His defense—it was Chris Gaines who did it, not me!
Ann_Margrock69 on
Well, he did nothing to help his case with that
Shaggarooney on
Sorry, but I dont think he did anything wrong. Without being guilty, he has done nothing wrong. And so it goes, if one party can publicly name a person it should go both ways. Ive been accused of rape, it wasnt any fun. I got beat up and stabbed. The fact she admitted that she lied later on didnt make any difference. My reputation was ruined. To this day people still think I did it.
Yes victims deserve protections, but so do the accused. Once convicted, name and shame all you want. Until then, it should be a private court matter. But if you dont want to agree to that, well, shit. The door swings both ways.
ImprovementSilly2895 on
Anonymous woman sullies his reputation in the court of public opinion but feels her name shouldn’t be revealed. Doesn’t seem like justice to me
A_Polite_Noise on
Oof, this very short article is like 75% ads, breaking up one sentence “paragraphs”; anyway, for the majority of people who do the standard reddit thing and reply to titles and don’t read the article, here is the entire article:
>##Garth Brooks Accuser Asks Court To Sanction The Country Singer For Publicly Revealing Her Identity: “Appalling And Malicious Behavior”
>The legal battle involving Garth Brooks and the sexual assault case against him is quickly intensifying.
>Recently, a lawsuit was filed in California by a former makeup artist and hairstylist, known only as Jane Roe, accusing Garth of rape and sexual assault.
>Garth strongly denied the claims, stating that they were completely false and part of an attempt to extort “millions of dollars” from him.
>Interestingly, before Jane Roe took legal action in California, Garth had already filed his own anonymous lawsuit in Mississippi.
>He was trying to stop her accusations from going public, filing the case under the name John Doe.
>In his lawsuit, Garth asked the court to rule that her claims were false, to block her from talking about the accusations further, and for compensation for the emotional stress and harm caused to his reputation.
>Although Garth requested to continue the lawsuit under a false name, Jane Roe’s lawsuit in California revealed his identity, making the request pointless.
>In response, Garth updated his legal case and publicly revealed his accuser’s real name for the first time.
>This move sparked a sharp reaction from Jane Roe’s legal team. They criticized Garth for revealing her identity, accusing him of punishing her and claiming there was no legal reason for his actions.
>In their statement, they promised to seek strict penalties against him for what they called “spiteful and punitive behavior.”
>As promised, her lawyers filed a motion asking the court to hide or remove her name from Garth’s updated lawsuit.
>They also asked for the court to punish him for what they described as “malicious and improper conduct.” According to them, Garth revealed her identity as retaliation for her lawsuit.
>They claim they had no warning that Garth would expose her before the updated complaint was filed.
>Additionally, Jane Roe may take further legal action against Garth for revealing her identity unlawfully.
>Legal experts warn that Garth’s decision to reveal his accuser’s identity could be a risky one.
>Duncan Levin, a lawyer who has dealt with many high-profile cases, pointed out that this move could work in his favor if Garth can prove the allegations are false. It might even help protect his reputation.
>However, Levin also noted that if the public sympathizes with the accuser or if her claims seem credible, this could backfire on Garth and damage his image even more. It might also discourage other victims from coming forward.
>Levin added that Garth’s legal team might be confident that they can prove his innocence, which could be why they’re taking such an aggressive approach. Still, it’s a risky strategy.
>If they don’t win, this could make Garth look worse in the eyes of the public and create more legal issues for him.
>We’ll have to wait and see how this all plays out, but one thing is for sure – this legal battle is far from over.
ClutchRoadagain on
I trust country singers as far as I can throw them, I believe her.
6 Comments
His defense—it was Chris Gaines who did it, not me!
Well, he did nothing to help his case with that
Sorry, but I dont think he did anything wrong. Without being guilty, he has done nothing wrong. And so it goes, if one party can publicly name a person it should go both ways. Ive been accused of rape, it wasnt any fun. I got beat up and stabbed. The fact she admitted that she lied later on didnt make any difference. My reputation was ruined. To this day people still think I did it.
Yes victims deserve protections, but so do the accused. Once convicted, name and shame all you want. Until then, it should be a private court matter. But if you dont want to agree to that, well, shit. The door swings both ways.
Anonymous woman sullies his reputation in the court of public opinion but feels her name shouldn’t be revealed. Doesn’t seem like justice to me
Oof, this very short article is like 75% ads, breaking up one sentence “paragraphs”; anyway, for the majority of people who do the standard reddit thing and reply to titles and don’t read the article, here is the entire article:
>##Garth Brooks Accuser Asks Court To Sanction The Country Singer For Publicly Revealing Her Identity: “Appalling And Malicious Behavior”
>The legal battle involving Garth Brooks and the sexual assault case against him is quickly intensifying.
>Recently, a lawsuit was filed in California by a former makeup artist and hairstylist, known only as Jane Roe, accusing Garth of rape and sexual assault.
>Garth strongly denied the claims, stating that they were completely false and part of an attempt to extort “millions of dollars” from him.
>Interestingly, before Jane Roe took legal action in California, Garth had already filed his own anonymous lawsuit in Mississippi.
>He was trying to stop her accusations from going public, filing the case under the name John Doe.
>In his lawsuit, Garth asked the court to rule that her claims were false, to block her from talking about the accusations further, and for compensation for the emotional stress and harm caused to his reputation.
>Although Garth requested to continue the lawsuit under a false name, Jane Roe’s lawsuit in California revealed his identity, making the request pointless.
>In response, Garth updated his legal case and publicly revealed his accuser’s real name for the first time.
>This move sparked a sharp reaction from Jane Roe’s legal team. They criticized Garth for revealing her identity, accusing him of punishing her and claiming there was no legal reason for his actions.
>In their statement, they promised to seek strict penalties against him for what they called “spiteful and punitive behavior.”
>As promised, her lawyers filed a motion asking the court to hide or remove her name from Garth’s updated lawsuit.
>They also asked for the court to punish him for what they described as “malicious and improper conduct.” According to them, Garth revealed her identity as retaliation for her lawsuit.
>They claim they had no warning that Garth would expose her before the updated complaint was filed.
>Additionally, Jane Roe may take further legal action against Garth for revealing her identity unlawfully.
>Legal experts warn that Garth’s decision to reveal his accuser’s identity could be a risky one.
>Duncan Levin, a lawyer who has dealt with many high-profile cases, pointed out that this move could work in his favor if Garth can prove the allegations are false. It might even help protect his reputation.
>However, Levin also noted that if the public sympathizes with the accuser or if her claims seem credible, this could backfire on Garth and damage his image even more. It might also discourage other victims from coming forward.
>Levin added that Garth’s legal team might be confident that they can prove his innocence, which could be why they’re taking such an aggressive approach. Still, it’s a risky strategy.
>If they don’t win, this could make Garth look worse in the eyes of the public and create more legal issues for him.
>We’ll have to wait and see how this all plays out, but one thing is for sure – this legal battle is far from over.
I trust country singers as far as I can throw them, I believe her.