Categories
Alaska News Featured Juneau News juneau Juneau Local Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Alaska legislators have few firm facts as they consider a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, shakes hands with state Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage, as he leaves a joint session of the Alaska Legislature on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)

In a speech to the Alaska Legislature this week, Alaska Rep. Nick Begich III urged state lawmakers to boost the development of a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.

“The federal path is largely cleared, but investors also need state level clarity, fiscal predictability and simplicity,” Begich said. “Scrutinize it carefully, model it thoroughly. But my request to you is not to become a roadblock.”

But legislators who are dealing with the pipeline on a daily basis say they don’t have answers to basic questions, including how much the pipeline will cost and whether the gas it carries will be affordable to Alaskans.

“I have not seen any figures,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Resources Committee. 

Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, said legislators are not going to be a roadblock.

“We’re not going to throw sand in the works. Everybody wants a pipeline. We all hope that it comes about, but it’s got to be done properly and make sure that we know what’s going on.”

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said he has heard “from very credible sources” that the price of gas through the pipeline could be $50 per million cubic feet by 2046. 

The current cost of gas from Cook Inlet for Southcentral Alaska is about $10 per MCF. 

“Just imagine if you have utilities locked into 30-year contracts for gas at $50 an MCF. That would be catastrophic,” Wielechowski said. “That’s the sort of thing that we’re trying to protect Alaskan consumers all up and down the Railbelt from — an absolute catastrophe to our economic system.”

As currently proposed, the pipeline project consists of two phases. The first phase includes an 807-mile pipeline from the North Slope to the west side of Cook Inlet, with a tie-in to existing natural gas infrastructure around Anchorage.

The second phase would extend the pipeline to the Kenai Peninsula, where an export terminal would be built. The second phase would also include a processing plant on the North Slope.

One year ago, the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation sold 75% of the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline project to Glenfarne, an international developer.

Since the acquisition, Glenfarne has signed a number of nonbinding agreements with potential gas purchasers and gas sellers, but it has not disclosed estimates for the project’s cost, and it hasn’t disclosed what it expects the cost of gas to be.

Last year, company officials said they expected to make an investment decision by the end of 2025. In a subsequent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, they said they would make the decision in February. A new timeline hasn’t been made public.

The lack of data is particularly problematic because legislators are considering whether to offer a property tax break to pipeline developers.

Those taxes are significant. Because Alaska does not have a statewide income tax or sales tax, its state budget suffers when people move into the state. More people means more demand for things like schools, parks and roads, but no increased revenue to pay for those things.

Economists have called that the “Alaska disconnect.”

Alaska has a 2% property tax on oil and gas infrastructure. Most of that money is passed on to municipalities, which use it for local needs.

In December, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy said he was considering a proposal to cap that property tax at 0.2% for the natural gas pipeline, creating a payment in lieu of taxes system.

“That bill should be next week,” Dunleavy said during a Thursday news conference with U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, confirming the 0.2% rate will be part of the new legislation.

“Last couple weeks, we’ve been working with municipalities, getting their input as to what this should look like before (we) put the bill out,” he said. “So look forward to probably next week on that PILT bill, so that we can look at the economics of this line and also ways to ensure that municipalities benefit from this directly.”

This week, Begich expressed some support for a lower property tax rate, saying it could encourage people to invest in the pipeline.

“The classic 2% tax burden that would apply, say, to a $50 billion asset, would be a billion dollars in cash flow early in the project’s life cycle,” Begich said. “If that cash flow coming out of the project lowers the rate of return for investors, they’re not going to show up and invest. And so we need to make sure that our tax policy is A, doing what’s right for Alaskans. B, is not impeding the ability for the project to move forward. And I think we can do both of those things with some creative thinking and conversations with the industry.”

While a lower tax rate would benefit pipeline developers, it has the potential to harm residents who live near the pipeline. 

If pipeline construction and operation mean more people moving to Alaska and municipalities are unable to raise revenue to meet the resulting demand for services, local governments could be forced to raise taxes or cut basic services in order to pay for the pipeline subsidy.

Last week, the Senate Resources Committee introduced Senate Bill 275, which imposes some transparency requirements on the pipeline project, eliminates a tax exemption relevant to the project, and imposes a new surcharge on gas processing plants. 

