By all accounts, 2011 was a fantastic year for David Beckham. Granted, it doesn’t take much for Beckham to have a great year, other than just waking up and collecting whatever random amount of money is being thrown at him and his wife, Ginger Scary Sporty Baby Posh Victoria, that day. But last year he was fortunate enough to get the albatross off his back in helping the L.A. Galaxy win the MLS Cup, and unless I missed someone throwing a pot of boiling water at his face, he’s still David-f*cking-Beckham.
Momentum already seems to be carrying over into 2012 for Becks as well, because word is he’s already being heavily considered to be the captain of Great Britain’s soccer team at the Olympics in London, and he’s returning to the Galaxy for two more seasons, as some people assume he’ll eventually make a push to buy the team. But before any of that happens, he has one tiny little thing that he wants to take care of – he really wants to sue In Touch Weekly and prostitute Irma Nici for claiming that he slept with her 5 times to the tune of $10,000 a pop in 2007.
The problem is a judge already said he can’t.
Beckham’s lawsuit was dismissed in a California federal court, after the judge determined that In Touch Weekly’s article titled David’s Dangerous Betrayal, published on October 4, 2010, was in the public interest, and wasn’t libelous.
Beckham’s lawyers have filed a lengthy appeal asking that the lawsuit against Bauer Publishing, which owns In Touch Weekly, and Nici, be re-instated because: “Bauer did not produce critical documents or evidence related to its internet ‘research’ concerning Beckham. Notably, it never produced documents by which it claimed confirmed Beckham’s whereabouts during the time periods in question.
(Via Radar)
Now I’m no lawyer – I leave my legal matters up to Danger Guerrero and his mock jury of He-Man action figures – but I have to think that Becks and his lawyers have a really good point. In Touch published an article that claimed Beckham paid for sex with a high class escort, and the magazine’s only evidence was a prostitute’s word. There were no photos, receipts, bank statements, money wires, PayPal invoices or HD sex tapes, which I would gladly watch if they do exist.
But mainly, I’d love to see this go back to court so a judge can ask Beckham if he paid that woman for sex so he can say no, point to his face and calmly add, “Exhibit A.” Then the judge would throw Nici and the publishers of In Touch in jail for eternity.
