#torts is the only one defending him afaik

[sethjarvy]

"laughts knew about it and didn't do anything??"why are you throwing him under the bus lmao what's he supposed to do? put a gun to provy's head and force him to put the jersey on? 😭😭😭

[the-final-sif]

Hello! I recently came across your blog and love your take on things, mainly because they’re very level headed and thought out!

I was wondering, based on what we know, what do you think is going to happen with all of this? And if this has already been answered, you can just ignore this lol :)

Thank you! Trying my best to get a handle on things and help others do the same.

As for what I think is going to happen, there was an interesting discussion I had with @godzibane that I think covers a lot of what we could reasonably expect.

To summarize that post though, I think that the odds of Dream facing criminal charges are next to zero. Regardless of whether he's done anything Amanda said he did or not. Everything I've read says that Snapchat won't be able to retrieve any actual image/video files from Jan/feb at this point, and without those a charge/case is going to be next to impossible. So even if she was telling the truth, it would really only her word against Dream's, and that's not enough for a court case. Particularly not when her own credibility as a witness could be demolished by her behavior on twitter.

Now, if the allegations are false, Dream has one of the most straightforward defamation cases that I have ever seen. Like, to the point of comical. If she can't prove her case, she's defamed him. The more evidence Dream can provide that she's lying (snapchat metadata may serve him well here, depending on if they talked on there/what they discussed, he may be able to factually disprove her claims), the stronger his case gets. If Bee is telling the truth and is willing to help/testify under oath, then I'm really not sure how a good set of lawyers could fuck this case up. Like, this would be straight up two per se charges. He wouldn't even need to prove damages AFAIK.

Slander per se is defined as words that are slanderous in themselves without proof of actual damages. For example, if an utterance charges (a) the commission of a crime, (b) imputes some offensive or loathsome disease that would tend to deprive a person of society, (c) matters incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office, or (d) charges serious sexual misconduct. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 570 (1976).

Now, I think a lawsuit may end up getting filed here. Amanda did uh, well she doxxed herself. Which is. A really bad idea for all sorts of reasons. There's also at least one person that likely went to school with her (Bee) who would almost certainly be willing to disclose information about what school Amanda went to to lawyers to make contacting/serving her very easy.

If the allegations are false, a lawsuit also would be a way for Dream to add provable records to the public record where they become worth way more than "just trust me this is unaltered" so it'd be a good move both legally speaking and for PR.

I'm not convinced a case like this would go to trial. I mean, I do not know what sort of resources Amanda has. But lawyers are very expensive, and if Dream files in Florida instead of NJ which to my understanding would be possible, Amanda may then have to travel to Florida or hire a lawyer within Florida to defend her. If her claims are false, the sudden expenses may suddenly make holding onto those claims no longer worth it. In which case she would probably attempt to apologize/settle.

Now, to my understanding, while she could retract/apologize, Dream could still sue her if her claims are false. But I'm doubtful Dream would be interested in pursuing the case much further than getting an apology and some sort of settlement to send a message.

So, I think we will hopefully end up seeing some stuff from lawyers, although I'm hoping at least one of the involved parties mentions when things become a matter of public record, since it can be such a pain to track down court records w/o a docket number.

(also as a note I am not a lawyer, nor trained in anything to do with law, this is all from my personal understanding and could be incorrect in many different ways!)