That bill was introduced just days before Begich urged lawmakers not to be a “roadblock.”

Giessel, who chairs the resources committee, said she didn’t think Begich’s comments were directed at her or her committee’s bill.

“We’re not being a roadblock. We’re doing exactly what we’re supposed to do according to our constitution,” she said.

Asked whether he was thinking of Giessel’s bill during his speech, Begich said, “It was not my direct intention. No, I think it’s always worth having the conversation about the tax structure, about the incentive structure, though that’s an ongoing discussion that happens at the state legislature in Alaska. I think it’s important that when we have those conversations, they’re done in a way that is going to encourage, rather than discourage, industry from coming in and saying, ‘Yes, this is a good place for us to invest in.’”

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Begich said the state would benefit by getting more information from Glenfarne.

“I welcome more information,” Begich said. “I recognize that they’ve got certain restraints on what they can share. But look, I’d like to see more information shared. I’d like to see more of the economics of the project shared so we can understand what the full potential is and what’s on the table. I believe that’s going to come with time, but more information is better.”

Categories
Entertainment

This Sweet British Dessert Was A Favorite Of Princess Diana’s

When Princess Diana craved something sweet, she would ask her chef to whip up a pan of this British dessert, which boasts a long and storied history.

​Mashed – Fast Food, Celebrity Chefs, Grocery, Reviews

Categories
Politics

There’s a new wedge issue playing out in Senate Dem primaries

Democrats in competitive primaries keep fighting about corporate PAC money. It has opened up a muddy and sometimes performative debate.

The issue has played out in contested Senate primaries, where Democrats have pledged not to accept corporate PAC money to signal their support for campaign finance reform and show voters that they are not beholden to special interests. Among the Democrats seeking to distinguish themselves: Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton in Illinois, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, and both state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

Corporate PACs, which raise money from their employees and distribute it to candidates, usually give in similar amounts to Republicans and Democrats. For several cycles, a growing number of Democratic candidates have sworn off the money, citing the outsized influence of business interests on politics.

But for many, the pledges not to take the money are mostly symbolic. Candidates who aren’t currently in office receive almost no corporate PAC donations anyway, as more than 99 percent of those funds have gone to sitting senators or representatives this cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. And rejecting one specific type of donation doesn’t actually mean candidates can’t receive support from outside interests — often in much larger amounts than corporate PACs are allowed to send.

Corporate PAC money can also still end up indirectly supporting new candidates: A majority of Democratic senators receive the funding, as do official party groups, both of which donate to and otherwise help Senate hopefuls.

As a result, the escalating debate over corporate PAC money has comparatively little impact on Democratic candidates’ ability to raise money — but it has created an opening for heated attacks from all sides.

Stratton rejected donations from corporate PACs, but millions of dollars in support she has received from a super PAC has been the focus of a flurry of attack ads from Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), one of her top rivals who himself has received millions in super PAC support. Flanagan and McMorrow have both faced criticism for accepting corporate money in past roles, despite their pledges not to do so in their respective Senate races now.

While the push by some Democrats to reject corporate money goes back several cycles, even emerging as a point of contention in the party’s 2020 presidential primary, the focus in Senate primaries is newer.

For Democrats looking for any advantage in crowded races, rejecting the money carries potential electoral benefits. Polling shows the issue resonates not only with a Democratic base interested in money-in-politics reform but also with independent and Republican voters.

“Pledging to forego corporate PAC money is one way that candidates signal to voters that they reject business as usual in Washington and want to work to fix our broken campaign finance system,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Still, “even when a candidate rejects a PAC check, there are still ways for corporate interests to curry favor,” Beckel said.

The debate among Democrats comes at a time when corporate PACs account for a smaller share of funds influencing races. Corporate PACs face strict limits for their political giving, $5,000 per cycle, a number that has not changed in decades, even as individual giving limits are indexed to inflation. Far more funds now flow through super PACs — which candidates are free to criticize but don’t have to reject.

And the questions are unlikely to fade: The Democratic National Committee has sought to explore how it could limit corporate money, along with harder-to-trace “dark money” that flows through nonprofit groups, in the party’s 2028 presidential primary.

