Legally she is entitled to have her own socials though.She should've deleted her Twitter account(s) and Facebook accounts
I personally think the issue will be she may well have stalked him but it seems the SA and the prison bits aren’t true and just because someone has done something that’s a crime (ie stalking) doesn’t give you free reign to lie about them publicly and say they also SA’d you, they’ve been to prison etc.I don't think she'll get millions but I do think there will be some sort of out of court settlement because surely a law firm won't take a case on if they see no prospect of it succeeding in some capacity
Then it’s not a true story as they claim.Gadd and Netflix could say though that it's about Donny and Martha, not Richard and Fiona so maybe that's how they can avoid paying out. Who knows. It's all getting a bit boring now. I bet she misses spouting off so I'm sure she's found other avenues to rant and vent.
But Fargo put "this is a true story" at the start of every episode and none of that is true.Then it’s not a true story as they claim.
Which is why I think this might well end up being a landmark case if they don’t settle, really setting out what TV/film can define as true and how far artistic license goes.
The 'true' story of Donny Dunn - who doesn't existLegally she is entitled to have her own socials though.
The biggest fuck up is Netflix saying "This Is A True Story" instead of "Based On A True Story". While the thousands of messages allegedly exist as evidence, the accusation of sexual assault is harder to prove, and that's a serious allegation. Also if she didn't actually go to prison, that's another problem.
Fargo wasn’t about identifiable people though. That’s what separates this from people using “true” for effect on eg Fargo, plus Gadd has already admitted it’s him and his real story with just the names changed. People found FH within hours of the show being released too so I think any attempt by Netflix to say it wasn’t her would be laughed out of court tbh.But Fargo put "this is a true story" at the start of every episode and none of that is true.
Edit to add: maybe that's where Gadd comes unstuck, he used too much of the real story to deny it now I guess? Such as the emails word for word.
In civil law you are usually meant to mitigate your own loss, making the accounts private or taking the posts down would be one way of doing that, instead she made loads of defamatory posts of her own and someone having a bad character can reduce damages.The 'true' story of Donny Dunn - who doesn't exist
Legally she can have social's but, if I was in her position, I would've made them private - so people couldn't identify me.
She could pretty easily argue that him publicising she’d SA’d him is very likely to affect her job prospects, similarly if he’s exaggerated the stalking and made out she has a criminal conviction.In civil law you are usually meant to mitigate your own loss, making the accounts private or taking the posts down would be one way of doing that, instead she made loads of defamatory posts of her own and someone having a bad character can reduce damages.
Lots of people here still missing the point that it’s not enough for the story not to be true, even Laura Wray said in that interview that Fiona doesn’t have a legal reputation to lose or any financial loss so she wouldn’t be successful. Doesn’t seem like there’s anything landmark about a scrounger scrounging.
I meant ‘a legal reputation’ as in, a ‘reputation’ in a legal sense rather than general. Someone who has seemingly not worked for a very long time - again Laura Wray seemed to confirm this - does not have any job prospects, there is plainly no prospect of her arguing that. Out of interest do you actually have any legal background at all?She could pretty easily argue that him publicising she’d SA’d him is very likely to affect her job prospects, similarly if he’s exaggerated the stalking and made out she has a criminal conviction.
It doesn’t have to be a legal reputation to be a reputation or a job in the legal field to be a job.
'Innocent woman' - that's made me laugh!This is what they’ve filed in America. It’s a hilarious read albeit horribly jarring in its Americanisations and hyperbole.
It also says Gadd prostituted himself which is just disgusting. You’d really hope even in America the legal system has more integrity than allowing this'Innocent woman' - that's made me laugh!
Fiona says 'Gadd told lies'........she says he's a 'homosexual' and probably has aids (FB)
It seems Fiona cannot decipher between real life and fiction!
Yes, they send this submission to a judge, the judge decides on jurisdiction (I've been following the Tati Westbrook case for years- it's bounced around Washington state/California/Nevada/Delaware)....and whether there's any chance of the plaintiff winning the case. If it can, then the 'researchers' (student lawyers) try and find cases similar and tidy up Fiona's claims. To say she hasn't watched it - she knows a lot about it!I get the feeling when her lawyers start discovery and see what she’s not telling them it all goes real quiet real fast. The submission omits some key info such as the Netflix disclaimer at the end of the episodes. I kind of think she maybe wrote it herself ngl.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?