Why are people so mean to Jeremy Shum just because he studies law, and calls him a "trained liar"?
Brittany Fusco
www.associatedcontent.com/) articles about Jeremy Shum, the
engineering manager from Australia, and his extremely interesting life
lol.
The first story is entitled "Jeremy Shum Paid Millions to Lie About
Miley Cyrus Story", which can be found here (http://
www.associatedcontent.com/article/2738545/jeremy_shum_paid_millions_to_lie_about.html?cat=33).
There are ridiculous claims that Jeremy Shum was paid by Smiley Miley
Inc to lie about an alleged relationship with Miley Cyrus. Both being
Christians, this is undoubtedly false. Because Jeremy Shum is an alma
mater in law, I am guessing that someone was angry with him in a court
case, and decided to spread this rubbish around. Anyway, there is
this fanciful made up conspiracy theory about a picture with Jeremy
Shum gazing into Miley Cyrus' eyes in the Bahamas, and Jeremy Shum
accepting a bribe of a few millions dollars in exchange for saying he
was a crazed fan of hers.
The issue is this, eventually, the article goes on to call Mr. Shum a
"trained liar", simply on the basis that he studies law. Now my
question is, if you study law, or are a lawyer, does that
automatically make you a liar? Furthermore, how shit is the law, as
not to even be able to protect innocent engineers like Mr. Shum from
being called "trained liars", simply because he studies law.
The second story is entitled "Who is Jeremy Shum and is There a Sex
Tape with Brooke Fraser?", which can be found here (http://
www.associatedcontent.com/article/2643945/who_is_jeremy_shum_and_is_there_a_sex.html?cat=17).
Because the facts cannot be ascertained, as the article states even
with the help of the AFP Australian Federal Police Hi-Tech Crime
Center (Fraud Division), which is basically as high as you can go,
what I want to know is whether opponents of Jeremy Shum in court
should be able to be sued on the basis of spreading "rumors" about
him. The problem is inherently with "rumors", no one knows its true,
so you really can't take them to court on the basis of defamation.
Then once again, we have this conspiracy theory problem, where Brooke
Fraser and Jeremy Shum did an apparent cover up. You see, the problem
is that even IF they had sex, Ms. Fraser would have been 20 and Mr.
Shum would have been 14. The suggestions of statutory rape should
DEFINETELY be admissible into court, and removed forever from the
Internet. As the article suggests, even for an alma matter of law
like Jeremy Shum, criminal defamation is unlikely going to be an
option. And even if his court opponents are taken to court on
defamation, who says he can sue them successfully? And even if they
can, this then goes out in public, with further ideas of "Jeremy Shum
the trained liar is lying about an apparent sex scandal with brooke
Fraser and Miley Cyrus".
The third story is entitled "David and Goliath Story: Jeremy Shum
Takes on Math's Worldwide in the Court of Law" (http://
www.associatedcontent.com/article/2610309/david_and_goliath_story_jeremy_shum.html?cat=17).
This article has privacy problems, but as you know, there is no tort
of privacy. Jeremy Shum is just a plain engineering manager, but
gossipy girls are clinging on board to call him imaginative, creative,
well-spoken, even with depictions of him in "blu skinny leg jeans",
"relaxed patterneed shirt", "professional" hair style, his Rolex
watch, his BMW, his Hollywood mansion, a simple search on Yahoo!
Search will show you what I'm talking about. Just because he's
battling events in court, does this mean he has really expressly gave
the right to paparazzi and journalists to follow his life? Of course
not!
The fourth story is entitled "Jeremy Shum: Is He a Lil Crazy, or Just
a Real Charmer?", which can be found (http://www.associatedcontent.com/
article/1171520/jeremy_shum_is_he_a_lil_crazy_or_just.html?cat=38).
This article makes the imputation that Mr. Shum is "embarassing",
"scandal"-strung, and about as dodgy as "Miley Cyrus" and her "nude
pictures". Furthermore, the article makes the imputation Mr. Shum is
a "bad boy" and is "crazy", involved with the production of "sex
tapes", all of which are unsupported with intrinsic and/or extrinsic
evidence.
The fifth story is entitled "Jeremy Shum Sings to Demi Lovato as He's
Winning", which can be found (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/
1140482/jeremy_shum_sings_to_demi_lovato_as.html?cat=49). This
article claims that Jeremy Shum stole intellectual property from the
Walt Disney Company, through confidential information of his close
business relationships with Disney Executives. It also refers to an
apparent Krystal Meyers sex tape. Not already disturbing enough, a
fan then subsequently wrote of great noticeability compared with the
article, that when she was "stalking" jeremy Shum, after he ate some
McDonalds and put it in the bin, she took it back out and ate the rest
of it, so that more Jeremy Shum "germs" would be inside of her.
The sixth story is entitled "Should B-Class Celebrities like Jeremy
Shum Be Banned from Public Interest Litigation in Our High
Courts?" (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2625943/
should_bclass_celebrities_like_jeremy.html?cat=3), which tries to
discriminantly ban Jeremy Shum from litigating in the Australian High
Court on the basis of his "sexy" looks, and the "media circus" that he
generates.
There seems to be a pattern with many Jeremy Shum stories, that they
make stunning and shocking claims regarding Jeremy Shum's apparent sex
scandals, of which none can even be found on pornographic web sites.
Furthermore, many claim Jeremy Shum is a "trained liar", including one
that called him a "fake" and a "fraud", alongside Miley Cyrus: but as
WikiAnswers stated, "If Jeremy Shum is a real person, how can he be
fake?" "Although some people may pose as Jeremy Shum, he is of
course, real."
Maybe society just has that inherent need to make certain people
"gods". Celebrities, after all, have been around since the 1900's,
and even, before then.