“I think it just shows this fundamental shift even inside the Democratic Party, that running on anti-corruption is no longer a niche position,” said Tiffany Mueller, president of End Citizens United, which backs Democrats supportive of campaign finance reform and has, since 2018, had candidates sign pledges that include a promise to reject corporate PAC money.

The group’s pledge this cycle, which includes several money-in-politics reforms, has gotten signers quicker than past pledges, Mueller said.

In Illinois, where early voting is already underway ahead of Tuesday’s primary, Stratton has made rejecting corporate PAC money a key component of her campaign in a three-way primary against Krishnamoorthi and Rep. Robin Kelly. The lieutenant governor, who was endorsed by End Citizens United, accused both opponents of benefiting from a “broken” campaign finance system.

“I’m the only candidate rejecting corporate PAC money, because my campaign is about the people of Illinois, not special interests,” she said in a statement.

Kelly, in an interview, defended her own record of accepting some donations from corporate PACs, saying that the funds over the years supported Democrats and never influenced her voting record. She noted the much greater flow of super PAC money supporting both of her opponents.

“When I came to Congress, I didn’t know my dues were going to be the level that they were. I didn’t know that I was expected to give money to my other colleagues, or people that wanted to be my colleagues,” Kelly said. “And frankly, the money I collect, that’s where a lot of it has gone through the years, paying dues to the DCCC.”

While Stratton has sought to carve out a lane as the reformer, Krishnamoorthi’s campaign has gone after her finances, with ads running on both television and digital accusing her of taking “corporate and MAGA money” and calling attention to a super PAC backing her. Krishnamoorthi’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Stratton has benefited from $11.8 million from a super PAC linked to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, with additional support from the Democratic Lieutenant Governor’s Association. Meanwhile Fairshake, backed by major cryptocurrency interests, has spent nearly $10 million attacking her to help Krishnamoorthi.

The scrutiny on corporate PAC money in primaries comes as a majority of sitting Democratic senators continue to take those donations for their campaigns and leadership PACs. That includes several senators who have actively been endorsing in the primaries, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Ct.), who has endorsed Flanagan in Minnesota, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who has endorsed both Flanagan and McMorrow.

Corporate PACs can — and do — give larger donations to party committees. That has been a point of conflict in Minnesota, where opponent Rep. Angie Craig has hit Flanagan for corporate PAC donations accepted by the DLGA while she was its chair. The group is now backing her campaign along with Stratton’s.

Flanagan’s campaign has said she did not have sole decision-making power over the DLGA’s donors. In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson for Flanagan accused Craig of “trying to distract from the fact that she’s taken millions of dollars from corporations and special interests.”

“Peggy is the only candidate in this race to reject corporate PAC money,” the spokesperson said. Craig’s campaign declined to comment.

The divide extends from safe-seat races to the most competitive. In the Michigan Senate primary, which sets up a must-win open seat for Democrats looking to take back control of the upper chamber, the issue has already arisen in candidate forums. El-Sayed, who previously ran for governor, has sought to distinguish himself on the basis that he has never taken corporate PAC money.

“There’s only one candidate in this race who’s understood corporate money to be the central disease of our politics from day one when they ran in 2018,” said Sophie Pollock, a spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, in a statement.

Rep. Haley Stevens, meanwhile, received donations from corporate PACs as a representative and has continued to for her Senate campaign. Her campaign spokesperson, Arik Wolk, noted she repeatedly voted for campaign finance reform and recently received an “A” grade from End Citizens United on its anti-corruption scorecard.

And although McMorrow previously accepted corporate PAC money for her state legislative campaign and leadership PAC, she has rejected it for her Senate campaign.

“As a first-time candidate, there were people who said, ‘We need to fight like the Republicans fight. If we don’t, we will lose,’” McMorrow said in an interview. “And I’ve learned through my time in the legislature that, you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth, that people won’t trust you. And also, not only can we fund campaigns without corporate PAC dollars, but frankly, we need to.”

