Exclusive DetailsGarth Brooks’ Accuser Calls Him a ‘Bully’ in Letter to Judge After Singer Reveals Her Identity

Garth Brooks’ accuser wrote a letter to a judge demanding the singer be sanctioned after he revealed her name to the public, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Garth’s former hairstylist, who sued him over alleged sexual battery using the pseudonym Jane Roe, said the sole purpose of Garth, 62, revealing her identity was to “retaliate, harm and subject her to victim shaming and blaming.”

In September, before Jane Roe filed suit in Los Angeles, Garth filed a federal lawsuit against her using the pseudonym John Doe.

In his suit, Garth said Jane had threatened to make false allegations of sexual assault after he denied her request to be a salaried employee and for benefits.

His lawsuit read, “[Jane’s] allegations are not true. [Jane] is well aware, however, of the substantial, irreparable damage such false allegations would do to [Garth’s] well-earned reputation as a decent and caring person, along with the unavoidable damage to his family and the irreparable damage to his career and livelihood that would result if she made good on her threat to ‘publicly file’ her fabricated lawsuit.”

Garth asked that the court rule Jane’s allegations were untrue and to prevent her from filing a public lawsuit.

Jane filed her lawsuit against Garth before a federal judge ruled on his request. Then, Garth filed an amended lawsuit which revealed Jane’s real name.

Jane’s lawyers slammed the singer in a public statement. “Garth Brooks just revealed his true self. Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim,” the lawyer said. “With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately,” the lawyer added.

Now, in a letter to the judge, Jane’s team expanded on the public statement.

“While [Garth’s] motion to proceed under a pseudonym was still pending, he filed an amended complaint for the sole purpose of divulging [Jane’s] identity, to retaliate, harm and subject her to victim shaming and blaming. This egregious conduct must not be condoned, and [Garth] and his counsel shall be responsible for penalties imposed by this Court,” Jane’s legal team said.

Her lawyers said, “Mr. Doe revealed Ms. Roe’s identity out of revenge and with an intent to harm Ms. Roe, knowing that she was refusing to cower to his threatening conduct and commenced her claims against him as she said she would all along.”

Jane’s attorney continued, “Of course, Mr. Doe is aware of all the reasons why sexual assault victims underreport such crimes to law enforcement, as well as why victims who seek accountable through our legal system often request to do so under a pseudonym. Sadly, sexual assault victims continue to be blamed for what happened, and worse, even shamed and mocked for being victimized in the first instance. Such harmful degradation contributes to lack of reporting and thus helps perpetuate the cycle of sexual violence.”

The lawyers added, “Absolutely no legal justification exists for [Garth’s] amendment of his complaint for the purpose of outing [Jane’s] identity. [Garth] did this purely out of spite and to retaliate, bully and otherwise harm [Jane] for daring to hold him accountable.”

Jane pleaded with the court to seal the legal documents that included her full name. “Every hour, much less day, that the amended complaint remains on the public docket is severely prejudicing Ms. Roe,” the letter read. A judge has yet to rule.