METALLICA drummer Lars Ulrich has paid tribute to RUSH's Neil Peart, who passed away on Tuesday (January 7) in Santa Monica, California after a three-year battle with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer.
Ulrich took to his Instagram to write: "Thank you Neil. Thank you for inspiring me and for all your help and advice along the way, especially in the early days when you took the time to talk to a young green Danish drummer about recording, gear and the possibilities that lay ahead... Thank you for what you did for drummers all over the world with your passion, your approach, your principles and your unwavering commitment to the instrument! Rest In Peace."
RUSH had been completely inactive since completing its "R40 Live" tour four years ago. Peart previously said that playing concerts at his age caused too much painful wear and tear on his body and he'd rather call it quits before the performances start declining in quality.
His survivors include his wife Carrie and daughter Olivia.
He was also the author of numerous books, including a number of memoirs exploring his life and travels.
In 1997, Peart and his bandmates became the first rock musicians to be inducted into the Order of Canada.
They were inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in 2013.
As part of their plans to step back as senior royals, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they intend to "work to become financially independent".
Prince Harry and Meghan plan to split their time between the UK and North America - and their global reach could open up a wealth of opportunities.
But any move into the private sector and the monetisation of the Sussex brand would pose challenges for the royal couple.
"The established rule has always been that if you are a working royal you don't really do paid work - that one excludes the other," says BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond.
"Nearly any employment of the type they are going to get is open to the charge that they are monetising or exploiting their royal brand."
If the couple renounced their royal titles they would give them more freedom - but there's no suggestion they want to do this.
So far, they have focused on their plans to launch a new "charitable entity". But what opportunities might there be for commercial ventures?
Book deal
While the couple have spoken about their struggles with the intense media interest in their lives, the idea of revealing more about themselves in their own words might be more appealing - and lucrative.
"We're in a period now where we're talking increasingly about diversity within publishing and there's a real push to reach wider audiences," she says.
"If she were to publish a book in her own right and reach out to young people on the ground by doing talks and going to schools like Michelle Obama did, I think the book would be hugely successful."
TV and film
As well as potentially sharing more about their own lives, Harry and Meghan could also turn to causes they are passionate about for material.
For Meghan, these include equality and women's rights, while Harry has been vocal in campaigning on mental health and veterans.
Could there be more TV opportunities in the pipeline?
Meghan, of course, first found fame as an actress, starring in the TV drama Suits.
She gave up her former career when she joined the Royal Family - but if she chose to return to acting she would surely be in high demand.
Public speaking
Another potential avenue for the pair to explore could be after-dinner speeches and events.
Jeremy Lee, director at speaking agency JLA, says if they maintained a positive profile the couple could earn six-figure sums for each appearance.
He predicts demand would be higher in US, where Mr Lee says the pair could earn up to $500,000 (£380,000) per engagement.
However, he says companies in the UK would be more sensitive to reputational risk if public opinion turned against the couple.
Mr Lee predicts UK companies would only be willing to take the royals as speakers at an event linked to one of their campaigning interests, in return for a donation to their charitable foundation - rather than a fee - in the region of £100,000.
But in the US, there would be interest from "anybody that wants to show off and has got the budget", he says.
Commercial partnerships
Whether its a designer handbag or Archie's hand-knitted bobble hat, whenever the Sussexes are pictured with a product, sales go through the roof.
"Any brand on the planet would want to work with them," says journalist and royal style commentator Elizabeth Holmes. "I think it's a question of what they want to do."
Ms Holmes suggests any commercial partnerships would be tied to the couple's charitable causes, perhaps with a secondary opportunity to raise personal income.
"Meghan really understands the power of fashion," Ms Holmes says, using her choices to promote smaller brands owned by women, often with a sustainable ethos.
However, that doesn't mean we should expect the couple's 10.5 million Instagram followers to be suddenly bombarded with sponsored content and product placement, Ms Holmes says.
Could Meghan and Harry follow that trend? Ms Holmes says: "I don't think that's necessarily an appropriate thing for a member of the Royal Family."
In June last year, the duke and duchess also applied to trademark the "Sussex Royal" brand across items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising and campaigning.
This opens up the option of launching their own brands, from beauty products to clothing lines. However, any move that could be seen as exploiting the royal brand would be likely to promote criticism.
Ms Holmes says this is a real risk in any commercial venture, adding: "That's why I think they'll be careful about it."
Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, better known as Meghan Markle, stunned the world (and apparently the royal family) when they announced on Wednesday that they would be "stepping back" from royal duties, splitting their time between Britain and North America, and seeking to become financially independent. But there was one group of people who weren't at all surprised -- black people living in Britain. Some expressed relief that Markle (whose mother is African-American) was finally out of the toxic atmosphere in which she'd been trapped. They wondered how she had stood it for so long. "Nobody should tolerate bullying and abusive behavior because of the color of their skin," Sanaa Edness, an immigrant from the Caribbean to Britain told the New York Times. Edness added that she'd experienced similar racism herself.