​Politics

Categories
Music

Kane Brown Puts His Love for Wife Katelyn Front and Center in New, Feel-Good Single, ‘Woman’

With his new single, “Woman,” Kane Brown is making one thing clear: he loves his wife. He’s written love songs for Katelyn before, but this time he’s turning up the energy and shouting that passion from the rooftops, louder than ever before.

The song, penned by Brown with John Byron, Ashley Gorley, Ben Johnson and Taylor Phillips, was both inspired and dedicated to his other half, who he describes as being “one in a million.” The country star explained to Audacy’s Katie Neal that the title just fell into his lap and saved a writing session that was making him feel burnt out.  

“We were finishing this one song we were working on and I just got up to go warm up my food and as I’m warming up my food, this title just falls in my lap, ‘They’re talking about girls, but I got a woman,’” he explained. “So I went and sat down and I told em, ‘I think I got the next song we’re going to work on.’ And they said, ‘What is it?’ And I told them, and they’re like, ‘Where’s that been all day?’ I said, ‘I literally just thought about it in the kitchen.’ And I don’t know, it kind of just wrote itself.”

Kane Brown, Katelyn; Photo Provided
Kane Brown, Katelyn; Photo Provided

He added that even Ashely Gorley, who has written over 80 No. 1 hits, felt that the song would become “massive.” And there’s no doubt that’s exactly what it’s destined for, not only because of its clever storyline, but also the fun nature behind the tune.

It’s a feel-good anthem about a man who admits he has no interest in going out chasing other girls because he already has everything he needs waiting at home. As hard as his friends try to convince him to hit the town, he makes it clear he’s staying put for the woman he loves. The carefree track carries an infectious spirit that practically begs listeners to dance and sing along.

“Yeah, they talkin’ ’bout girls (Girls)/ But I got a woman (I got a woman)/ Yeah, I got a woman right here in my hands/ They talkin’ ’bout girls (Girls)/ But I got a woman (I got a woman)/ Yeah, I got a woman/ Oh yeah, and she got a man,” Brown sings on the chorus.

Kane Brown; Photo Provided
Kane Brown; Photo Provided

With its upbeat groove that channels the energy of country classics like Shania Twain’s “I Feel Like A Woman” and a sound blending modern and pop country, Woman” feels destined to become the windows-down anthem of the summer.

“It’s brought me back to listening to ..I don’t know why, but ‘I Feel Like A Woman’ from Shania Twain and then ‘Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.’ For some reason it feels like it’s in that realm. It’s a big realm to be in, but I feel like that’s what it’s in…once we finished this one, it was a no-brainer that this was the single,” he notes.

Today’s release was also paired with a music video that was filmed at Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida to create a colorful ’90s throwback vibe that finds Brown showing off his dance moves, matching the fun-filled energy of the song. The video features Brown alongside his wife Katelyn and their oldest daughter, Kingsley, making it clear he’s got more than one female in his life who has stolen his heart.

According to the country star, this self-proclaimed “earworm” offers a glimpse into his new creative direction and previews his upcoming album. It also marks his first taste of new music since his 2025 record, The High Road.

The Sony Music Nashville artist explained that his next album is on track to be done by July. He says he has written “so many” new songs recently and he loves all of them, which means it’s going to be a difficult task to narrow down the track list.

Brown goes on to tease the project, noting it’s got, “A lot of good messages, a lot different than my last album. My last album, just to be completely honest with you, I felt like it was a little rushed. When people were asking me what the name was, I felt like I was kind of on autopilot. I just wasn’t there…But now I’m more motivated than ever, feel like this is like my jump. So this album’s the one.”

Kane Brown will get to showcase “Woman” and the other new music on the way throughout his string of festival dates in 2026.

The post Kane Brown Puts His Love for Wife Katelyn Front and Center in New, Feel-Good Single, ‘Woman’ appeared first on Country Now.

​Country Now

Categories
Alaska News

Alaska legislators have few firm facts as they consider a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline

Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, shakes hands with state Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage, as he leaves a joint session of the Alaska Legislature on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)

In a speech to the Alaska Legislature this week, Alaska Rep. Nick Begich III urged state lawmakers to boost the development of a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.

“The federal path is largely cleared, but investors also need state level clarity, fiscal predictability and simplicity,” Begich said. “Scrutinize it carefully, model it thoroughly. But my request to you is not to become a roadblock.”

