he turned around and filed a $70,000 frivolous lawsuit against them.

So Cyndi and the rest of
the band memebers all had to file for bankruptcy.


1986 Ezra Mohawk ask Cyndi to sing her song Change of Heart
on her True Colors album.

Only problem was the Essra
had already sold the right (without telling Cyndi)
to somebody else,
so of course Cyndi gets sued again, even though it was Essra's mistake.

Were you there back then screaming
that Cyndi shouldn't be sued by
those obnoxious people?

sl103 said...

I mean Cyndi's supposed to fight a
$70,000 Frivolous lawsuit
by some stupid manager,
when she doesn't have a penny?


Even the manager who sued them
said he only did it to break up the band, that's the only reason she went bankrupt.

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DM said...

sl103:

I am not certain how the misbeahvior of others (landlords and managers) and the bad business decisions of the past (song selection and artist dealings) give her the idea that her current position is legitimate.

Is the rent-control movement supposed to withstand a woman of privilege manipulating the system to her benefit because she got a raw deal in the past?

It's not the problem of rent-control activists that Lauper has made bad choices in the her career; but the rent-control movement suffers when someone like Lauper not only sues to get rent-control reinstated, but then throws the decision in the face of the courts because she wants more!

Do you think this helps the rent-control movement? No, it feeds the inaccurate stereotype that only the privileged benefit from rent-control so it should be eliminated.

You are talking about Lauper's unfortunate business dealings of the past. I have no idea how your stories are connected to her decision to reject a very generous court decision THAT WENT IN HER FAVOR.

There is only one reason: avarice, unbridled avarice. And no matter who else in her past has been greedy, she lowers herself immediately to their standards with this debacle.

sl103 said...

Read this article.

http://cyndilauper.com/article_det.php?art_id=1



It was Roy Halee, best known for producing Simon and Garfunkel in the Sixties, who eventually would up producing the first Blue Angel album – and, as it turned out, the last. A new executive regime had taken over Polygram and was demanding dynamite tunes before it would let the band back in the studio. Blue Angel had a falling-out with Massaraky, and when they dismissed him as their manager, he responded by filing suit against the group for $80,000 he claimed they owed him. Cyndi was among the members who decided to file for bankruptcy, which was granted, in her case, in the winter of 1983.

"That was the last time I saw her," Massarsky says, "at the settlement. I walked up to her, kissed her on the cheek and said, ‘Hey, now go make all the money we all thought you could make to begin with. Go become a star.’"

"And the judge," Cyndi recalls with a giggle, "the judge said, ‘Let the canary sing!’"

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

Maybe b/c the building owner
said that the scheme they used was illegal, and then the judges said that Cyndi was correct.

So what is it any of our business
if she wants to give the (the building owner) a hard time
or not, it cost her more
in Lawyer fees than she will save in rent, but maybe she just doesn't like the building owner (seems like alot of tenants agree with her too).

DM said...

I do not dispute Lauper's right to sue. What is TOTALLY unacceptable to me is that she rejected the ruling in her favor and is making a mockery of the nearly-defeated rent-control movement.

Thank you for the lovely stories of Lauper's past. They are lovely stories; but they NOT absolve her of her avaricious battle against a court that ruled in her favor!

Of course the other tenants in her building applaud her. The ocean is deep and the sky is high -- this is neither here nor there! They don't care how her actions impact citizens of New York City in places like Bed-Stuy and Rego Park, people who haven't the means to fight a battle then reject the victory.

Her decision to fight the $900 rent is contemptible when there are minimum-wage families paying more for less space in worse parts of town. If she had a modicum of grace she would have accepted the verdict and started fighting for tenants' rights all over New York!

If she opens her bulging purse for others in the same predicament, I might change my mind about her. Until then I see her as she is, a greedy woman of privilege making a mockery of the poor.

sl103 said...

How about the time the left ridiculed Cyndi Lauper for selling
her song True Colors to Kodak for a commercial?

When in fact it wasn't
Cyndi's version,
she refused to let them use her version of TC for their commercial

(she gave up a lot of money doing that), Kodak just hired another singer to sing it.

And still the left ridiculed her
b.c they thought it was her on the commercial.

Do you think the left will appologize for that?

I mean i'm left of center,
but you guys go crazy sometimes.

sl103 said...

You really remind me of McCarthy sometimes.

sl103 said...

Think the left will apologize for ridiculing Cyndi for selling her song to Kodak for the commercial,
when it wasn't her on the Commercial?

No, I thought not.

Well Cyndi learned her lesson from that, if it's a song she didn't actually write herself
she might as well just let them use her version,
b.c some idiots will think
she did anyway.

