'Britney Spears' Dad Back in Court to Battle With Britney Fan, Demands Injunction'

[MakeMySugarFall]

Source: https://theblast.com/97299/britney-spears-dad-back-in-court-in-battle-with-britney-fan-dema?fbclid=IwAR1vt7ibDQfwFGV9gAZWq5G6PEF1QH_3B9JYVtomgI5uwGjqCtgm1UNmn1U

 

I had honestly forgotten about this lawsuit.

 

Britney Spears' Dad Back in Court to Battle With Britney Fan, Demands Injunction

Britney Spears dad is pressing forward with his legal battle against one of her fans, accusing him of spreading lies about his daughter.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Jamie Spears is updating the court on his lawsuit against a Britney superfan named Anthony Steven aka Anthony Elia.

Spears accused Steven of defamation, over claims Britney’s team was removing negative comments from her social media.

In newly filed documents, Spears says “the parties are currently discussing alternative paths to possibly resolve the matter. However, Defendant resumed posting false and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Jamie is moving the lawsuit forward and demanding damages. He is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Steven from writing about Britney or himself.

Steven has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

 

Earlier this year, Jamie Spears, sued Steven aka Anthony Elia accusing him of defamation.

ADVERTISEMEN

Steven, who runs the Instagram account "Absolute Britney”, allegedly claimed Britney’s team had doctored her Instagram page to make her seem unstable.

That account made headlines with a post claiming that Spears' team has been "deleting positive comments on her Instagram post and leaving negative ones to keep up the illusion that she needs help."

Britney and Jamie Spears (who filed the lawsuit in his role as conservator over Britney) claim they "have sat by while fans accused them of numerous false and malicious things, including attempts to mislead the public with the content that appears on her social media."

ADVERTIS

[MonaLisa613]

Thought this lawsuit made Jamie look petty then and I still do.

[heather]

We all warned him to stop lying and creating rumors that he can't prove and he didn't listen. Sometimes you gotta make an example out of someone so they and others will learn. Even after the shit about Jamie that's come out recently, and even if I don't think he's been the greatest father, grandfather, or conservator, he's 100% within his rights to sue.

[Guest]

I had actually forgotten about this whole lawsuit. It's a shame Anthony didn't listen to the advice given by other members here, not even high ranking ones. As much as I dislike Jamie, he had full right to sue Anthony. Let's hope he learns from this and will be more objective when writing future posts.

[Ricki Lake]

Jamie Spears is so transparent. It says a lot that he's not going after TMZ, Perez or other tabloid sources that publish lies on the daily. Could it be because they are on his payroll? Notice their stories always claim Jamie is a hero who swooped in and saved Britney from certain death. 

 

Just for clarity, since they love to hail Jamie as some kind of super dad: 

[Whitney Houston]

4 hours ago, Ricki Lake said:

Jamie Spears is so transparent. It says a lot that he's not going after TMZ, Perez or other tabloid sources that publish lies on the daily. Could it be because they are on his payroll? Notice their stories always claim Jamie is a hero who swooped in and saved Britney from certain death. 

 

Just for clarity, since they love to hail Jamie as some kind of super dad: 

Spoiler

evils eyes

[heather]

12 hours ago, Ricki Lake said:

Jamie Spears is so transparent. It says a lot that he's not going after TMZ, Perez or other tabloid sources that publish lies on the daily. Could it be because they are on his payroll? Notice their stories always claim Jamie is a hero who swooped in and saved Britney from certain death. 

 

Just for clarity, since they love to hail Jamie as some kind of super dad: 

The difference is tabloids claim sources tell them things and they're not claiming to have direct knowledge and what they publish is 100% the facts. Anthony claimed his lies, that damaged Britney's reputation as much as Jamie's, were 100% confirmed truths.

[MonaLisa613]

1 hour ago, heather said:

The difference is tabloids claim sources tell them things and they're not claiming to have direct knowledge and what they publish is 100% the facts. Anthony claimed his lies, that damaged Britney's reputation as much as Jamie's, were 100% confirmed truths.

