...and we thought only Mikey had problems this week! Read on:

---

Alleged Jackson Stalker Seeks Control
Fri Jun 14, 5:25 PM ET
By Josh Grossberg

One of Janet Jackson's alleged stalkers wants a piece of her rhythm nation.

Eric Leon Christian--a man the pop-funk diva has accused of contacting her by phone and fax more than 90 times, making disturbing statements to her and assaulting her--has filed a $20 million defamation lawsuit against Jackson claiming she ruined his reputation and trashed any chance he had of making it in the music world.

The lawsuit, filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses Jackson of illegally obtaining a restraining order against him in November 1997, causing him emotional pain and suffering and preventing the budding music producer from being hired by potential employers.

The suit demands "restitution for defamation and severe mental and emotional stress he suffered because of the illegal filing of the injunction by [Jackson's company]," Black Doll Inc."

Christian's major bone of contention? That the 36-year-old singer-actress requested and received a restraining order that was, he claims, unwarranted because he was a Maryland native and did not reside in Los Angeles as required by the injunction for it to be active.

He also says Jackson's company leaked details of the restraining-order application to the media.

The end result, the lawsuit claims, was the disintegration of his rep once several major news organizations, including syndicated TV staples Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and Extra, picked up the story and ran it.

"The statement by the [media] of Eric Christian being a stalker is the direct result of the filing by Black Doll Inc. and is definite defamation of character," the suit contends.

Jackson has put out the velvet rope against several men over the past few years. In addition to Christian, she has obtained restraining orders against Ronald Benjamin Singleton (who reportedly called himself "the next President of the United States"), Frank Paul Jones (who was sent to jail for two years for penning harassing letters to Jackson) and Jay Thomas Myers (who wrote a John Hinckley-style letter to President Clinton ( news - web sites) telling him that Jackson was his "capture").

Add to that the concertgoer who snuck into Janet's dressing room during a stop on her All for You trek last February and stole some stuffed animals and fan mail and it's no wonder Jackson's thinking about quitting the road. (The teen was charged with third-degree burglary and faces jail time.)

Jackson's reps did not return calls seeking comment on the Christian lawsuit.

---

Damn! Janet got a whole chain-gang of fellas lurkin' on her ass! As 4 this poor guys claims...hmmm, what if it's true?

Isn't this story right up there with the former beau's claim that he needed more money from Miss Jackson because he suffered from a rare psychological disorder that involved fear of success? I read something mad like that recently...

June7 said:

Yes, Rene said he suffers from "Self-defeating personality disorder" and that she took advantage of it and made him sign the prenup knowing he wasn't in his right mind when he signed it. So, basically he has low self-esteem and says she was, more or less, like: "You're nothing, you ain't gonna ever be nothin', so sign the damn prenup!" What a crock of shit

Maybe if Janet didn't invite her male fans onstage to tie them down and simulate sex on them, she wouldn't have such problems with male fans...just a thought.

Of course I'm not justifying the actions of idiots.

well that won't be a case for long..it's silly and he's just looking for attention
poor janet, she starts getting her life in order and here comes a lawsuit. what a psycho bastard.

jtgillia said:

...but that's what makes her Janet

and the guys are like
it's funny.

It's kinda funny, I'll admit.

But I think it's kinda damaging too. It equates Janet to a prostitute, and that kind of thing can put men in fantasy-land. I guess for the guys it is damaging in a way that they look at cute females as sluts with plastic tits. I don't know, I'm making too much out of it. But I don't think celebrities should be doing that kind of thing, there is a certain amount of risk involved.

Oh, and it is definitely not a cool thing for any young girls at her shows to see.

jtgillia said:

true.

jtgillia said:

Sheila E. did a similiar stunt when she opened for Prince on the 'Purple Rain' tour.Personally,I have no problem with it,but why can't I ever be the guy that they pick??...

Now I said my piece on this issue, but...

If Sheila E picked me to be that guy, I wouldn't have any problem with it!

Janet is my number one celebrity fantasy, so I would have liked to be picked...

i was reading a magazine article on her yesterday.

all she talked about was guy's packages. and the reporter asked her about masturbating. she also said when she was younger, she HAD A CRUSH ON A GIRL!




the jacksons are very weird.

I think i have read the same interview before, theres nothing weird with what janet said. In my opinion she just says things that most people would either be more subtle about or avoid the whole issue. Im sure some people would have preferred if Janet didn't talk about packages and magic wands and lesbian crushes all the time, but she's being interviewed, if she refuses to answer then it makes her seem a little too defensive so people speculate. Of course, some times she says things just for publicity but so do so many other people.

I don't really think MJ's weird either, the only jackson i once thought was a little odd was Latoyah after I read her biography but even now she doesn't appear that 'weird' either.

jtgillia said:

For one, maybe the young girls shouldn't be there. Janet's music has been *adult-oriented* for awhile now. What gave anyone a hint... the lyrics in the song "IF"?