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

Sometimes the left
sounds more like the Christian Right with your holier than thou attitude.

I mean wtf do you really know about this case?

Nothing, but you spout off about it really good.

Melissa Marsh said...

I was astounded to read this very unfair and immature attack on Cyndi and her husband. As many people have already pointed out, Cyndi does so much for charity, and why shouldn't she stick up for herself? Why shouldn't the laws work for celebrities as well as everyone else? To stoop so low and call her names, what are you even doing writing? You make me sick. Cyndi is someone to look up to and a fighter, not a pushover.

DM said...

sl103:

You ask: "I mean wtf do you really know about this case?"

I know just what you know. I know what is in the media. I accept that you do not like my analysis of the media reports.

(This is what makes America great. I can provide an analysis and you can disagree.)

What's that got to do with "the left" and "Kodak"?

What is your argument, now?

You are the one just spouting off; I continue to present points to discuss and you tell little stories about Lauper's past and the mean businessmen. It's quite darling, but has no bearing on my point.

When Lauper makes hard business choices that show her in a bad light, you defend her, she is somehow not an evil businessman, she's a struggling, long-suffering artist!

I stick to my point: Lauper's refusal to accept the court judgment in her favor shows not some high-handed moral standing, but unbridled avarice.

It's business, not art! You like to throw the bad business argument around to make NO point; but when it comes to discussing my points you resort to political name-calling and discussions of art.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

DM said...

Melissa: I applaud your defense of the indefensible.

I hardly think it immature, however. I think it raises a very astute analysis that your fandom blinds you to.

Everyone does charity, not everyone makes a mockery of rent-control and the poor by refusing to accept a victorious verdict in the courts. Her charity does not absolve her of her avarice!

I think Lauper's fortitude in sticking-up for herself is commendable; but she destorys all that with her greedy decision to reject a very generous verdict from the courts!

I apologize for making you sick.

sl103 said...

I agree, I see nothing wrong with her suing, that way the building owner might think twice before using an illegal scheme to break the rent control again.

I mean the building owner admitted what he did was illegal.

sl103 said...

This whole thing is stupid,
I mean any person has a right to sue a landlord who breaks the law.

Or are you saying that we should all just accept it when a landlord breaks the law?

sl103 said...

Cyndi didn't make bad business decisions, she just wasn't corrupt
like some of the stars
you probably enjoy kissing up to on a regular basis.

DM said...

sl103:

You say: "Or are you saying that we should all just accept it when a landlord breaks the law?"

Well, of course not!

Lauper went to court with a strong case and she won. The very Very VERY fair verdict was that the apartment would return to rent-control, and that the incremental (nominal) annual rent increases that would have applied over the life of the lease (had it been honored) would be applied.

They took the date of the original lease, they calculated when the law was broken and the rent was adjusted, using an ethical and very fair equation, from $508 to $989.

This was a tremendous victory for Lauper.

This rent is unheard of in a major metropolitan areas, especially one of the poshest buildings in the Upper West Side.

Had Lauper accepted the verdict she could have become a champion of rent-control (and God knows rent-control could use a rich white person as a champion right now). Instead, she threw the verdict in the face of th court and said NO! She wants to pay the $508 that was due years and years before she even lived in the building!

She is a brilliant performer, I have seen her perform three times. She is a hard-working artist, and I applaud her for that. But, this business decision erases any and all goodwill.

She is destroying what little support for rent-control that exists in the middle-class.

None of this has anything to do with the landlords, so you should stop bringing them into it.

I am happy to have a dialog about NYC real estate, which I mentioned in this statement: "There is a remarkable (and immoral) real estate market in New York City . . . "

I do not support the landlord and I don't know how you jumped from my criticism of Lauper to some magical support for the thieves who own that building. I never even intimated it. My article is about Lauper, and my dramatic disappointment in her decision.

I don't understand this: " . . . like some of the stars you probably enjoy kissing up to on a regular basis."

What does that mean. Do you think I hang around with stars? Or are you projecting your obsession with Lauper onto me and insinuating that your unhealthy relationship to a stranger must be my problem?

I am happy to discuss the points at hand; but let's stick to my point: Lauper was offered a generous verdict and rejected it because she wanted a better deal. THAT IS MY POINT.

sl103 said...

No, she wasn't offered a settlement, the court ruled in her favor.

I guess had the owner not acted like such a jerk before that,
she would have gladly taken that settlement.

but I don't see why it's the business of the media if she has a private dispute with a landlord
(who most of the tenants of that building hate anyway).

sl103 said...

That landlord has dozens of lawsuits against him,
I guess all those people are lying
and he's a sweet guy.


