Friday, August 15, 2014

Phaedra Parks Is In A Sticky Situation

Phaedra Parks sued a woman last year for defamation when the author of the book, a stripper named Angela Stanton, said that Phaedra was involved in criminal activities with Phaedra's husband Apollo Nida. Here is where it gets sticky and why Phaedra should never have filed the suit. If you want to know whether Phaedra knew about the criminal activity you have to ask her. If she says no she didn't know, she doesn't want to be faced with perjury charges later if the feds do indict her on some type of charge. If she says she did know, then the feds are going to want to ask her what she knew and if she took part. Two months ago Phaedra sat for a deposition but refused to talk about her husband. The whole point of her lawsuit was to show she wasn't involved in her husband's criminal activities so you can't just ignore questions about your husband. She did say that her husband liked strip clubs and that the couple had not had sex in quite some time. The attorney for Stanton is going to court to get Phaedra to submit to another deposition where she will have to answer questions about her husband and a judge will most likely order her to answer which means she will probably end up settling the case before that new deposition date is set. There is no way she is going to answer any questions about Apollo under oath which is why she was an idiot for filing the suit in the first place.

27 comments:

sugarbread maker said...

Phaedra and Apollo are dumb.. This is breaking news??

Violet said...

Apollo and Phaedra - I hope you are famous for something other than your names. Because i don't know what it is.

FSP said...

Sticky + strippers = no bueno

shudupdee said...

this is not important. talk about ferguson, enty. that is important. i know this is a gossip site, but if you live is the U.S., get your life together and google ferguson shooting.

David Howes said...

In the US, a Spouse can NOT be forced to testify against another Spouse. It is in the Constitution.
However, IF she knew about his illegal activities, and the prosecution can prove she knew, she may make a deal and babble away.

Sherry said...

Uhm aren't there laws where a woman doesn't have to testify against her husband? What am I missing here? And how does her suing that author show she knew what was going on with her husband. Seems like it would show she didn't. I mean there's no way in hell she doesn't. Still.

Sunshine said...

This is a case for Judge Judy.

Susan M said...

Right. Barry Zuckerkorn says you don't have to testify against your spouse.

LooLooEasy said...

Another solution: drop her lawsuit? IDK.

Jessica Larson said...

Does she think she;ll get big money like Ventura?

Tina Mallette said...

I think there may be exceptions this lawsuit is civil matter not a criminal one though it could lead to a criminal matter

Tina Mallette said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tina Mallette said...

Good for the stripper's lawyer to play hardball, I would have moved for dismissal of the action if Miss Thang was not going to give information regarding the very subject matter of HER lawsuit but he's making her sweat by trying to get a court ordered deposition forcing her to answer certain questions.

For PP that would have been her best way out if the defendant had moved for dismissal now so she saves some face rather than she having to withdraw the suit UNLESS the defendant's lawyer has other proof so then he's just messing with her.

Yeah Lawyers can be cruel but esp if you bring bogus law suits vs their client.

Zoe Cialite said...

Serves her right; she's uppity and thinks she's better than the rest of those fishwives.

Jennifer said...

1. Tamara Tattles has been/is breaking down this saga in "The Curious Case of Parks v. Stanton" and has been going through the actual depo.

2. I know now for sure that Ishmael (AKA Original Enty) is no longer involved in this website other than maybe one check-in a month.

OG Enty would have mentioned not only spousal privilege but also the right against self-incrimination. Information obtain in a civil case that becomes part of the record can be used in a criminal proceeding, thereby violating an individual's right against self-incrimination.

__-__=__ said...

shudupdee - please send Enty an email. Give him some good links or live feeds to write from. Continuing this in comments is probably not the best option available. He posts many things sent to him in email. Lots on reddit about Ferguson. Very sad.

ThisIKnow said...

TamaraTattles breaks down the whole case and deposition really well if anyone is interested. Fakedra is guilty as hell imo.

ThisIKnow said...

I think Angela is already countersuing Phaedra. This suit is not going away anytime soon. Phaedra also had all of her initial high-powered attorneys suddenly withdraw from this suit last year. They must have gotten a whiff of the truth.

Jennifer said...

@ThisIKnow, you would think as a member of the bar that PP would act more appropriate/professional during that depo than she did! She had a total disregard for the process, which I think a judge would look down on.

NYer said...

Having the right not to testify about something does not do her much good if the evidence is material to her claim. In other words, if she chooses not to disclose information about her husband, relying on some spousal privilege, the other side could move to dismiss her case. Presumably the other side will also ask for their attorneys' fees, and likely would get them in that scenario. And, if she does testify, that testimony can certainly be used against her in the criminal context. In that situation, she voluntarily chose to testify and so the bar against forcing someone to incriminate themselves would not apply. All around bad idea to sue. yup.

ThisIKnow said...

@Jennifer-Just noticed you mentioned TT. She really has the best most accurate information on this case.

I really liked Phaedra and her snark on RHWOA and didn't want to believe any of this. But boy is she ever in deep. She did Angela wrong and was a fool to bring about this lawsuit.

Jennifer said...

@NYer, I agree that this whole lawsuit needs to be dropped. I don't know what she thought was going to happen. It's not like Angela Stanton has millions upon millions of above board dollars for her to go after. Secondly, PP knew that she was marrying a convicted felon. Leopard, spots. I was just pointing out that the original EL would have brought up and discussed some other legal points. Of course, I don't think that EL would have posted about this! He probably would have posted something about his thoughts on Ferguson and then people would have bitched that this is a gossip site and so on.

Maybe that's why he sold it off!

Jennifer said...

@TIK, I liked Phaedra at first on RHOA as well, but then she fell victim to that dreaded "The new has worn off so now I can let my true colors show-itis" that has claimed other victims such as Tamra (RHOC), Brandi (RHOBH) and Aviva (RHONY). All people who after a year or so became addicted to the camera attention and went to the other end of the spectrum from where they started.

nurysp said...

drop the lawsuit
it was all for show anyway

warmislandsun said...

I love the name Phaedra. She is very pretty. But pretty don't pay the rent or the lawsuits. Girl, I feel for ya.

Studio54 said...

Thank you so much for covering this Enty! This has been a story TOO undercovered. Phaedra also hired INDICTED suspects John and Patsy Ramsey's pit bull lawyer, Lin Wood. Anyone who knows the JonBenet case knows about those defamation suits. They scared off 99 percent of the media from covering the case at all or UNCOVERING facts like the grand jury indictment that was covered up for over a decade. Kudos to Angela for standing up for the truth against power and money.

Missyrocks53 said...

Glad you covered this. There is lots of tea to spill here. I bet the original attorneys believed her and then, as time went on, realized this wouldn't go well and she likely also isn't paying the bill. I believe the other woman, Stanton.