Also, equating Janet with a prostitute?
Right. Janet fans, was Janet acting like a prostitute? I think stripper would be more correct. Lets not mix up the two. The purpose of the show WAS to create a fantasy.

The men think it's a hoot. It's not taken that seriously. Anyone in their right mind would know that they won't be having a toss with Janet Jackson that night or EVER.

You assume cute girls are sluts with plastic tits? Am I the only one who see's the problem with that statement?

Cute girls are also lawyers, doctors, scientists, musicians without plastic tits, writers, teachers etc...

Now this leads me to wonder, Gillia, when was the last time you had sex?

I only ask this because I went to Janet's show on the European leg some years back and I have a girlfriend who is a self-proclaimed virgin. Which is fine, as a matter of fact, I have a great deal of respect for women who have chosen to abstain. However, she was duly appalled! She wanted to leave on the spot and I thought for an instant: "Getting to you luv?" Even so, I would NEVER take her to a Prince show. Can you imagine?

Also, keep in mind the 'delusional' mind of a stalker. Are celebrities who behave in a sensual or sexual manner always the victims of stalkers? Of course not.

I would encourage you to read my post a little more closely next time. I don't look at cute girls as sluts with plastic tits. I didn't say that. I was implying that some men do, and because of that perhaps one day Janet might just bring the wrong guy on stage. Who knows what could happen? Nothing is harmless these days.

You're right though, "stripper" would be a more accurate term than prostitute. I've got nothing against Janet, I have all of her albums and stuff. I just question her obsession with sex over the last eight years.

And the last time I had sex has nothing to do with any of this, but if you must know, I'm a virgin waiting for marriage. I have no qualms about that either.

jtgillia said:

Hmmm, I guess it was okay for P and other men to do their sexual things onstage, though? There's still definitely a double standard as far as female sexuality goes--we tend to go back to blaming the woman for "making" men "lose control"...

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Janet Jackson doesn't do anything to anyone who doesn't consent. The men who stalk her are mentally ill and think she speaks directly to them--and it's not her fault. Her celebrity has more to do with the stalking than what she wears or than simulating sex...

Geez, I didn't mean for this to be so big a deal!

Why do you have to make this a gender issue? I never said anything about it being ok for a man and not for a woman! One thing to think about here, is that with Prince, yes, he simulated sex and did other sexual things onstage. But he never strapped a fan down onstage and gave them fake oral sex or shoved his crotch in their face. And all this while she moans and sings that she wants to "lick you, taste you, make you cum too."

And I'm certainly not putting blame on her for being stalked. I'm just pointing out that she's pushing envelopes in her concerts. That's all. And I was also trying to point out that there are sadistic male bastards in the world.

I've recently been informed that the guys she brings onstage are picked before the show and give their ok. I should have known that, but I didn't think about it.

It became "a gender issue" when you stated perhaps she wouldn't have such problems with her male fans if she didn't simulate sex with them onstage. You didn't make it a general statement about the dangers of all performers being sexual with fans--it was very specifically about her (female) sexuality. You went on to comment that men could possibly view Janet and other women who are sexual onstage as "prostitutes with plastic tits" and that this could "put men in fantasyland" (as if it's entirely dependent upon what sexy things the women do, and not about men's inability to control themselves and behave appropriately).

So actually you made it a gender issue . I'm not upset or anything, just pointing out that blaming Janet Jackson's clothing/sexy attitude for her being stalked isn't necessarily appropriate or accurate.

CindyC2B said:

GENDER ISSUE #2

It's funny, but when sucessful men marry unknowns, and then divorce, the unknown woman sues for a life she's grown accustomed 2. The judge, ignoring any pre-nup she may have signed "when she was not in her right mind at the time", awards her x amount of millions 4 the rest of her life. I can throw some names at u, but who has the time 2 read them all.

Now, put a man in that position, like Rene', Janet's ex, and all of a sudden eyes are rolling!

Hey, I say what's good 4 the gander is also good 4 the goose, in this case and others!

Roseanne, the comedian and talk show host, also bitched about this when she had 2 pay Tom Arnold big $$$ 4 their divorce! Can anyone name anymore? I bet it'll b a lot harder 2 find men in this position than women!

Oh well, that's life. It ain't just a man's world anymore.

June7 said:

I agree, it's completely crazy how much money spouses get after a divorce! Doesn't matter if it's a male or female, I think the prenuptial agreement should be binding. Do celebs have an obscene amount of money? Yes. Will they continue to live the same lifestyle after alimony/child support payments? Yes. But the point is that the person who signed the pre-nup went into it with their eyes wide open.

Now, if the non-famous spouse could somehow prove that their own part of the marriage directly contributed to the celeb being able to make more of this money by being free to work more or adding to their personal value of wealth (i.e., taking care of the kids, throwing and hosting tons of social events, helping decide on lucrative investments, etc.), I could understand how a judge might take it into consideration and change the settlement. Otherwise--no.

June7 said:

Nice effort, but here are some things to take into consideration:

Men make substantially a lot more money than women overall. Probably always have, and problably always will. This is one reason you don't hear about many women forking over money to men after a divorce. Is it still 70 cents for every dollar men make, or has the gap become more wide?