I wonder why the media never makes a big deal about any of the many nice things Cyndi does?

Or all the lawsuits this building owner had filed against him?

DM said...

sl103:

"No, she wasn't offered a settlement, the court ruled in her favor."

You are correct. I have said that over and over and I mistyped in my last entry. Is this now the argument: semantics, gammar, punctuation?

"but I don't see why it's the business of the media if she has a private dispute with a landlord . . . "

All rent-control hearings and all court cases are matters of public record. Once Lauper brought the issue to court she made it a matter of public record. Nobody has infringed on her personal business.

"I guess all those people are lying
and he's a sweet guy."

What are you talking about? Are you now saying the landlord is an OK guy? I think most Manhattan landlords are scum; but that doesn't absolve Lauper for her part in the story.

"I wonder why the media never makes a big deal about any of the many nice things Cyndi does?"

Cyndi gets fantastic press. How do you think she became famous: great press. She is a darling of the media, she is liked by the media; but, she made a short-sighted decision by rejecting the verdict and I don't think I am the only person offended by it.

Recently, her agent has gotten positive press for her almost daily since the court story broke. She is in damage-control mode. It will all be fine in the end, this will all pass.

This one bad decision has shone her in a bad light. That is NOT the fault of anybody else. She won a verdict and rejected the generosity of American taxpayers. Nobody has to make-up anything to show her in a bad light. She made a poor choice and some are offended by it.

You are not offended and that is fine with me; but your blind adoration does not change her actions or the impact her selfish decision will have on the rent-control movement.

sl103 said...

That landlord has dozens of tenants suing him, none of those cases were all over the media.

sl103 said...

There's a Good article in the Village Voice mentioning Cyndi today.

http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0526,musto,65342,15.html



WEB EXTRA

Hold everything, I have some urgent advice for Broadway producers too: Put Cyndi Lauper in something right now, even a jukebox musical. The pop stylist was on fire at last week's all-stars-for-gay-pride True Colors concert, a slick night which only stumbled with its cutesy Up With People-type opening number about how great Lincoln Center is. ("If it's good enough for Marc Chagall, it's good enough for me!"). Things got more sophisticated when the event trotted out knockout perfs by both Broadway divas (Lillias White) and classical ones (two lesbian-lover opera singers who sized each other up longingly between high notes). For the finale, Lauper did her full throttle, exciting thing, running into the crowd and yelping in our faces for extra Laupery effect. Everyone knows that Cyndi was up for the Mrs. Lovett role in the upcoming Sweeney Todd revival, a meat-pie-serving opportunity that went to Patti LuPone instead. Well, I hear the producers wanted Cyndi, but while Sondheim liked her, he ended up anointing Patti, who's an old friend. My guess is that Cyndi would have been a revelation, so let's get the little powerhouse onstage in something—anything—else. It's good enough for me!

DM said...

So what? Who cares about the other suits against the landlord? I am not defending the landlord, so why do you keep making him the focus of your remarks?

Let's talk about Lauper's decision; that is what my article is about!

As soon as Lauper went to court on a rent-control issue, it became the business of the taxpayers. The taxpayers, represented by the judge, ruled in Lauper's favor. The taxpayers ruled very generously for her. She snubbed the taxpayers and said she wants more. So be it. She has that right.

My point is that her rejecting the verdict in her favor is a burden to the taxpayers and the working-poor who need rent-control to work for everyone, not just the rich.

Her motive has to be greed, because otherwise it's stupidity, and I don't think she's stupid.

Drop the landlord already! I don't care about the landlord. Find an article about the landlord somewhere and post your comments there!

I am discussing Lauper's decision to reject a very generous verdict and forcing the financial burden of another court case on the taxpayers.

Geesh! Do you read anything I write in my responses to you?

sl103 said...

Oh, Maybe the Village Voice is too rightwing for you? LOL : )

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

I still say if the Village Voice isn't upset with Cyndi, you shouldn't be either.


http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0526,musto,65342,15.html


WEB EXTRA

Hold everything, I have some urgent advice for Broadway producers too: Put Cyndi Lauper in something right now, even a jukebox musical. The pop stylist was on fire at last week's all-stars-for-gay-pride True Colors concert, a slick night which only stumbled with its cutesy Up With People-type opening number about how great Lincoln Center is. ("If it's good enough for Marc Chagall, it's good enough for me!"). Things got more sophisticated when the event trotted out knockout perfs by both Broadway divas (Lillias White) and classical ones (two lesbian-lover opera singers who sized each other up longingly between high notes). For the finale, Lauper did her full throttle, exciting thing, running into the crowd and yelping in our faces for extra Laupery effect. Everyone knows that Cyndi was up for the Mrs. Lovett role in the upcoming Sweeney Todd revival, a meat-pie-serving opportunity that went to Patti LuPone instead. Well, I hear the producers wanted Cyndi, but while Sondheim liked her, he ended up anointing Patti, who's an old friend. My guess is that Cyndi would have been a revelation, so let's get the little powerhouse onstage in something—anything—else. It's good enough for me!

sl103 said...

