Michael Jordan's Alleged Baby Mama GIVES STATEMENT On Why She Dropped The Paternity Case

Mar 19 | by Natasha

photo mjpamela_zps0c9489db.jpg

Pamela Smith, who calls herself Michael Jordan's ex-girlfriend and alleged he fathered her 16-year-old-son, is speaking out on why she surprisingly dropped her paternity case against the basketball icon yesterday.

Deets inside...

After much back-and-forth with legal filings and statements to the press, Pamela Smith caused a shocker and dropped her paternity case against Michael Jordan yesterday. Just days after Michael's request to dismiss the case was denied. And also, soon after Pamela demanded an immediate DNA test. No reason was given as to why Pamela dropped the case....until now.

Speaking via her attorney, Pamela and her lawyer Randy Kessler had this to say today:

Ex-Girlfriend of Michael Jordan, Ms. Pamela Smith authorized a dismissal of the current suit against Mr. Jordan. She began this case without an attorney, did her best to file what she believed to be a legally appropriate case. She then hired our firm. Our firm reviewed the legal posture of the case, the history of the case, the filed pleadings and the relevant law. Ms. Smith has relied on our advice, has carefully considered the pro’s and cons of continuing the case and has determined that dismissal at this time, without prejudice, is what is in her son’s best interests.

Does anyone else smell a pay off? Or did Pamela truly just come to the conclusion she didn't want to pursue legal action to establish paternity?

Categories:

PREVIOUS: HOUSING CRISIS: R. Kelly's Chicago MANSION Sold Off In FORECLOSURE For $950K

NEXT: Keyshia Cole Hits "Jimmy Kimmel" To Perform "Trust & Believe"

View the discussion thread.

Comments

WANT YOUR OWN AVATAR? GET IT HERE.

She realized that she needs

She realized that she needs to do that private DNA test on the other possible father before she can re-file the case!

by Money First
11:55 pm - Mar 19, '13

YES!!! I could not have said

YES!!! I could not have said it better myself.

by BooLuv
8:04 am - Mar 20, '13

I'm confused. Correct me if

I'm confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when this story first broke, wasn't it said that MJ was proven not to be the father of her now 16 year-old son during divorce proceedings between Ms. Smith and her then husband? Was that not MJ's (legal team's) defense to begin with? I don't think his refusal to submit to (another) DNA test signifies an admission of guilt; personally, I wouldn't want details concerning my genetic code stored on some laboratory hard-drive for decades to come, to be used at whim by the Federal Government whenever applicable. Maybe MJ's really not this boy's father. Doesn't mean he doesn't have any other potential baby mommas out there looking for a come-up, though. Lesson learnt to all the men that wanna stick and move!

by ParadigmN.Paradise
9:31 pm - Mar 19, '13

OF COURSE he paid her... The

OF COURSE he paid her... The court doesnt know but thats exactly why she dropped the charges.. Thats his kid and he knows it!

by LaRae Lomax
12:56 pm - Mar 19, '13

He didn't pay anyone. The

He didn't pay anyone. The case was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This means that she can file the case again at any time. Had she been paid off the condition would have been that the case would have been dismissed WITH prejudice. What more than likely happened is that she went into the filing without an attorney and thus presented a legally unsound case. Now that she has legal representation, it's in her best interest to have the case dismissed thus losing this battle. She will then refile the case in a more sound manner and the attorneys, smelling blood, will attempt to get their fees from the pockets of Jordan. This is FAR from over.

by Uncontainable_Spirit
12:23 pm - Mar 19, '13

I couldn't have said it

I couldn't have said it better..I agree 1000%!!!!!!

by MsMidwest
1:49 pm - Mar 19, '13

Thank you! With vs without

Thank you! With vs without prejudice makes all the difference! No payoff happened & more will come. PERIOD.

by Young Love
12:53 pm - Mar 19, '13

I CALL BS!!!! SHE WAS PAID

I CALL BS!!!! SHE WAS PAID OFF! OR MAYBE HE WAS NEVER THE FATHER AND SHE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SOME MONEY; SHE NOW REALIZES SHE MIGHT ACTUALLY LOSE THIS ONE. THIS ALL SOUNDS FISHY.

by MsFiFi
12:02 pm - Mar 19, '13

PAY OFF for sure but if he is

PAY OFF for sure but if he is Mikes I hope he get to know him and he meet his other brothers & sister it's only right............

by Taelor Stafford
11:33 am - Mar 19, '13

She sounds like she is a tad

She sounds like she is a tad unstable. How dare you raise your son for 16 years letting him think his father is one person... THEN go and sue his "real" father for child support (dragging your son through this crap with you)... THEN drop the case. She thought she could make a quick buck and it back fired. Sick of these trifling parents.

by TheMrs
11:12 am - Mar 19, '13

You put the cheese on the

You put the cheese on the cracker honey! (in Bill Cunningham voice) lol

by MsMidwest
11:15 am - Mar 19, '13

If there was an agreement

If there was an agreement they usually say "settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money". This case was DROPPED. I don't think he's the father. She waitied 16 years for a reason. Then she was trying to sue a millionaire without having a lawyer, girl bye.