But legislators who are dealing with the pipeline on a daily basis say they don’t have answers to basic questions, including how much the pipeline will cost and whether the gas it carries will be affordable to Alaskans.

“I have not seen any figures,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Resources Committee. 

Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, said legislators are not going to be a roadblock.

“We’re not going to throw sand in the works. Everybody wants a pipeline. We all hope that it comes about, but it’s got to be done properly and make sure that we know what’s going on.”

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said he has heard “from very credible sources” that the price of gas through the pipeline could be $50 per million cubic feet by 2046. 

The current cost of gas from Cook Inlet for Southcentral Alaska is about $10 per MCF. 

“Just imagine if you have utilities locked into 30-year contracts for gas at $50 an MCF. That would be catastrophic,” Wielechowski said. “That’s the sort of thing that we’re trying to protect Alaskan consumers all up and down the Railbelt from — an absolute catastrophe to our economic system.”

As currently proposed, the pipeline project consists of two phases. The first phase includes an 807-mile pipeline from the North Slope to the west side of Cook Inlet, with a tie-in to existing natural gas infrastructure around Anchorage.

The second phase would extend the pipeline to the Kenai Peninsula, where an export terminal would be built. The second phase would also include a processing plant on the North Slope.

One year ago, the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation sold 75% of the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline project to Glenfarne, an international developer.

Since the acquisition, Glenfarne has signed a number of nonbinding agreements with potential gas purchasers and gas sellers, but it has not disclosed estimates for the project’s cost, and it hasn’t disclosed what it expects the cost of gas to be.

Last year, company officials said they expected to make an investment decision by the end of 2025. In a subsequent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, they said they would make the decision in February. A new timeline hasn’t been made public.

The lack of data is particularly problematic because legislators are considering whether to offer a property tax break to pipeline developers.

Those taxes are significant. Because Alaska does not have a statewide income tax or sales tax, its state budget suffers when people move into the state. More people means more demand for things like schools, parks and roads, but no increased revenue to pay for those things.

Economists have called that the “Alaska disconnect.”

Alaska has a 2% property tax on oil and gas infrastructure. Most of that money is passed on to municipalities, which use it for local needs.

In December, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy said he was considering a proposal to cap that property tax at 0.2% for the natural gas pipeline, creating a payment in lieu of taxes system.

“That bill should be next week,” Dunleavy said during a Thursday news conference with U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, confirming the 0.2% rate will be part of the new legislation.

“Last couple weeks, we’ve been working with municipalities, getting their input as to what this should look like before (we) put the bill out,” he said. “So look forward to probably next week on that PILT bill, so that we can look at the economics of this line and also ways to ensure that municipalities benefit from this directly.”

This week, Begich expressed some support for a lower property tax rate, saying it could encourage people to invest in the pipeline.

“The classic 2% tax burden that would apply, say, to a $50 billion asset, would be a billion dollars in cash flow early in the project’s life cycle,” Begich said. “If that cash flow coming out of the project lowers the rate of return for investors, they’re not going to show up and invest. And so we need to make sure that our tax policy is A, doing what’s right for Alaskans. B, is not impeding the ability for the project to move forward. And I think we can do both of those things with some creative thinking and conversations with the industry.”

While a lower tax rate would benefit pipeline developers, it has the potential to harm residents who live near the pipeline. 

If pipeline construction and operation mean more people moving to Alaska and municipalities are unable to raise revenue to meet the resulting demand for services, local governments could be forced to raise taxes or cut basic services in order to pay for the pipeline subsidy.

Last week, the Senate Resources Committee introduced Senate Bill 275, which imposes some transparency requirements on the pipeline project, eliminates a tax exemption relevant to the project, and imposes a new surcharge on gas processing plants. 

That bill was introduced just days before Begich urged lawmakers not to be a “roadblock.”

Giessel, who chairs the resources committee, said she didn’t think Begich’s comments were directed at her or her committee’s bill.

“We’re not being a roadblock. We’re doing exactly what we’re supposed to do according to our constitution,” she said.