To file a lawsuit you pay a fee,
that fee goes toward paying the judges, and people who work in the courts, add to that that Cyndi
probably pays a good deal of her income to NYC taxes (which are very high taxes),
since she does she has a right to
sue use the legal system as much as any other tax payer (since she probably pays more in taxes than most).

DM said...

We are simply talking across one another, now.

I accept that you are not offended by Lauper's decision.

I am unmoved one way or the other if the Voice (which I like) is offended.

You and I are not having a dialog, and I am willing to have a dialog. I adress your points and you ignore my points.

sl103 said...

What do you want me to say?

Cyndi's Frugal (she doesn't pay someone she doesn't like a penny more than she has to),
that's not greed, when you were poor most of your life you don't throw your money away to people who you dislike.

Now David Bowie is known to be
very cheap with his employees
whether he likes them or not,
yet you seem to like him?

sl103 said...

I see you even defended
Michael Jackson even though he pays his employees minimum wages?

You didn't call him greedy scum,
did you?

But you expect Cyndi to throw away her money on people who she dislikes just to make you happy?

sl103 said...

Cyndi's just Frugal, not Greedy!

She's less cheap than David Bowie,
but she still doesn't throw her money away on people she dislikes.

sl103 said...

Btw Cyndi is going to be appearing on "Queer as Folk" on Showtime in July.

sl103 said...

If the village Voice likes Cyndi,
and Queer as Folk invites her on their show, etc,
and they know her alot better than you do, then too bad, I'll take their word over yours anytime.


http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0526,musto,65342,15.html


WEB EXTRA

Hold everything, I have some urgent advice for Broadway producers too: Put Cyndi Lauper in something right now, even a jukebox musical. The pop stylist was on fire at last week's all-stars-for-gay-pride True Colors concert, a slick night which only stumbled with its cutesy Up With People-type opening number about how great Lincoln Center is. ("If it's good enough for Marc Chagall, it's good enough for me!"). Things got more sophisticated when the event trotted out knockout perfs by both Broadway divas (Lillias White) and classical ones (two lesbian-lover opera singers who sized each other up longingly between high notes). For the finale, Lauper did her full throttle, exciting thing, running into the crowd and yelping in our faces for extra Laupery effect. Everyone knows that Cyndi was up for the Mrs. Lovett role in the upcoming Sweeney Todd revival, a meat-pie-serving opportunity that went to Patti LuPone instead. Well, I hear the producers wanted Cyndi, but while Sondheim liked her, he ended up anointing Patti, who's an old friend. My guess is that Cyndi would have been a revelation, so let's get the little powerhouse onstage in something—anything—else. It's good enough for me!


BTW I like David Bowie too,
but he's notorious for paying next to nothing to his touring bands,
and stuff,
Cyndi pays her people good
and she's good to her fans too (gives free autographs, lets fans take pictures with her, her concert tickets are only about $50), so even if she's cheap with some dumb landlord,
I could care less,
I could care less about Bowie being cheap with his touring band, who cares, get a life!

DM said...

" . . . who cares, get a life!"

Yes, exactly!

sl103 said...

Okay, well this all started after Cyndi got together with PFLAG to do some ads.

http://stayclose.org/campaign/celebrities.asp

So if anything I bet the rightwing is the ones pushing this story,
and they're laughing their asses off now.

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

Also Cyndi just headlined
at a concert for the 40th anniversary of the Equality Forum (Gay Pride Day) in Philly.

And of course the Christian Right protested this event like crazy.

And if there's one thing the Christian Right hates more than gays, it's straights who support gay issues.

sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sl103 said...

The AP (who started this story)
and You owe Cyndi an apology,

It wasn't her who appealed the courts ruling,
it was the buildings owner,
it was only after that that she
requested the original amount she had asked for, which happens all the time, they dragged her into court so she requested the original amount, there's nothing wrong with that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/324262p-277070c.html

www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/nyregion/01lauper.html


The owner lost his appeal
(Cyndi won the case
for the $998,
not the lower amount,
but much less than the building owners were asking).


You should really apologize to her
since you asked people to destroy her career by not buying her CD's,
and you defamed her by calling her a rich bitch, etc.

You owe her a huge apology on the front page.