Wouldn’t be hilarious though, if his source actually is Lynne, he knows her and Fe in some way, so it’s not impossible but at the same time it’s not a theory I’d put money on, it would just be funny if it turned out to be the case, lol

[heather]

1 hour ago, MonaLisa613 said:

Wouldn’t be hilarious though, if his source actually is Lynne, he knows her and Fe in some way, so it’s not impossible but at the same time it’s not a theory I’d put money on, it would just be funny if it turned out to be the case, lol

I'm sure Lynne and/or Fe has told him things that he's "confirmed" but this is specifically about the Instagram comments, where even if Lynne was the "confirmation" that comments were deleted, she was wrong and no comments were actually being deleted thus Anthony is in the wrong for confirming false information that harms Britney and Jamie's reputations.

[MonaLisa613]

34 minutes ago, heather said:

I'm sure Lynne and/or Fe has told him things that he's "confirmed" but this is specifically about the Instagram comments, where even if Lynne was the "confirmation" that comments were deleted, she was wrong and no comments were actually being deleted thus Anthony is in the wrong for confirming false information that harms Britney and Jamie's reputations.

Ok yeah, I get it now, although I still don’t see how this harms Britney’s rep, it harms team c-ships rep.

[heather]

2 hours ago, MonaLisa613 said:

Ok yeah, I get it now, although I still don’t see how this harms Britney’s rep, it harms team c-ships rep.

It supports the narrative that Britney is so incapacitated that she can't even use her own social media, which can not only damage her reputation in the eyes of the public, but for any brand deals that would require a social media post, etc. We've always known it's both Britney and her team posting on her social media, it's very obvious what is authentically Britney and what is concocted by her team. I don't really care about that, she wouldn't be the first or last, but as a fansite, to promote the narrative that poor prisoner Britney doesn't have access to a phone/social media is harmful to both parties involved.

[MonaLisa613]

1 hour ago, heather said:

It supports the narrative that Britney is so incapacitated that she can't even use her own social media, which can not only damage her reputation in the eyes of the public, but for any brand deals that would require a social media post, etc. We've always known it's both Britney and her team posting on her social media, it's very obvious what is authentically Britney and what is concocted by her team. I don't really care about that, she wouldn't be the first or last, but as a fansite, to promote the narrative that poor prisoner Britney doesn't have access to a phone/social media is harmful to both parties involved.

But I thought this lawsuit had to do with Anthony claiming that her team was deleting positive comments and keeping bad ones, not whether Britney uses social media or not or is it both??

[heather]

11 minutes ago, MonaLisa613 said:

But I thought this lawsuit had to do with Anthony claiming that her team was deleting positive comments and keeping bad ones, not whether Britney uses social media or not or is it both??

Yes but that's the point, promoting the narrative that Britney doesn't control her social media (them deleting comments) promotes the narrative that she's too "fragile" to handle anything.

[MonaLisa613]

1 hour ago, heather said:

Yes but that's the point, promoting the narrative that Britney doesn't control her social media (them deleting comments) promotes the narrative that she's too "fragile" to handle anything.

See I interpreted it differently, I saw the claim of her team deleting the positive comments as  her team wanting the world to think she’s crazy therefore justifying the c-ship.

 

Now if the claim were the opposite, that they were deleting only negative comments so she only sees positive, then I could see the fragile narrative.

[heather]

23 minutes ago, MonaLisa613 said:

See I interpreted it differently, I saw the claim of her team deleting the positive comments as  her team wanting the world to think she’s crazy therefore justifying the c-ship.

 

Now if the claim were the opposite, that they were deleting only negative comments so she only sees positive, then I could see the fragile narrative.

Yes, I agree with you! When I mentioned how it damages Britney's reputation, I wasn't speaking it as literally part of Jamie's lawsuit, just as how Anthony's claim could, potentially, damage her reputation. I don't think Jamie is even suing on behalf of Britney about this and only for himself, which I still see no problem with regardless of how I feel about Jamie on personal level. On a business and professional level, what Anthony did was wrong and illegal and Jamie can and should make a lesson out of this. Even if Jamie loses/they settle/etc, this whole situation is a lesson that people can't just say whatever they want without consequence.