Asked whether he was thinking of Giessel’s bill during his speech, Begich said, “It was not my direct intention. No, I think it’s always worth having the conversation about the tax structure, about the incentive structure, though that’s an ongoing discussion that happens at the state legislature in Alaska. I think it’s important that when we have those conversations, they’re done in a way that is going to encourage, rather than discourage, industry from coming in and saying, ‘Yes, this is a good place for us to invest in.’”

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Begich said the state would benefit by getting more information from Glenfarne.

“I welcome more information,” Begich said. “I recognize that they’ve got certain restraints on what they can share. But look, I’d like to see more information shared. I’d like to see more of the economics of the project shared so we can understand what the full potential is and what’s on the table. I believe that’s going to come with time, but more information is better.”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Categories
Entertainment

Ray J Accuses Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner of PERJURY After They Testify that They …

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Last year, Ray J made RICO allegations against the Kardashians without presenting any evidence.

Kris and Kim’s lawsuit against him that followed was no surprise.

The rapper then filed his own lawsuit, accusing the mother-daughter duo of releasing his and Kim’s infamous sex tape and blaming him for it.

Kris and Kim had to give sworn testimony. Now, Ray J accuses them of lying under oath.

Kim Kardashian is determined on 'The Kardashians'
Almost a decade later, Kim Kardashian told the camera how eager she was to face her robbers in court. (Image Credit: Hulu)

Perjury is a very serious allegation

Both Ray J and his mother are accusing Kim and Kris of perjury.

In sworn declarations this week, both mother and daughter flatly denied Ray J’s claim that they had orchestrated the 2007 sex tape’s release.

Specifically, they called the claim “a lie” and “absolutely false.” That’s not ambiguous!

“As a mother, the notion that I orchestrated or produced sex tapes involving my daughter, or was in any way involved in the creation or distribution of any sex tapes,” Kris Jenner wrote.

Her statement continued, saying that the claim “is not only entirely untrue but deeply offensive and harmful and has haunted me for decades.”

Kris Jenner speaks while seated at the table.
Kris Jenner chats with her famous family on The Kardashians. (Image Credit: Hulu)

Kris expressed: “I was absolutely heartbroken, crushed, and devastated as a mother to see my daughter in this situation where her most intimate and private moments were exposed to the world.”

Meanwhile, Kim highlighted that she had spent money to counter Ray J’s story.

She highlighted how she’d gone to therapy as well as worked with legal experts and strategic communication specialists.

“His claim that I had a plan with my mother and others to release a sex tape, defraud the public, and file a ‘fake’ lawsuit against the porn company that released it to ‘create buzz’ is a lie,” Kim stated flatly.

These statements from Kim and Kris were part of a filing in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, March 11.

Kim Kardashian wears blonde hair, a lot of jewelry, and a sour expression.
While all decked out ahead of her Milan show, Kim Kardashian appeared to be all geared up to fight Thanos and win. (Image Credit: Hulu)

It sounds like he’s calling for them to be prosecuted

Now, Ray J and his mother are telling TMZ that Kim and Kris “completely lied about everything.” That is a serious allegation, especially without evidence.

“Are [Kim & Kris] out of their f–king minds?” he asked.

“The fact of the matter is, if you lie like that under oath, don’t you go to jail?” Ray J asked. “Don’t you get fined?”

He also explained that his goal for the lawsuit relates to his children, Melody and Epik.

Ray J argued that his kids “don’t deserve to grow up thinking their dad did something like revenge porn or hurt someone on purpose.”

A dark mode screenshot of Sonja Norwood's facebook post.
On Facebook, Sonja Norwood — mother of Ray J — stepped up to boost her son’s side of the story. (Image Credit: Facebook)

“That’s not the truth,” Ray J claimed, “and I’m not going to let that narrative follow them through their lives.”

That same day, Sonja Norwood — his mother — took to Facebook to back up his side of the story.

“I am no longer going to sit back and watch my son be ‘dogged’ on social media over this matter when Ray J and I, Kris and Kim, and many others know the truth,” she declared.

“And Kris, momager, you say you did not orchestrate the commercial release of the tape,” she challenged. “Then who did?”

Norwood continued: “I support Ray J and his journey to bring the truth forward.”

