So how do you guys think this is gonna end up?

[Guest]

 

You may place your bets in 3... 2... 1... now!

[heather]

To be honest, I think he'll probably lose this one. He might not have made the claims KNOWING they were false but when it comes to proving defamation, Jamie can easily prove that's what Anthony did. The criteria for proof:

1. The defendant (Anthony) made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff (Jamie);
2. The defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party; and.
3. The publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication

Sorry, pal. But many of us here asked you to STOP and you refused, insisted you knew what you were doing/saying, and well, here we are.

 

Jamie will also have to prove his damages regarding Anthony's statement and as far as some speculation online, I'm not sure what "damages" (this usually means money when it comes to defamation) Jamie suffered.

[MakeMySugarFall]

LOL - well, I think they're mainly hoping to scare Anthony and/or possibly bury him in legal fees and paperwork. Jamie Spears & team have the advantage of time and money on their side. That being said, as @heather mentioned in another thread, defamation is hard to prove for public figures. This site has a good round-up on suing for defamation, for anyone who's curious: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

 

Quote

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

published
false
injurious
unprivileged 

 

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.
4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

Public Officials and Figures Have More to Prove

People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.

I've highlighted the areas that are most pertinent to this case. I guess Papa Spears could say he got death threats because of Anthony's posts? Tbh, though, that seems hard enough to prove unless he has evidence directly connecting the two.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, heather said:

To be honest, I think he'll probably lose this one. He might not have made the claims KNOWING they were false but when it comes to proving defamation, Jamie can easily prove that's what Anthony did. The criteria for proof:

1. The defendant (Anthony) made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff (Jamie);
2. The defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party; and.
3. The publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication

Sorry, pal. But many of us here asked you to STOP and you refused, insisted you knew what you were doing/saying, and well, here we are.

I also think Anthony's gonna lose, I just can't see many scenarios where he wouldn't. Of course he still does have a chance but he's gonna need one hell of a lawyer to be able to stand his ground against whatever Jamie and his lawyer throw at him in court. And to think how easily this could all have been avoided, it's a shame

[MakeMySugarFall]

Here's a better link, directly related to California's defamation laws: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law

 

This part is interesting because I don't think this is universal, but it is part of CA's defamation code:

 

Quote

Defamation Per Se

A plaintiff need not show special damages (e.g., damages to the plaintiff's property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from the defamation) if the statement is defamation per se. A statement is defamation per se if it defames the plaintiff on its face, that is, without the need for extrinsic evidence to explain the statement's defamatory nature.  See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 

 

For example, an allegation that the plaintiff is guilty of a crime is defamatory on its face pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 45a. 

 

Yikes.

[heather]

3 minutes ago, MakeMySugarFall said:

LOL - well, I think they're mainly hoping to scare Anthony and/or possibly bury him in legal fees and paperwork. Jamie Spears & team have the advantage of time and money on their side. That being said, as @heather mentioned in another thread, defamation is hard to prove for public figures. This site has a good round-up on suing for defamation, for anyone who's curious: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

 

I've highlighted the areas that are most pertinent to this case. I guess Papa Spears could say he got death threats because of Anthony's posts? Tbh, though, that seems hard enough to prove unless he has evidence directly connecting the two.

I definitely agree that they're hoping to just bury him in fees/paperwork because this will be a hard thing to prove. While it's obvious Anthony did made defamatory statements, Jamie has the burden to prove that those statements caused him damage. Since most of team Britney/her family were getting death threats before Anthony spoke about the IG comments, Jamie could have trouble linking those to what Anthony said. However, we're not privy to the evidence that Jamie/his lawyers have. They could have things that they feel is enough to go through with a case.

[MakeMySugarFall]

1 minute ago, heather said:

I definitely agree that they're hoping to just bury him in fees/paperwork because this will be a hard thing to prove. While it's obvious Anthony did made defamatory statements, Jamie has the burden to prove that those statements caused him damage. Since most of team Britney/her family were getting death threats before Anthony spoke about the IG comments, Jamie could have trouble linking those to what Anthony said. However, we're not privy to the evidence that Jamie/his lawyers have. They could have things that they feel is enough to go through with a case.

Agreed. I mean, they presumably have way more money than Anthony has to fight this. So many court cases get settled or dismissed because the individual just can't keep spending and taking time off to go to court, etc. And yeah, after I read more about CA's defamation laws, it appears the burden of proof could easily be shifted to Anthony if Papa Spears can say for sure 1) The statements are false and 2) They led to death threats. Not a very high bar there.

[HeadstrongWolf]

This is delicious. 

[Whitney Houston]

Only one wrong thing he did he said it's 100% truth. But there are millions rumours in last 10 years and papa Spears did not cared. And now he is acting like drama queen. It's suspicious acting.

[btmyhbrit99]

The optics of suing a fansite are not that great so my guess is they will actually settle in court and maybe Anthony may have to agree 1.sell the site to her team the site will stop publishing articles about britney  2. He will must agree to an nda saying he can't come forward with details about the case 3.he must refrain from making disparaging statements on the conservatorship and britney as long as she's under the conservatorship 

 

Just my 2 cents. Either way it doesn't look good for the site and I'm guessing he's being sued as a scare tactic to other blogs or podcasts that may want to discuss this.

