Ex-confidante sued by Britney Spears' mom Lynne for 'infiltrating' her circle accuses her of silencing him

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: An alleged former confidante of Britney Spears' mother Lynne has accused her of filing a wrong lawsuit against him.

Jacob Diamond has also claimed that he was a member of Lynne’s inner circle and showered her and her pals — Jansen Fitz, 40, and Tatum Solis, 48 — with expensive gifts, Elton John concert tickets, and Botox treatments, Daily Mail reported.

These allegations came after the mother of "Princess of Pop" took legal action against the 41-year-old man, who is the author of many novels.

Lynne Spears accused Jacob Diamond of trying to get info about Britney

The trio accused Diamond of invading their friends’ circle under false pretenses, ET Online reported. They claimed that it was the writer who wanted them as his friends after their meeting in 2019.

The suit also alleged that the man came close to them to get information about one of Lynne’s daughters, seemingly Britney, as they requested a temporary restraining order against him, which bans him from "harassing", "stalking," or "communicating" with them.

The suit added that after a May 2023 incident that made their apparent friendship bitter, Diamond “began to act erratically and aggressively” using their “names and images” in “demeaning and defamatory” online shares.

The dispute began when Fitz's seven-year-old daughter allegedly told Diamond’s boyfriend, Derek, “God hates gay people.” Instead of handling it properly, Fitz’s husband angrily reacted.

‘These women reached out to me, not me to them’

Now Diamond has presented his side in a new affidavit while dismissing the accusations against him.

The self-proclaimed actor has reportedly noted, “Now that we have had a falling out, they are afraid I am going to expose all the text messages I have between us and truths I know about the Spears family.”

He further stated, “The plaintiff's ultimate goal is to silence me and it is my perception that any time the Spears family or friends want to silence someone, they take this same step of filing restraining orders.”

Diamond asserted in his filing, “These women reached out to me, not me to them. I never reached out to them in any way. I also had been to parties at Britney Spears' house when living in LA with one of her dancers.”

Explaining his side, the man went on to claim that he even “spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a hotel, gifts, food, and airfare, to give Lynne Spears an incredible birthday party”.

“I also flew in her two best friends from Louisiana to surprise her. They received free Botox from my doctor. And free IV therapy treatments,” Diamond’s affidavit read.

It asserted, “We went to dinner, went to a nightclub and danced, and the next morning I paid for them to have a massage.”

Not just that when in 2022, Diamond threw his 40th birthday party in Los Angeles, Lynne attended it.

He added, as per Daily Mail, “Part of the agreement for Lynne to come was that she would receive a non-invasive facelift from my doctor, and she wanted to go horseback riding at my family ranch and see Elton John in concert.”

But Lynne filed for a restraining order in October 2023. Also in her suit, she mentioned a picture shared online by Diamond that reportedly showed him with the trio, and the caption read, “Satan's dinner.”

They alleged, “The defendant specifically refers to that occasion as 'Satan's dinner' and, at the conclusion of the post suggests '[Satan] was there that night too, brewing a deadly result."

Jacob Diamond’s lawyers defend his ‘Satan’ word use

“Plaintiffs assert that the substance of the line quoted above is a direct threat to the health and safety of plaintiffs and they fear that the defendant is … indicating his intention to attempt to take the life of one of the plaintiffs.”

But the attorneys of Diamond claimed that their client’s “references to Satan either fall within the scope of religious speech expressing personal beliefs or under the scope of opinion or satire of public figures. As such they constitute constitutionally protected speech.”

They added, “Plaintiffs' claims arise from defendant's free speech about a public figure and her entourage on matters of public interest and concern. The First Amendment protects such speech on both grounds of 1) freedom of religion as well as 2) opinion commentary on a public figure even when it is controversial, unpopular, or critical.”