An obsessed former Chris Brown superfan has filed a $30 million lawsuit towards the singer.
Angela Reliford, 35, is accusing him of reposting an edited Instagram video which falsely portrays her as a violent stalker.
Reliford filed the go well with towards the singer, his corporations and executives from Sony Music and RCA Information.
The video allegedly included a mugshot from a 2017 arrest and Angela — who makes use of the title chrisbrownzwife777 on-line — claims this was used to suggest she was a harmful prison.
The case, filed Might 5 in Nevada, alleges defamation, slander, libel, copyright infringement, invasion of privateness, emotional misery and negligence, over the video which was allegedly reposted in July 2024, to his Instagram account, adopted by over 145 million individuals.
And she or he says it resulted in harassment on-line together with false feedback about her being transgender — and her coworkers watched the viral video in break rooms.
In addition to $15 million in compensation, she’s calling for an apology from Brown.
It comes within the wake of Brown’s arrest in Manchester, England this month for allegedly attacking a music producer with a bottle at a nightclub.
Reliford, an entrepreneur from Atlanta, Georgia, regularly posts on-line about Brown, and former movies nonetheless seen on-line present her saying she desires to hurt the singer’s dancers.
“I was just attacked online for months,” she stated.
“Numerous his followers tried to insult me and to humiliate me.
“They began misgendering me and calling me a transgender to be offensive and disrespectful.
“And unfortunately, some people started to actually believe that.”
The backlash escalated to being “assaulted physically” at her office by somebody who had seen the content material on-line, she stated.
“A young gentleman who believed I was transgender actually attacked me and fought me because he thought I was a man,” she stated.
On the mugshot used within the notorious video, Reliford claims the incident stems from being “falsely arrested” for home violence in 2017.
She alleges that after Brown shared the video, the relentless on-line abuse and threats from his followers continued, forcing her to depart her hometown.
“I’m suing him because it caused a lot of pain,” she stated. “I had to move. I was harassed in my hometown.”
Reliford says she had been a fan of Brown’s since 2005, and began going to his occasions in 2021.
She says she met him a lot of occasions — and he acknowledged her at a New Yr’s efficiency in 2024 at Drai’s Nightclub in Las Vegas.
“Out of everyone in the crowd, I know he recognized me at this point,” she stated.
“He walked up to me at Drai’s while he’s onstage and out of everyone, pulled my hand and was like, ‘I love you.’ And he sang ‘I love you’ in front of everybody.”
Later that 12 months, Reliford attended a paid “meet and greet” and in June 2024 was “singled out” to enter a dance battle with one in every of his dancers.
“I didn’t want to engage, and I was humiliated and I felt bad,” she acknowledged.
At some point later, she made a public video on Instagram expressing her issues.
And based on her lawsuit, on July 8 or 9, Brown reposted a manipulated model of this video created by another person.
Reliford says the implications had been instant and extreme.
“You threw me to 145 million people and I was destroyed, ripped apart, and for what? Because I no longer wanted to support you?” she stated.
“I want to stand up for the underdogs and us little guys who kind of are getting picked on and he’s weaponizing his platform.”
She added: “We have a right to stand up. We have a right to speak for ourselves.”
Every week or so earlier than she filed the lawsuit she additionally acknowledged on Instagram her “previous, current, and future” statements made about Brown and his dancers are a part of her creative expression.
Talking now, she now claims submit this was a “joke.”
At a listening to on Might 12, she says a choose granted her a further 90 days to finish service on Brown.
She stated her preliminary movement for service by publication was denied because of a submitting error.
As soon as service is profitable or publication is authorized, the 20-day authorized response window can be triggered, doubtlessly resulting in a default judgment if Brown doesn’t reply.
The court docket confirmed to SWNS the case was nonetheless lively and logged, and had been filed.
A consultant for Chris Brown didn’t instantly reply to remark.