[MonaLisa613]

29 minutes ago, heather said:

Yes, I agree with you! When I mentioned how it damages Britney's reputation, I wasn't speaking it as literally part of Jamie's lawsuit, just as how Anthony's claim could, potentially, damage her reputation. I don't think Jamie is even suing on behalf of Britney about this and only for himself, which I still see no problem with regardless of how I feel about Jamie on personal level. On a business and professional level, what Anthony did was wrong and illegal and Jamie can and should make a lesson out of this. Even if Jamie loses/they settle/etc, this whole situation is a lesson that people can't just say whatever they want without consequence.

Ok, I think I see where your coming from now. He fucked up saying it was the truth and then doubling down on it, he could of gotten away with it just like all the tabloids do if he just worded it differently, so he did bring it on himself.

 

 

[MakeMySugarFall]

1 hour ago, MonaLisa613 said:

Ok, I think I see where your coming from now. He fucked up saying it was the truth and then doubling down on it, he could of gotten away with it just like all the tabloids do if he just worded it differently, so he did bring it on himself.

 

 

This is the part I think most people miss. “Rumor is” or “I’ve heard” is so totally different than “He is definitely doing this.” Tabloids rarely get sued for a reason, wording is everything. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MakeMySugarFall said:

This is the part I think most people miss. “Rumor is” or “I’ve heard” is so totally different than “He is definitely doing this.” Tabloids rarely get sued for a reason, wording is everything. 

This, a dozen times this. They just have to make sure they state that someone else said it's this or that way, and if the "source" is anonymous no one can get in trouble for it.

[MonaLisa613]

8 minutes ago, MakeMySugarFall said:

This is the part I think most people miss. “Rumor is” or “I’ve heard” is so totally different than “He is definitely doing this.” Tabloids rarely get sued for a reason, wording is everything. 

I can’t help but wonder where “sources” come in tho, most tabloids always claim shit is coming from a “source”....well my question is, is there even really a source or does simply claiming one allow them to write whatever they want??

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MonaLisa613 said:

I can’t help but wonder where “sources” come in tho, most tabloids always claim shit is coming from a “source”....well my question is, is there even really a source or does simply claiming one allow them to write whatever they want??

My guess is a lot of the times there is no actual source, instead the writer of the article just makes that up so they can add stuff to make the article seem more interesting to the readers. It's too often all about the views unfortunately.

[MakeMySugarFall]

13 hours ago, MonaLisa613 said:

I can’t help but wonder where “sources” come in tho, most tabloids always claim shit is coming from a “source”....well my question is, is there even really a source or does simply claiming one allow them to write whatever they want??

 

13 hours ago, sairaannopee99 said:

My guess is a lot of the times there is no actual source, instead the writer of the article just makes that up so they can add stuff to make the article seem more interesting to the readers. It's too often all about the views unfortunately.

I agree with @sairaannopee99, I think most of the time there's no source. Journalists (real journalists) have a right to protect their sources, which is why so many end up being anonymously quoted. People fear for their lives or livelihoods against powerful people, but journalists can help them get their word out there without repercussions. Unfortunately, I think a lot of tabloids use it as a loophole to make up lies.

 

Or they hack phones a la Piers Morgan lol. Either way, scummy.

[MonaLisa613]

@MakeMySugarFall @sairaannopee99

 

Then that’s unfortunate cuz a lot of the damaging stuff towards Britney comes from these alleged sources esp. when talking about her mental health, talking about her almost dying, she’s in horrible shape, not getting out of bed, it could all be complete bullshit and they can get away with it just by claiming a source.

 

 

[HeadstrongWolf]

On 10/7/2019 at 6:24 PM, Ricki Lake said:

Jamie Spears is so transparent. It says a lot that he's not going after TMZ, Perez or other tabloid sources that publish lies on the daily. Could it be because they are on his payroll? Notice their stories always claim Jamie is a hero who swooped in and saved Britney from certain death. 

 

Just for clarity, since they love to hail Jamie as some kind of super dad: 

Omg.

 

even I think that an injunction is bullshit. Most of the time permanent injunctions aren't granted and nine out of 10 cases get thrown out so I would love to see how they attempt to get that approved....