Kris Jenner smiles at an upscale store on The Kardashians.
On Season 5, Episode 8 of The Kardashians, Kris Jenner jokes that she’s enjoying “retail therapy.” (Image Credit: Hulu)

Obviously, we don’t claim to have special knowledge of the facts of this case

Conventional wisdom has, for nearly two decades, said that Kim and Ray J’s sex tape leaked, and that Kris was saddened as a mom but excited as an opportunist.

Since then, Kim and Kris capitalized upon the attention, catapulting their family to a 10-figure fortune with multiple reality shows and businesses.

Ray J is presenting the claim that Kris and Kim are outright lying.

Is it possible that he has always believed that they released the tape — even if it’s untrue?

We cannot say that we know the inner workings of his mind. But accusing someone of perjury is a pretty serious allegation.

Ray J Accuses Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner of PERJURY After They Testify that They … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.

​The Hollywood Gossip

Categories
Entertainment

Grace Lilly: ‘Southern Hospitality’ Star Arrested For Drug Possession AGAIN

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Southern Hospitality star Grace Lilly is making quite a name for herself.

Unfortunately, it’s not for her onscreen charisma or talent for social media self-promotion.

No, Grace is becoming more famous than the show she stars on primarily because of her run-ins with the law.

'Southern Hospitality' star Grace Lilly has been arrested yet again.
‘Southern Hospitality’ star Grace Lilly has been arrested yet again. (Bravo/YouTube)

Grace was arrested on Tuesday in South Carolina on drug possession charges.

If you’re keeping score at home, that marks her second arrest in less than three months.

She was also taken into custody on December 29 in Charleston, when cops found medication labeled as “Happy Pills” in her car, Page Six reports.

In her more recent arrest, Grace was booked on possession of a controlled substance charges.

She spent several hours in the Charleston County Jail before being released on her own recognizance.

The mug shot from Grace Lilly's most recent arrest.
The mug shot from Grace Lilly’s most recent arrest. (Charleston County Sheriff’s Department)

This is the latest in a long line of brushes with the law for the troubled reality star.

When Grace was pulled over in December for an illegal lane change, officers noticed that she had a warrant out for her arrest for a second-degree harassment charge.

“Inside the purse, a small container with ‘Happy Pills’ imprinted on the top was located, which contained 12 circular white pills with a ‘P’ imprint on one side, and half of an oblong blue pill with no identifiable imprints,” reads the police report (via Page Six).

“When asked about the pills found inside the purse, the offender stated that the blue pill was Xanax and the white pills were birth control,” the report continues.

Grace Lilly's troubles with the law continued this week.
Grace Lilly’s troubles with the law continued this week. (Bravo/YouTube)

“The offender stated she had a prescription for the Xanax but did not have any proof of that information available at the time,”

Grace reportedly tried to pass the pills off as birth control, but cops were not convinced, in part because she was unable to remember the brand name of the alleged contraceptives.

Lilly has not yet spoken publicly about her latest arrest.

Most people would probably have to worry about trouble with their employer if they repeatedly ran afoul of the law in such a public fashion.

But this sort of thing is par for the course in the world of Bravo — in fact, Grace’s legal issues will likely serve as a storyline on Southern Hospitality Season 5.

We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.

Grace Lilly: ‘Southern Hospitality’ Star Arrested For Drug Possession AGAIN was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.

​The Hollywood Gossip

Categories
Music

Russell Dickerson Got the Best Baby Gifts for Thomas Rhett’s Boy

A new baby in the Rhett family means fresh adventures ahead, and it looks like friends are already gearing up to celebrate in style. Continue reading…​Country Music News – Taste of Country

Categories
Music

Russell Dickerson Got the Best Baby Gifts for Thomas Rhett’s Boy

A new baby in the Rhett family means fresh adventures ahead, and it looks like friends are already gearing up to celebrate in style. Continue reading…​The Boot – Country Music News, Music Videos and Songs

Categories
Health

Joel McHale’s Fight Against Hair Loss Has Cost Him Thousands Of Dollars

The comedian has been open about the procedure he underwent and how much it cost. But he’s just one of the millions of people worldwide who have opted for it.

​Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights