|
|
Post by Sarzy on Nov 3, 2022 21:16:41 GMT
 Diana Jenkins, a star of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,” filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday against the proprietor of the “Crazy Days & Nights” gossip site over claims that she is a sex trafficker. The lawsuit seeks to unmask the writer behind the celebrity gossip site, who goes by “Enty Lawyer,” and who has been publishing blind items about celebrity scandals since 2006. Jenkins alleges that she has been targeted by the site since 2012, and has been falsely portrayed as a celebrity madam and falsely linked to Jeffrey Epstein. “Ms. Jenkins is many things, but she is not the person Enty Lawyer has cast her to be. She is not a sex trafficker, a madam, or a criminal,” the lawsuit states. “Ms. Jenkins has suffered significant reputational harm from Enty Lawyer’s false and offensive statements about her. Her family has been threatened with violence, and her reputation as been irreparably tarnished. Ms. Jenkins has no choice but to respond" This is the second time this fall that Jenkins has filed a lawsuit seeking to reveal the identity of an anonymous online commenter. In September, Jenkins filed a lawsuit seeking to unmask the person who had attacked the 14-year-old son of Garcelle Beauvais, another “RHOBH” cast member. Jenkins alleged in that suit that she was being framed as the person responsible for the hateful messages. A judge allowed her lawyers to pursue a subpoena against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, to obtain the person’s identity. In the Crazy Days & Nights lawsuit, Jenkins alleges she was first targeted in the comments section of a March 2012 blind item about a TV actress who had been physically and sexually abused. An anonymous commenter on the item identified Jenkins as “the Rosetta Stone of every scandal and perversion from H’wood all over the globe.” “She’s been running a high class call girl/ party-girl ring for Arabs, Wall Street, DC, Royals and Hollywood elites,” the commenter stated. The lawsuit alleges that Enty Lawyer would go on to endorse that claim in a series of blind items in 2018, and that Enty Lawyer identified Jenkins as the subject of those items in his podcast. According to the suit, the blind items and the podcast left the audience with the clear implication that Jenkins had taken advantage of the actor Hayden Panettiere and had forced her into prostitution. “He knew that false, salacious statements about Ms. Jenkins drove traffic to his blog, increased his reader engagement, and cast him in the hero role of ‘Hollywood whistleblower’ and purveyor of justice for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse,” the lawsuit states. The suit also alleges that Enty Lawyer tweeted a link to a story about Jenkins with a photo of Jeffrey Epstein, suggested she was linked to “celebrity prostitution,” and alleged that Jenkins had “spent a LOT of time” with Epstein. The tweet was later deleted. “There was not a shred of credible evidence to support his allegations about Ms. Jenkins, but Enty Lawyer published them nonetheless,” said Jenkins’ lawyer, J. Erik Connolly, in a statement. “Ms. Jenkins did nothing to deserve these attacks on her reputation. Being in the public eye, being on TV, did not give Enty Lawyer the right to defame Ms. Jenkins.” Connolly plans to seek to obtain Enty Lawyer’s name from social media companies and then amend the lawsuit with his true identity. variety.com/2022/tv/news/diana-jenkins-lawsuit-enty-lawyer-crazy-days-nights-1235421033/ |
|
|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Nov 4, 2022 14:31:27 GMT
This is the "out" Enty uses to excuse anything he says, but he definitely targets people and uses "clues" to identify them - most often about people he either dislikes (sometimes intensely) or uses as clickbait.
For example, if he says something about a woman who is "everything in her own mind" it is code for Jennifer Lopez. If he says the "alliterative one," particularly with adjectives like ambitious, wanna-be, former yacht girl who married way up, etc., that would be Meghan Markle, who he despises with a passion, and will say just about anything to feed the voracious regulars.
Look, I'm part of the problem because I do read his crap and the comments because the posters are amazingly, terrifyingly good at interpreting his cryptic bullshit, but I've been shocked that no one has sued his ass despite the small print. (very small - I couldn't even go that small on this site.) He will say anything about anyone, and this lawsuit will be very interesting to follow, because vile insinuations stay in your brain - they stick, even if it's complete fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousmkg on Nov 4, 2022 15:35:55 GMT
Just to be clear, this is an extremely clear case of libel -- accusing someone of being a criminal -- especially a sex trafficker. Especially making the accusation multiple times. The only reason he has gotten away with it for years is that he had figured that celebrities thought it was better to just ignore what he is saying than to give it more publicity. There must have been some very clear spillover into Diana Jenkins' everyday life for her to bring this suit. She had to be at the point where she felt like she had nothing more to lose. This guy is absolute toast.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Nov 4, 2022 15:51:33 GMT
So the disclaimer at the bottom of the site doesn't indemnify him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Taniwha on Nov 4, 2022 17:25:07 GMT
I wish her luck. I used to read it regularly but stopped when it seemed to become a MAGAT magnet.
