An actual attorney would like to have a word

Maybe we need to listen more to ACTUAL lawyers and not some dummy twitter parody accs.

Di naman nya gagamitin for VAWC yung screenshots and she did it to expose them, so technically Jam has a liability. 🤷‍♀️

I think you misinterpret what he actually said which is based on the Supreme Court decision below. The court said it can be introduced in court as evidence because it is allowed by the DPA. Posting it on IG stories is not "using it as evidence". Instagram is not a court.

His word is valid pero focus lang sya dun sa nagpicture ng convo, hindi balance, unlike me nakafocus sa lahat. Saka anlikot nya mag-explain. Ako pag nag-explain parang nasagot sa recitation, walang movement. Saka pag ako nag-explain binubusisi ko lahat ng anggulo, kaya ang gulo.

kung pinicturan to file a case. that's a different scenario. in this case, pinicturan and pinost publicly. meron pa rin liability yon.

The act is not used to support a claim kaya sabi ni lawyer bf, this video is only applicable if prior the act nagfile siya ng VAWC kay anthony jennings. But since wala namang kaso, she can be sued. And my bf said jam could end paying them both sa possible work na mawala sa kanila

if used for legal purposes. Now what is your purpose in posting private conversations of 2 people on social media?

I also don’t like what they did to her pero may intent to humiliate them kasi. Hindi naman siya nagfile ng kaso due to psychological stress. Under the pretense na nadamage ang mental health oo walang liability. My lawyer bf says pwede kasuhan si jam sadly 😊

Kung ggamitin sa bausi case yeah pero si gurl pinost in public. Sana naexplain nya rin yun. Kasi totally different scenario yung ginawa ni girl.