The vast majority of the time it's the women who are given custody of the child(ren) if there are kids involved (the judge's decision), and it seems that most times the child support payments is the money at issue. Any man with a backbone should be partly responsible for financial child support after a divorce.

If I'm not mistaken I THINK this issue is more prevalent in California than any other state. Why exactly, for the life of me I can't remember.

There are women who have paid plenty of money to their former spouses that you may have never heard about, because as I said before, men make the lion's share of money as compared to women. Women like Liz Taylor who had to pay her construction-working ex after their divorice, Rosanne, as you already mentioned, Jane Fonda who paid off her ex (not Ted Turner, a previous one), I think Carol Burnett also had to pay at least one of her ex husbands, etc.

And oddly enough there were no kids involved for the male spouse to take responsibility for; it wasn't child support or anything related to that.

I don't agree with the fact that many men or women have to pay out a ton of money to their ex spouses when there are no children involved. Unfortunately it's an unfair fact of life for many.

Janfriend said:

Yeah! I think Rene's real disorder is "my mealticket's gone but I still wanna eat cake." They really don't expect to win the lawsuit, but get some shut up and go away money. It's sad that our system allows these idiots to clog up the courts and the law allows them to weasle in and get something. Hopefully, he won't get crap. Regardless of what Janet did or does, a real man would have walked away. If someone takes advantage of you, it's your responsibility to get yourself out of the mess and chock it up as experience. Disorder my ass. I'm tired of these losers feeling other people are responsible for them. Grow up!

LQ

LadyQ said:

But wait LadyQ, she already gave him 5 million and the beach house in Malibu and he's still bitching. He even filed a separate 10 million dollar lawsuit, stating if things don't go his way his gonna write a tell-all book about her alleged affairs!!!What kind of man is that??? With all the "work" he's done with her over the years, he can easily get a job as a producer, video director, and songwriter instead of trying to get more of her money. According to Jimmy Jam, Rene's "producing" wasn't real. He'd make a suggesting and then walk out the room. "Maybe you should add more bass to that. I'm going to get somethin' to eat."

Janfriend said:

What an ass. I wouldn't give him crap and he could write the book. Apparently, he wants to tell the world that she's a bisexual and had an affair with one of her dancers. So what if she did! I doubt her real fans would care and only a few would buy his garbage anyway. A little negative controversy never hurt anybody as long as those involved are over the age of 18. Thanks for setting me straight, my bad.

LQ

jtgillia said:

me too.

LadyQ said:

LadyQ,
Your point is right on the mark. Personally, I think this was all part of Rene's initial plan.

Interesting that when "Velvet Rope" came out we saw an issue of Rolling Stone, where Janet stated publicly that Rene took part in the invention process of the music. She even gave him equal credit for the majority of her songs/lyrics.

Now, what a manipulation this is...
I saw this coming years ago.
Also, Rene's attitude went south when Janet toured for "Velvet Rope" in 1998. He was acting more arrogant than ever. To hear him spew this rubbish about "it became more of a business partnership than a relationship" Isn't that exactly what he wanted?

I think it was about the money from the very beginning.

Janfriend said:

And let's face it, she can't sue the bloke for any "tell-all" books that he might decide to profit from (and he will profit from ANYTHING involving Janet Jackson at this point). His entire income is coming out of her pocket book. What money? From whom?

Personally, I think that if he was capable of being a director, songwriter, etc., he would've gotten away from the Janet material and took on some other projects while he was with her. Seems to me he wasn't putting in much effort when it came to "breaking out" on his own.

Also, I read in another interview around the time of the "Janet" album that Jimmy and Terry did not fancy Rene. At least that was the impression. I can't quote the story verbatim, because I would have to look up the material and it could take a week to sift through all of the interviews that I have on Janet, but they said something that was likened to: "Well, he keeps Janet in a good mood and that helps things flow."

Sure they flowed, all the way to the bank.

These stalkers are the very least of her problems, she needs to scrutinize her bed mates a bit closer.

June7 said:

So this somehow makes the behaviour right? I think it's pretty dodgy on both sides, no matter the gender.

Then we are to assume as well that Janet is a poster child for every rich bloke exacting revenge on women for losing his balls in a divorce settlement? Also, I am in agreement when it comes to the children. It should be equal responsibility and the fact that the men make more will never equalize any of this. If you don't want people to take advantage, then equalize the rate of pay for women. It is about as simple as that.

subyduby said:

Now Suby,
More weird than whom?

Prince has NEVER been accused of being weird then? Perhaps people have NEVER given you that "look" when you tell them you are a Prince fan?

What we need is a psychologist to post. I think we will find that some of the behaviour Janet was describing is the norm... to a certain degree. People just repress and are far less open about it. Or perhaps that's just me

Women, we NEVER talk about men's packages right? RIGHT???

Well, what are you looking at? Would someone PLEASE pass the crumpets already?!