What racism? Well, there was Rachel Johnson, prime minister Boris Johnson's sister, who commented that Markle had "rich and exotic DNA." There was the BBC commentator who tweeted an image of Meghan and Harry holding hands with a chimpanzee and joked that it was their son. There was the Daily Mailheadline "Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton," on a story that enumerated the recent crimes that have taken place near Markle's childhood home, and listed all the street gangs known to operate in the area, reminding the reader again and again that the neighborhood where she was born "couldn't be more different" from the tony environment in which Prince Harry was raised.
Then there was the sense that, no matter what she did, Markle could never do anything right. At least according to some critics in the press, who earnestly insisted that it wasn't her race they objected to, it was some other thing that she'd done wrong. Like when she was roundly criticized for guest-editing an issue of Vogue UK. Dan Wootton, executive editor of The Sun went on TV to say, outrage in his voice, that "Royals don't guest-edit magazines!" Except that they have a long tradition of doing just that. Prince Charles guest-edited Country Life twice. Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, to whom Markle is frequently unfavorably compared, was praised for guest-editing the Huffington Post and she also posed for the cover of the UK Vogue. But just in case there was any doubt as to the true reason for objections to Markle, the Mail dug up her family tree and published it, writing, "Now that's upwardly mobile! How in 150 years, Meghan Markle's family went from cotton slaves to royalty."
And then there are the other members of the royal family, who have met all this abuse with silence. "You never see them speaking out about the racism, standing beside her, defending her. She's been all alone," a black immigrant to Britain from South Africa told the New York Times.
Are billions in revenue leaving with them?
Prince Harry and Meghan "stepping back" from being senior royals has financial consequences. Some Britons (and especially the same tabloids that have been attacking Markle all along) have expressed outrage that the couple say they will perform fewer royal duties, which usually include such things as ribbon cuttings and visiting schools and hospitals, given that British taxpayers have been paying for their security and funded the multi-million-pound renovation of their home. But the hugely popular couple, social influencers with millions of followers, have been revenue generators too. By one estimate, the royal wedding (which the royal family paid for) brought about a billion pounds to the British economy. This included things like foreign tourists coming for the wedding and sales of wedding memorabilia. Since then, interest in the couple has remained high, translating into sales of products bearing their images and a boon for the retail and travel industries.
But perhaps even more important, it raised the international standing of the royal family and of Britain itself. An estimated two billion people around the world watched the wedding, which many have compared to a fairy tale. After all, Edward VIII, the last royal to marry a divorced American woman, was forced to abdicate the throne as a result. Now here was the royal family and their millions of subjects embracing a beautiful and glamorous American commoner who was not only divorced but also biracial. It seemed to signal that the monarchy and the nation were evolving away from their xenophobic past. It did indeed seem like a fairy tale, one for modern times.
But the fairy tale turned out not to be true. Polls seem to show that most Britons are angry with the couple for making their announcement without prior royal approval, even though the Sun was about to break the story, and even though they'd been attempting to negotiate a more orderly exit for months. To the non-British world, though, it makes the royal family, and the Britons who revere them, seem racist, churlish, and stuck in a past when they considered themselves superior to all other people on Earth. That's not a good look for a state that wants look like it belongs in the 21st century. And it's not good for business, either.
R. Kelly's longtime live-in girlfriends punched, scratched and screamed at each other -- way more than what you've seen -- before cops were called, and we got the entire violent scene.
You know Azriel Clary was live on social media when she and Joycelyn Savage came to blows at Kelly's Trump Tower condo in Chicago -- but turns out their fight went on much longer. In this video, you see it spill into the hallway with fists flying.
Azriel is in the lighter-colored sweater and Joycelyn in the black -- each landed solid blows on the other, and at one point Azriel dragged Joycelyn across the floor.
TMZ.com
There were several other people present during the fight, who eventually stepped in, but not before some serious damage was done.
TMZ broke the story ... once cops showed up, Azriel was taken to the hospital. Joycelyn later surrendered to cops and was booked for battery. What's odd is the video seems to show Azriel doing most of the ass-whupping!
This video will be included in a 3-part documentary titled "Precedents" that's currently in the works. We're told the project -- produced by Shabazz from The Asis Entertainment Network -- will feature interviews with Azriel, her family and some of Kelly's friends and family.
TMZ.com
As for Kelly's case, we're told Azriel is seriously considering working with federal prosecutors ... but she's afraid her previous lies to investigators could get her in legal trouble.
Then again, we know the feds are usually willing to make a deal to nail their target -- just ask Tekashi 6ix9ine.
The end of the first official week of Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial began Friday with a new legal grenade being tossed into the proceedings.