 

If her team doesn't get ahead of the public's opinion of her (and the way they're going about this lets me know they need an actual crisis PR team on the payroll ASAP) I honestly don't know how much more of a career she's going to have. I've never really thought she will retire until she was past 50 years old but now I don't see how she's not going to step away for some years at very least. Unless they let her truthfully and compellingly come forward about what's been going on nothing she does from this point will feel genuine in terms music.

[heather]

20 minutes ago, btmyhbrit99 said:

The optics of suing a fansite are not that great so my guess is they will actually settle in court and maybe Anthony may have to agree 1.sell the site to her team the site will stop publishing articles about britney  2. He will must agree to an nda saying he can't come forward with details about the case 3.he must refrain from making disparaging statements on the conservatorship and britney as long as she's under the conservatorship 

 

Just my 2 cents. Either way it doesn't look good for the site and I'm guessing he's being sued as a scare tactic to other blogs or podcasts that may want to discuss this.

 

If her team doesn't get ahead of the public's opinion of her (and the way they're going about this lets me know they need an actual crisis PR team on the payroll ASAP) I honestly don't know how much more of a career she's going to have. I've never really thought she will retire until she was past 50 years old but now I don't see how she's not going to step away for some years at very least. Unless they let her truthfully and compellingly come forward about what's been going on nothing she does from this point will feel genuine in terms music.

Agree with everything except the part about her career. The results of the investigation will be very telling about what direction her career will go in. No matter what Britney does she won't please everyone, she could be "free" and do a tell-all and it STILL wouldn't be enough for some people. And on the other side there's still comments on every IG post "that's nice but we want new music". There will always be a place for Britney in the music industry, as long as she wants it. I think she does, but I also think she wants to do it on HER terms. I don't know if that means with or without the conservatorship behind her, but I also don't think she needs to come forward about anything in order for her career to continue.

[Mrs Jared Leto]

i think he will lose and then they will close this site.

[Whitney Houston]

6 hours ago, Mrs Jared Leto said:

i think he will lose and then they will close this site.

How much cost this site? Donate for buy? Is there any chance to move whole stuff and close just this URL? @laracroftonline???

[Whitney Houston]

8 hours ago, btmyhbrit99 said:

The optics of suing a fansite are not that great so my guess is they will actually settle in court and maybe Anthony may have to agree 1.sell the site to her team the site will stop publishing articles about britney  2. He will must agree to an nda saying he can't come forward with details about the case 3.he must refrain from making disparaging statements on the conservatorship and britney as long as she's under the conservatorship 

 

Just my 2 cents. Either way it doesn't look good for the site and I'm guessing he's being sued as a scare tactic to other blogs or podcasts that may want to discuss this.

 

If her team doesn't get ahead of the public's opinion of her (and the way they're going about this lets me know they need an actual crisis PR team on the payroll ASAP) I honestly don't know how much more of a career she's going to have. I've never really thought she will retire until she was past 50 years old but now I don't see how she's not going to step away for some years at very least. Unless they let her truthfully and compellingly come forward about what's been going on nothing she does from this point will feel genuine in terms music.

This step will close this site or if not, it will be worse than comunism in China.

[laracroftonline]

You all have nothing to worry about and we aren’t closing, more than that i can’t say. Don’t makeup any rumors this forum also is not going to close. His case has flaws. People seem to forget i own everything.

[Mrs Jared Leto]

40 minutes ago, Bretyna Speransky said:

How much cost this site? Donate for buy? Is there any chance to move whole stuff and close just this URL? @laracroftonline???

not sure how much they have to pay. but i guess it will close, if he loses the case, i bet he has to pay a lot.

[MonaLisa613]

Unless he has rock solid evidence proving that they were doing something wrong, he should just wise up, give them what they want, which is stop talking shit, Jordan played Jamie’s game and Exhell is still here regardless of the cesspool it is.

 

 

[heather]

5 hours ago, laracroftonline said:

You all have nothing to worry about and we aren’t closing, more than that i can’t say. Don’t makeup any rumors this forum also is not going to close. His case has flaws. People seem to forget i own everything.

I never feared the site would close, tbh. Do I think there are flaws with Jamie's case? Sure, I've mentioned plenty of times how hard defamation is to prove. Do I think Anthony is in the right? Absolutely not. Agree with @MonaLisa613 this is a lesson I think Anthony needed to learn to STOP confirming "rumors" without legitimate proof to back up his claims. Fact is he made false claims about Britney's IG comments and he needs to own his mistakes, pay the price, and move on.

[M@GiC@LfL@Re]

17 hours ago, laracroftonline said:

You all have nothing to worry about and we aren’t closing, more than that i can’t say. Don’t makeup any rumors this forum also is not going to close. His case has flaws. People seem to forget i own everything.

Did you erase my comment?  

[HeadstrongWolf]

18 hours ago, laracroftonline said:

You all have nothing to worry about and we aren’t closing, more than that i can’t say. Don’t makeup any rumors this forum also is not going to close. His case has flaws. People seem to forget i own everything.

Hire me as your news page

[britneybitchh]

a shame. a litral shame.