Claims to fame: Mediocre pretty-boy actor; Brat Pack mainstay; Democrat-turned-IINO (Independent In Name Only) -turned-Republican; celebrity sex-tape star; whiner
Moral apex: You might think it’s the sexual harassment case brought against him by his former nanny, but we think Lowe’s greatest moral failing came in 2003, when he went all turncoat on the Democratic Party (at eight, he ran a lemonade stand — or sold Kool-Aid door-to-door, depending on who’s telling the story — as a fundraiser for George McGovern) to work for fellow Conservative Babylonian Arnold Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial campaign — to “recruit other celebrities to endorse Arnold.” (He told the Observer in 2007 that “he has since made a familiar middle-aged family-man’s journey towards the centre and now describes himself as an independent.”)
But that doesn’t have anything to do with sex, so let’s turn to… sex.
“Famously,” recalls the Observer…
…he and the rest of the bratpack were wild boys, who drank and screwed their way about Hollywood. Then came the incident in 1988 — his McAllister Moment — when he got into trouble at the Democratic National convention in Atlanta while campaigning for presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.
He picked up two girls in a bar for a threesome, which was videotaped. The girls took the recording, which later became one of the first mass-marketed celebrity sex tapes. It turned out that one of the girls was only 16. Lowe argued that, as he had met the girls in a bar, it had been reasonable to assume they were of legal age, though he eventually settled a claim out of court. He also went into rehab.
So, that happened when he was a Democrat. What’s interesting is Lowe’s take on it now that he’s a self-proclaimed “Independent” (ConBab definition: A Republican trying to avoid the stigma of being a Republican by calling himself an Independent. See also: Libertarian)…
“I regret nothing,” Lowe says. “I wouldn’t be where I am today without my mistakes. Particularly my mistakes. Exclusively my mistakes.”
(”There’s no doubt,” muses the Observer writer, “he’s said all this before, many times, and that he’s got the sincerity down pat.”)
And what of his current sex scandal? This one’s a he-said, she-said deal, but the way Lowe is handling it is, well, low(e).
On April 7, 2008, Rob Lowe sued three ex-employees — two nannies and a chef — for breach of contract, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the very same day, he tried to undermine a sexual-harassment claim from one of the nannies by broadcasting his side of the story in a blog entry on The Huffington Post.
First, The Chef: Pete Clements told TMZ:
…he has “no clue” about any lawsuits filed against him, adding the only reason he had even an inkling about it was because his mom called and left him a message after she heard about it.
In the 19-page suit, Lowe says Clements had sex on his bed “with third parties” when he was out of town, raided the family medicine cabinet for drugs to parcel out to friends, tampered with security cameras and overcharged them for food. He also allegedly called Rob’s wife Sheryl cold, heartless and “unclean.”
Next, Nanny #1: Lowe and his wife hit Laura Boyce with a million-dollar lawsuit…
…claiming she told secrets and lies about their family.
The complaint filed Monday in a Los Angeles Superior Court asks for at least $1,000,000 in damages and charges Laura Boyce with violating a confidentiality agreement, defamation and infliction of emotional distress on the former “West Wing” star, his wife Sheryl and two sons.
Boyce was hired to take care of their sons for most of 2007 before she quit in November, according to the complaint.
The court papers make no specific reference to what information Boyce passed along, or to whom, only that Boyce had “betrayed their trust and engaged in a scheme to hurt the Lowes by spreading malicious lies” both during and after she served as nanny.
Finally, Nanny #2, the one you’ve been hearing the most about. Explains The Scotsman:
…44-year-old Lowe last week filed a suit against [former nanny Jessica Gibson], demanding damages of at least $1m and charging her with violating a confidentiality agreement, defamation and infliction of emotional distress on him, his wife and their two sons. His claim? That the nanny was trying to blackmail him for $1.5m. Oh, and that she fancied him.
It started on Monday when Lowe posted a heartfelt, dramatic and occasionally nonsensical blog on The Huffington Post, the liberal website run by US columnist and socialite Arianna Huffington. In it, he alleged that his former nanny, who had worked for the Lowes on and off for years, showed up after abandoning her post unexpectedly and demanded hush money for keeping her lips sealed. Otherwise, she claimed she would go to the press with allegations of harassment. Lowe was mortified, incensed, morally affronted you might even say. Maybe that’s why in his impassioned public declaration, he made no sense whatsoever.
