Kevin Federline seemed to be caught flat-footed when he was hit that his wife Britney Spears wanted a divorce. In fact sources close to Kevin Federline told Life & Style Weekly that the soon to be ex-husband of pop queen Britney Spears had no idea she was filing for divorce.
So - once a sex tape began making the rounds on the web earlier this week that was purported to be of Kevin and Britney, many speculated that Kevin had leaked it for revenge.
BANG Media called it this way - The raunchy 19-second clip shows a woman with dark hair, who bears a striking resemblance to the 'Toxic' singer, performing oral sex on a man rumored to be her estranged husband Kevin Federline.
But it appears that the tape is a hoax.
The reason so many were willing to believe it - aside from it allegedly featuring Britney Spears naked and involved in a sex act - is that the stars had just had a lawsuit tossed out over - you guessed it - a sex tape.
Us Weekly was sued and gives this report:
A Los Angeles judge has dismissed Spears' $10 million lawsuit against Us Weekly, ruling that the singer cannot be defamed by published rumors that she and her husband, Federline, had made a sex tape and were worried about its release.
The lawsuit stemmed from an article published Oct. 17, 2005, in Us Weekly's "Hot Stuff" column under the headline, "Brit & Kev: Secret Sex Tape? New parents have a new worry: racy footage from 2004."
The article stated that Spears and Federline, feared the release of a secret sex tape, which they had viewed with their lawyers. The article said that Spears gave a copy of the tape to lawyers and she and Federline were "acting goofy the whole time" while watching the video.
***
In December 2005, Spears filed the lawsuit, which stated:
"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video.”
***
In a written decision issued last week, Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart Cole argued that Spears has:
"Put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye" and it would be unlikely for the magazine article to be found defamatory. She added: "The backdrop against which this issue must be addressed is that the plaintiff has publicly portrayed herself in a sexual way in her performances, in published photographs and in a reality show."
[Source]