|
|
|
|
Post by kittylady on Nov 4, 2022 23:26:49 GMT
It had to happen sooner or later. I'm surprised nobody went after Ted Casablanca - so many of his blinds seemed to be about actors being in the closet that it started feeling like a roll call of who he wanted to shag and couldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by shellee on Nov 5, 2022 3:31:35 GMT
I wish her luck. I used to read it regularly but stopped when it seemed to become a MAGAT magnet. Seriously, they’re so many magats over there, but I do love to see the few who answer back to them. Tricia was a popular poster and total magat. I’ve seen her Twitter and it’s disgusting. She’s not posting anymore for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by daphodil on Nov 5, 2022 16:16:04 GMT
I enjoyed the site way back in the day - it was a less nasty site than Perez Hilton. There was a definite shift in the tone - I think I heard it was sold to someone (corporation?) else. His blind item reveals were interesting and sometimes startling. Not a lot of libel in the reveals and quite a few unproveable reveals as all parties were deceased. All that said, I hope she gets her own reveal and a nice big check.
|
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Nov 6, 2022 7:06:53 GMT
Yes.
I stopped around the time there was the alleged "star" (who was z list nowhere near d list) who was writing as Himmmm and was "outing" alleged survivors of child sex abuse - so according to OP about 2012.
Wasn't this about the time that he outsourced the daily writing?
I physically cannot read it now due to the adverts and layout.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindsaywhit on Nov 6, 2022 14:50:22 GMT
^^^ Yes - the Himmmm stuff was salacious and compelling click bait. At the time, it was rumoured to be Robert Downey Jr., but I'm pretty sure that's been debunked. Much of it concerned Hayden Panettiere having been sexually abused by everyone, starting with her own parents. Hayden has had so many issues that the information appeared credible, BUT if it was true, why wasn't it reported to social services?
That's the problem with so many blinds, isn't it? Honestly, Himmm's blinds have forever altered the way I see Hayden. Ted C's "Toothy Tiles" blinds make it impossible for me to ever believe Jake Gyllenhaal is truly involved with a woman.
Just me?
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousmkg on Nov 6, 2022 18:13:58 GMT
So the disclaimer at the bottom of the site doesn't indemnify him? I don't think a disclaimer gets him off the hook (unless it was literally on the masthead at the top of the site). The people who post there do not consider themselves to be commenting on fan fiction. There probably will also be a strong case where people outside the site have taken it as gospel and commented elsewhere or she even has experienced some kind of financial harm that will be substantiated by a sponsor/opportunity going up in smoke and the rep cites the rumors. |
|
|
|
Post by beeyotch on Nov 6, 2022 18:29:42 GMT
I've always read that libel cases hinge closely on whether the person being libeled is considered a private or public figure. Public figures have a MUCH higher standard of proof, that's why celebs don't usually bother. I imagine the bad publicity wouldn't be worth trying to get the truth out even if they can prove career/monetary damages. But this person isn't that caliber of celebrity, so I think it might be up to the judge to decide if she is a private or public figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousmkg on Nov 7, 2022 17:19:15 GMT
I've always read that libel cases hinge closely on whether the person being libeled is considered a private or public figure. Public figures have a MUCH higher standard of proof, that's why celebs don't usually bother. I imagine the bad publicity wouldn't be worth trying to get the truth out even if they can prove career/monetary damages. But this person isn't that caliber of celebrity, so I think it might be up to the judge to decide if she is a private or public figure. Right. A private citizen could bring a libel case even if the defamation was accidental (like getting a criminals name cris-crossed with a private citizen's name, or screwing up on someone's supposed criminal history). Celebs have to prove "actual malice" - that the publisher knew the claims were untrue and published them anyway. The problem for Enty was not that he was merely hosting a site where people discussed rumors -- he was usually the person who started them in the first place. Even more damning was when he started to do occasional "reveals", where he basically confirms the celeb name that he wrote the blind about. If he did that with Jenkins, it is going to be one of the shortest libel trials ever. |
|
|
|
Post by pecanpie on Nov 7, 2022 18:44:26 GMT
I've always read that libel cases hinge closely on whether the person being libeled is considered a private or public figure. Public figures have a MUCH higher standard of proof, that's why celebs don't usually bother. I imagine the bad publicity wouldn't be worth trying to get the truth out even if they can prove career/monetary damages. But this person isn't that caliber of celebrity, so I think it might be up to the judge to decide if she is a private or public figure. Right. A private citizen could bring a libel case even if the defamation was accidental (like getting a criminals name cris-crossed with a private citizen's name, or screwing up on someone's supposed criminal history). Celebs have to prove "actual malice" - that the publisher knew the claims were untrue and published them anyway. The problem for Enty was not that he was merely hosting a site where people discussed rumors -- he was usually the person who started them in the first place. Even more damning was when he started to do occasional "reveals", where he basically confirms the celeb name that he wrote the blind about. If he did that with Jenkins, it is going to be one of the shortest libel trials ever. He did those reveals more than once. He also spoke about her on various podcasts. The statement of claim on Variety is an interesting read. I think he’ll have a tough time successfully defending this. |
|
