Jamie Lynn Spears Lied About Pregnancy in July

Jamie Lynn Spears gave an interview to OK! magazine for which it is assumed she was paid, and now we know how and when she is getting paid. When you’ve done something wrong just say it was for the baby. TMZ reports:

TMZ has learned that Jamie Lynn Spears was not paid for this week’s magazine interview … yet. We’re told the money will change hands down the road — when the baby is born.

Just how did the deal go down? Rewind. Sources close to Britney’s family tell TMZ it all started when Britney melted down on an OK! Magazine photo shoot. Britney’s mom, Lynne, read the article (who didn’t?!) and called OK! personally to thank them "for handling it so well." She stayed in touch with OK!, and called them this week when she learned that news of Jamie’s pregnancy was about to break. Her only requirement? Keep Britney out of it. This is about Jamie Lynn. "She trusted them to do it in a way that would be sympathetic to her daughter," our source says.

We’re told Jamie and mom did not want money, but OK! has agreed to pay $1 million to the younger Spears for a photo shoot when the child is born. Why so little when others have commanded several million? We’re told it’s because Jamie Lynn is not an international star and it’s not worth it to the mag to pay big bucks for something they can’t sell overseas.

Another interesting note: We hear Jamie is further along than the 12 weeks she says in the mag’s article. Expect a spring baby.

So Jamie is getting paid after all, a very healthy sum. So what about being "12 weeks" pregnant? A story by the National Enquirer reported on July 28 claimed Jamie Lynn was pregnant already in July. After the story ran Jamie Lynn’s attorney threatened legal action and sent the following letter to the National Enquirer:

“Ms. Spears is a devout Christian with a spotless reputation, who lives in accordance with the highest moral and ethical standards in accordance with her faith.

There is no “rumor” concerning Ms. Spears’ (non-existent) pregnancy, except perhaps for the baseless “rumor” just now being created by the National Enquirer.

Ms. Spears is not pregnant. It is pathetic for the National Enquirer to attempt to create a wholly baseless “rumor” that Ms. Spears is pregnant, so it can run a malicious story and false story which would be emotionally devastating to a morally upright 16 year old girl.”

Wouldn’t it be amazing if the National Enquirer sued Jamie Lynn for damaging their credibility and reputation by calling a story that was true a lie? If Jamie has her baby in the Spring, then we’ll know for sure she’s a liar, and does not live in accordance with "the highest moral and ethical standards in accordance with her faith."