“Most people don’t speak in front of the international media,” the disgraced producer’s co-counsel Arthur Aidala told Judge James Burke in the New York City courtroom this morning as he submitted an almost unprecedented motion for individual jury sequestration. “Our only motivation is to make sure we get a fair and impartial jury,” the lawyer added when questioned by the Empire State Supreme Court Justice as to why the defense is bringing this matter to court nearly halfway through the process of sitting a jury in the much-covered trial
Essentially aiming to cloak the proceedings and force the media out the door, the defense almost halfheartedly claimed the true intent of their motion was to allow prospective jurors to discuss sensitive matters like sexual assault or other concerns without inhibiting themselves because of the press or others in the courtroom.
In a week that has been filled with such attempted explosive moves by the defense, Burke wasn’t buying it today.
“If this is inconsistent with having a transparent jury selection, it will be denied,” Burke sharply told Aidala as Weinstein, the rest of his defense team, Manhattan Deputy District Attorneys Joan Illuzzi-Orbon and Meghan Hast, and a scattering of at least national media looked on. “I see this is an end run around my ruling about your desire for time limits,” Burke also said to Aidala, in what you wouldn’t call the most indulgent of tones. Calling the blanket notion “against the law,” Burke still promised he would look over the eight-page motion later today or during the weekend – but it looked fairy DOA.
“They want each person to be questioned in private, for which I don’t think there is any precedent except in the most extreme examples,” Illuzzi-Orbon said in urging the judge to reject the defense’s latest motion. While Burke made it pretty clear that’s where he was leaning, the judge did say he saw wiggle room for privacy in delicate matters being brought up in jury selection. Burke also noted that is fairly standard in such cases as this anyway and doesn’t require a formal ruling.
About 118 potential jurors will go through the pre-screening process today, with court expect to run until 4 PM ET. More than 2,000 jury summonses were sent out for this case and his week has seen hundreds go through Burke’s courtroom in batches. Of those already appearing in the pre-screening process, dozens have been released from consideration because they are college students returning to school in the next week or so. Additionally, over 90 people have stated they can’t be impartial because of what they know about the case, the defendant, or due to connections they have to the matter or others involved with it.
The possible jurors were led down the hall and into the courtroom at about 10:04 AM ET today.
After days of drama since the proceedings kicked off January 6 with a media frenzy, soon followed by new charges against Weinstein out of Los Angeles, threats of imprisonment based on texting in court by the hobbled producer, and calls for adjournment and the judge to walk away from the case, today was relatively low key in its early hours.
Set to run for eight weeks once the long endeavor of finding an impartial jury concludes over the next several days, the high-profile trial could see the much-accused Weinstein restricted to a state prison cell for the rest of his life if found guilty on the five sex crime felony charges he is fighting. Of course, as has been evident this week and in recent months leading up to the trial with it stream of motions and challenges, Weinstein’s latest defense crew are laying the foundation for an appeal, if necessary.
Having seen Thursday’s jury selection process cut short by an eye aliment, Deputy D.A. Illuzzi-Orbon walked into less than half-full court at 9 AM ET on the dot with her colleague and Hast. “Yes, much better,” replied the prosecutor when asked by court officers how she was doing after an afternoon visit to the doctor Thursday.
Weinstein co-counsel Aidala was the first member of the defense team to arrive at 9:15 AM ET. The lawyer almost immediately went over to speak to a seated Illuzzi-Orbon in what seemed to be a personal discussion about her health issue of yesterday. Followed by lead defense lawyer Donna Rotunno, her colleague Damon Cheronis and other representatives, a dark-suited Weinstein pushed his walker into the 15th floor courtroom at the Criminal Courts building at 9:17 AM ET. As he has on past days, the defendant went to sit in the front row behind the defense table and conferred with his spokesman. At the same time, Rotunno and Illuzzi-Orbon had a quick chat at the prosecution table on what seemed to be very amicable terms.
Burke entered the court at 9:25 AM ET, as has been his tendency most days this week. Weinstein moved up to the defense table to sit with his team. “Much, much better,” Illuzzi-Orbon told Burke when the judge inquired about how she was doing.
Very quickly afterwards, things moved into more official gear as the prosecution submitted some plans for the coming weeks. All parties were soon up at the bench for a hushed scheduling sidebar. The more contentious matter of the motion for individual jury sequestration was next on the docket.
Accused by Ashley Judd in a now temporarily halted case, failing to get a sex-trafficking class action tossed out, and a more recent lawsuit from a woman who says he abused her when she was 16 in 2002, Weinstein is also facing allegations from close to 100 other women that he sexually assaulted or sexually harassed them. At present, several of the women are still reluctantly participating in the potential $25 million settlement that is part of an overall $45 million deal on the table.
In addition to the multiple sexual assault charges announced this week in Los Angeles and the NYC rape trial itself, Weinstein is also currently under investigation by federal prosecutors as well as other probes by the Manhattan D.A.’s office, the NYPD, the LAPD and others globally.