“No sense whatsoever,” indeed. In “Household Betrayal,” Lowe accuses Gibson of making “false claims of harassment particularly for financial gain,” and, without using the word “blackmail,” says that Gibson tried to blackmail the Lowes:
A former employee is demanding my wife Sheryl and I pay her $1.5 million by the end of the week or she will accuse us both of a vicious laundry list of false terribles.
Without explaining those “false terribles” (a phrase we predict will enjoy wide usage from now on, like “Twinkie defense” and “When monkeys fly out of my butt”), Lowe then goes on to bemoan the “devastation” his family feels at this “betrayal” — and then betrays Gibson by publishing two (presumably private) text messages she sent to Lowe’s wife. Lowe attempts to justify this as an illustration that Gibson suffered nothing in his employ:
Does that sound like someone who has been treated badly? Nothing about abuse in the workplace or inappropriate conduct; nothing about discrepancies with monies owed, no explanation as to why she would return numerous times to a job she considered so abusive.
Back that truck up: “why she would return numerous times”? This is a reiteration of an earlier remark:
In fact, she left other jobs to return to work for us three different times.
So? So, wait ’til you get to the end of Lowe’s screed, where he appears to be implying that Gibson was a screwed-up mess of a human being (and maybe a substance abuser):
During her time in our home my wife tried to mentor this young woman. She took her into her confidence. We took her into our hearts. Having 18 years of sobriety, both my wife and I tried to be supportive as she struggled with personal issues.
Which begs the question — asked so simply and clearly by a reader (”sdrawkcab”) commenting on Lowe’s diatribe:
“You left your boys in the hands of a person with a history of emotional problems?”
What’s more: Why would you hire her back three times… d00d?
Lowe writes: “But we never saw this coming.”
We write: Then your judgment, all around, must really suck, Robbo.
Finally, as for Gibson’s amorous fantasies, Lowe writes:
Recently, a colleague of hers has come forward to reveal that this young woman had “a crush” on me and told her on many occasions, “I wish he would get a divorce.”
Hmm, what’s that word that starts with the letter H? Oh, yeah, I remember:
“Hearsay: Second-hand information that usually constitutes inadmissible evidence; hearsay evidence includes statements by a witness recalling events related to the witness by someone else.”
“Hearsay: Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.”
“Unless one of about thirty exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.”
As for Lowe’s, erm, intergity (?) in publishing a hit piece on Gibson — when his accusations, if true, are a criminal matter that should be handled through the authorities rather than playing one-man kangaroo court on the Internet — we’re not at all surprised that Lowe took the low(e) road and ran whining to whoever he thought would support him (in this case, starry-eyed fans, some of whom commented on his HuffPo smear that Lowe is still so gosh-darned cute, he could “sexually harass” them anytime).
See, Lowe’s done this sort of thing before. Sorry we’re not about to relate yet another seamy, steamy sex story, but this is indicative of Lowe’s apparent tendency to play the victim card to get what he wants, instead of handling grown-up matters like a grown-up. Here, C.W. Nevius re-caps how Lowe’s plans to build a 15,000-square-foot megamansion (for a family of four?) near Santa Barbara led to the resignations or firings of a slew of journalists (we’ve heard the final total was 18, but we don’t know for certain) from the local newspaper:
It is a long tale, but the basics are that actor Rob Lowe wanted to build a huge compound in the wealthy enclave of Montecito. There were protests from neighbors, especially about the 24-foot high fence Lowe had in mind. Complications ensued.
Lowe appeared at the planning agency hearing, permits were discussed, and neighbors (at least one of whom turned out to have an estate nearly as large as Lowe’s proposal) complained. In short, it was a great day for those writing housing stories in the News-Press. It was all there: celebrity, money, and controversy. In the course of telling the story the reporter mentioned the address of Lowe’s proposed mansion.
Apparently that set the former “West Wing” actor off. He complained to [Santa Barbara News-Press owner Wendy P. McCaw, a good friend of Lowe’s], who reprimanded the reporter and three of the editors who handled the story. Even though she reportedly admitted there was no newspaper policy about publishing addresses, she said it was “a careless error of judgement.”
