Originally posted by Gedamara

+1

It is not nice of Gaga to sue that poor person for that amount of money. Where is she supposed to get it?
On the other hand Gaga has millions so she doesn't need that money anyway.

Monsters thinking she deserves to get ruined financially for "wasting Gaga's time "

Originally posted by iStanGaga

Doesn't trolling the same subject matter over and over get boring for you?

Originally posted by Bang Up

The repeating/stutter hook has been a trademark Gaga thing since she debuted with "The Fame". 'Poker Face', anyone?



You literally cannot copyright/claim to own the way someone sings. Much like with Gaga's repeating/stuttering hooks, there are plenty of examples of Gaga singing in a monotone style.



Not according to the judge.



This woman wants us to believe that she's intelligent when it comes to music, yet she doesn't get that pop songs share melodies all the time.



Much like Gaga's repeating/stuttering hooks and monotone singing style, Gaga also employs various pronunciation techniques in order to get certain words to rhyme.

This woman has a ****** lawyer since I'm pretty sure this can be considered defamation. You tried to sue, it was determined the songs don't sound alike, and you're still trying to defame Gaga's name. If anything, this will make it easier for Gaga to counter sue.

There is no case here. There has never been a case here. This woman is doing nothing but making things harder for herself, and she deserves it. I hope Gaga sues her for defamation, especially since she tries to say Gaga doesn't write her own music.

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

RIGHT? LIKE how the hell do you find all this ****? Even us stans knew nothing about this Rebecca person's blog.
I completely agree with what Retro, Thor and what the other monsters posted in this thread. This woman thought she's slick enough to get a few coins from Gaga. Good luck paying the 1.4M.

Originally posted by Gazing Ball

This is almost as messy as the OP in question who made this thread.

Originally posted by Gedamara

+1

It is not nice of Gaga to sue that poor person for that amount of money. Where is she supposed to get it?
On the other hand Gaga has millions so she doesn't need that money anyway.

Originally posted by Thor

She is asking for all the money that she had to pay to the lawyers to represent her in court. It cost her a fortune (1.4 Million) and it was her hard earned money, so she has every right (by law) to get it back from that woman.

Simple as that.




She didn't waste Gaga's time. She wasted the court's time & cost Gaga a lot of money in legal fees. So the woman will have to pay.

Although, she did try to malign Gaga's name & is still continually doing so, I suppose it reaffirms the fact that Gaga is in the right, while that woman is not.

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

The need to personally insult me and quote insults directed at me despite the fact I agree with gaga on this one aside from the fact a person should be made bankrupt

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

A person isn't "messy" because you don't like what they post about.

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

Anyways, Nicole there's no denying that I'm biased. I don't like gaga as a person however in this case, I didn't post my opinion at all, in this case I passed on something that someone else had said and left others to discuss it.

Originally posted by Gazing Ball

This is almost as messy as the OP in question who made this thread.

Originally posted by Somalian Hooker

she seems like a bit of a sore loser, as well as someone incapable of writing anything coherent

Originally posted by Thor

I'm sorry, do you know her personally?

Originally posted by ezra

We know

Gaga remains totally innocent as usual, though. I'm sure Miss F will be okay after she submits to the rule of law and pays for her heinous crimes.

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

You're saying that she has every right by law as if gaga already won the case.

She might lose. She might not get her money back, so how about you reserve saying things like "she has a right by law" until she actually wins. - Would seem fair.

Originally posted by Thor

Uhhh...."she has a right by law" meaning the law allows an individual to counter sue someone in an occurrence like this. So Gaga can ask for money back, in response to what the other user said about her being the wrong to ask for money back.

My statement wasn't that complicated & I didn't towards the verdict.

P.S. Gaga has already WON. So getting the legal fees back (if she does) will be an icing on the cake.

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

Do you?

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

Ok Thor.

Originally posted by Thor

Where did I make the claim that "I liked her as a person or knew her as a person" and which is why I stan for her?

Did I? No.

I hope you weren't assuming...cuz you do know what happens when people assume, right Dark_Lorde?



But listen hun, I didn't "tell" you anything so where are you getting all this from? lol

You are the one who made the statement that "I don't like her as a person" so I figured that If you don't like her as a person, it surely means you know her personally cuz otherwise you would've said something along the lines of..."I don't like her as an artist."

You see where my grief lies, my good sir?