More About Judi Debella And Her Letter To Paris

The knives are already out against Paris Hilton, Judi’s family is pressure her to sue Paris Hilton. However, Judi thinks her letter might have influenced Paris in a positive way and she really appreciates that her work gained a lot of attention. She just wants to get credit for it. She also wants to wait and see if Paris has really changed, but unfortunately, Judi doesn’t visit ParisHiltonSite.net to see and learn about the real Paris Hilton.

But it is semi-hateful writers like Joel Stein who influence her by twisting things around and thinking that Paris actually said she would stop partying. She never said that! She said she wanted to work more on her career, but no one understands this. No one understands what she talks about when she says that.

Joel Stein wrote an article about this story on LAtimes.com in full details. You can read it here.

By the way, this story hasn’t been popularized yet. The haters and all the bigots in the media and the celebrity fansites haven’t heard about it, but it’s only a matter of time before they do. My belief is that the faster Paris solves this, the less fuss there will be. Elliot Mintz has been told about this. Unfortunately, Paris put herself in this mess and I’m very disappointed in her. She could’ve just said “this is fan letter”, and it wouldn’t even have made her look bad.

Some of Judi Debella’s quotes:

“I knew in the first four words that it was my letter. I battled writing those words. ‘Do I want to put crossroads? Do I want to put turning point?’ And then I decided on both. Honestly, I’m flattered that she would take it and use it. Writing is pretty much my whole life. I could go after her and People magazine, but I did this to support her, and I don’t want to turn it against her.”

From: Jen
Time: October 7, 2007, 8:05 pm

When you send unsolicited material to anyone, it becomes the property of the person to whom it was sent.

This girl does not have grounds for a lawsuit because
a)Paris only quoted or read the material, the interpretation of this is somewhat unclear
b) the material was not used for commercial purposes.

I doubt she would even find a lawyer who would take this on. What damages could she possibly prove?