It was just weird, frankly. … Santa Barbara is a small town, the address was in several public documents, and wouldn’t you want to know where the edifice was going to be built if you were supposed to have an opinion about it?
From there things have gone pretty much downhill. McCaw decreed that no more addresses would be included in stories unless checked with the owner first. The reporter and editors sent snippy notes to McCaw. …
It all crescendoed this week. Popular business editor Michael Todd resigned as well as three other senior editors. Long-time columnist Barney Brantingham also gave notice…
The upshot? McCaw and the News-Press look like small time operators, who think they can turn a public trust into a country club newsletter. Roberts and the editors come across as paragons of journalism, standing up to bad bosses, censorship, and dumb editing. And everyone else around the country gets a good laugh.
Meanwhile, Rob Lowe is still picking out wallpaper.
Memorable observations:
There is, of course, nothing we like more than an A-lister with a less than clean personal history attempting to clamber up on their high horse.
Memorable observations by readers of Lowe’s HuffPo piece:
It seems odd to me that a Republican like yourself would come to Huffpost for attention and support, Mr. Lowe.
Doug, it seems even more odd that Huffpost would welcome such a self serving one sided post from this Schwarzenegger fund raising Republican.
With all due respect, is this a medium where you duke it out with a possible litigant who use to baby sit your kids?
Very odd you would air dirty laundry regarding your family on a blog. Suspiciously like a preemptive shot before the story breaks.
Umm, I’d like to hear BOTH sides of the story instead of Huffpo just offering Rob a soapbox.
Isn’t this a matter for the police, rather than Huffington Post? Extortion is illegal. Seems an odd choice to plead his case here.
This is a personal matter that should be referred to law enforcement and/or a competent attorney. It has no place on a public news/opinion website, and surely someone of Mr. Lowe’s considerable means can handle it privately and discretely without inflicting its particulars on HuffPo’s readers. Being rich and famous has its costs, but most of us would gladly bear them given the accompanying comforts and privileges, e.g. having enough spare income to hire a full-time employee or two to help us care for our families and maintain our households.
No offense to Mr. Lowe, and no judgment offered as to the facts in the case, but really, he is just offering one side of the story. And he’s a famous celebrity who gets to post his side of the story on Huffington Post for millions of readers, unchallenged.
Such a megaphone, obviously, has not been extended to his accuser. People should wait and see before congratulating him on “outing this golddigger” before they know a single solitary fact about the case.
Rob Lowe goes public, but is not so public that he reveals the list of terribles. To me this appears to be a means of publically threatening the nanny by posting her letter to the world. Why does this post seem like a manipulation to me? …
It seems as if he is using this forum to threaten the person extorting from him. He did not mention the police being involved.
Obviously only time will tell what really went on, but I do think it’s telling that Mr. Lowe felt it important to add that little nugget suggesting the potential accuser had a substance abuse problem.
He had me feeling sorry for him until he added the ‘p.s. …AND she wanted me BAD!’ It’s a tired old ploy to make everyone look at the woman and think “SCORNED” , which unfortunately, has the effect of drowning out everything else. I just don’t buy it. Sorry, Rob.
He is using his staus as a celebrity to post what should be a private issue in a public forum, while claiming that he’s doing it for unselfish reasons…
Even if this woman were guilty of blackmail, there certainly must have been clues over the past seven years that she was deranged enough to do something like this. Bizarre behavior like this doesn’t happen in a vacuum… The fact that he refers to his sobriety while inappropriately alluding to the nanny’s substance abuse makes me wonder- if she was so screwed up, why in the world would you trust her with your kids?
[A]nyone familiar with cases like this knows that messages like the ones posted don’t prove there was no harassment. … There might be a time for something like this, but it’s not while the matter is pending. Unless and until there’s a determination of who was or is at fault, we’re just looking at one side of an ugly personal war.
Bible reading for Mr. Lowe:
None, until we see how the lawsuits (all three of them) shake out.
That, and we couldn’t find in the Bible anyplace God says that whining like a little girl to the public about a matter you should shut up about and let your lawyers handle makes you look like an ass.
