State Champ Radio Defamation
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: YouTube / Youtube
On Tuesday, May 14, social media erupted when it was reported that DJ Akademiks had been hit with a rape and defamation lawsuit by his ex-girlfriend, Fauziya Abashe, who accused the social media personality and two of his friends of drugging and raping her.
Though Akademiks remained mum throughout most of the day, he finally took to his channel and addressed the situation. “Whatever this is it will be handled in the court room.” Proclaiming his innocence while calling the lawsuit a “civil situation” and added, “It’s a shakedown. This is a money tree situation.” DJ Akademiks didn’t seem too worried about the outcome of this lawsuit as he’s basically addressed it in the past on his channel.
He also brought up the fact that when the alleged incident occurred, he gave the security footage to the police who then decided that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
“I’m not even hiding and ducking from a situation or ducking from the narrative that happened. I pretty much told everything, and also I told the truth,” he said. “The police came, they looked, we gave them everything. Pretty much everything is documented, caught on videotape. They got to see it with their own two eyes. We’re officially clear, we could not bring any criminal charges. [I] are not criminally liable but also anybody else in the situation was also cleared.”
He also brought up the fact that Abashe hired Tyrone Blackburn, who Akademiks had been talking about since he brought a lawsuit against P. Diddy on behalf of Lil Rod. Feeling that Blackburn had it in for him, Akademiks feels this is just more proof that the entire lawsuit is just one big money grab as they’ve been sitting on this case for months before finally pulling the trigger.
Regardless of who y’all think is telling the truth here, one thing’s for sure, DJ Akademiks doesn’t seem fazed by the lawsuit and says he’d rather pay more to clear his name than to make the case go away as it would make him seem guilty.
Check out his response to the rape allegations, and let us know your thoughts on it in the comments section below.
50 Cent has filed a defamation lawsuit against his ex Daphne Joy over her public accusations that he raped and physically abused her, calling them a “calculated attack” of false allegations designed to destroy his reputation.
In a case filed Monday in Houston court, the rapper (real name Curtis Jackson) says Joy (Daphne Joy Narvaez) made her claims as retaliation after the rapper sought legal action to take sole custody of their son in the wake of a lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs that accused Joy of being a “sex worker.”
50 Cent’s lawyers say the allegations against him were nothing more than an attempt to “destroy his personal and business reputation, harm Jackson’s commercial and business interests, negatively affect his custody case, and prevent him from seeing his son.”
Trending on Billboard
“As apparently intended by Narvaez, Jackson has been subjected to extensive public ridicule, hatred, and contempt,” his attorneys write in the complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Jackson brings this action for defamation…in order to vindicate his rights and protect his reputation from Narvaez’s calculated attack.”
Included as an exhibit to Monday’s lawsuit is a letter the rapper’s attorneys sent to Joy last month, demanding that she remove the posts and issue a retraction. They say she responded by demanding “millions of dollars” and for 50 Cent to drop his custody case in return for removal of the post.
“Narvaez refuses to take down or remove the defamatory post unless he complies with extortive demands, including the payment of large sums of money and forfeiting his meritorious custody action,” Jackson’s lawyers write.
Joy could not immediately be reached for comment.
The dispute dates back to March, when Joy’s name was mentioned in a wide-ranging sexual abuse lawsuit filed against Sean “Diddy” Combs by Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones. In that complaint, Jones claimed that Combs had “bragged” about paying Joy and other women a “monthly stipend” for sex.
Days later, Joy posted a scathing statement about Jackson to Instagram: “Let’s put the real focus on your true evil actions of raping me and physically abusing me,” she wrote at the time. “You are no longer my oppressor and my God will handle you from this point on.”
In his lawsuit on Monday, Jackson says that Joy’s blistering accusations were a response to his decision to “take legal action” to seek custody of their 11-year old son Sire in the wake of the lawsuit against Diddy. “Upon learning of the troubling allegations in the Combs litigation, Jackson came to the reasonable conclusion that it was not in his child’s best interest for Narvaez to have full custody,” the suit states.
Courts have made it difficult for “public figures” like a famous rapper to sue for defamation. They must prove that someone like Joy made her statements with “actual malice” – meaning she knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But in Monday’s complaint, 50 Cent’s lawyers say Joy’s “unequivocally false” statements meet that difficult standard.
“Narvaez knows that Jackson did not rape or physically abuse her, yet she knowingly published the false statements to her almost 2 million followers on Instagram,” 50’s lawyers write. “Narvaez published the defamatory post, and refuses to remove it, out of sheer hatred and ill will toward Jackson.”
After an ugly weekend of diss-track crossfire, the beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake now features unproven accusations of spousal abuse, drug use and even pedophilia. Those claims might be “slander” to many people, but are they defamatory? We asked the legal experts.
The long-simmering dispute between the two hip hop heavyweights went thermonuclear on Friday, when Drake dropped a track claiming Lamar had abused his fiancée. Minutes later, Lamar fired back with accusations about addictions, hidden children and plastic surgery. The next day he dropped another song accusing Drake and others of pedophilia.
With the allegations getting wilder by the minute, spectators on social media began to wonder if either rapper – but particularly Kendrick – could be setting themselves up for more than just another scathing response: “Has anyone ever filed a defamation lawsuit over a diss track before?” joked Matt Ford, a legal reporter at the New Republic, on Saturday night.
Trending on Billboard
An actual lawsuit seems unlikely, for the simple reason that any rapper responding to a diss track with a team of lawyers would be committing reputational suicide. But let’s play it out: Could a rapper like Drake or Kendrick sue over the kind of scathing insults we saw this weekend?
While diss tracks filled with extremely specific invective (and we mean extremely) could certainly lead to a libel lawsuit in theory, legal experts tell Billboard that such a case would face not just legal challenges but also practical problems. First and foremost? That the accuser would open themselves up to painful discovery by opposing lawyers.
“Any plaintiff suing for defamation is putting their entire life and reputation on the line,” says Dori Hanswirth, a veteran litigator who heads the media law practice at the law firm Arnold & Porter. “If someone decided to sue over a statement that they preyed upon underage women, for example, then that person’s entire dating history would be fair game in the litigation.”
While the term “slander” gets thrown around on the internet a lot these days, actual legal defamation is pretty hard to prove in America, thanks to the First Amendment and its robust protections for free speech. Winning a case requires that an accuser show that a statement about them was factually false; mere statements of opinion don’t count, and neither do bombastic exaggerations.
“The public … has to believe that the speaker is being serious, and not just hurling insults in a diss fight,” Hanswirth says. “If the statements are not taken literally, then they are rhetorical hyperbole and not considered to be defamatory. The context of this song-by-song grudge match tends to support the idea that this is rhetorical, and a creative way to beef with a rival.”
Another legal roadblock is that both Drake and Kendrick are so-called public figures — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit. Under landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedents, a public figure must show that their alleged defamer acted with “actual malice,” meaning they knew their statement was false or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In practice, the “actual malice” rule has made it nearly impossible for prominent people to sue for libel. And that’s by design. Without strong protections, defamation lawsuits would allow government officials, business leaders and other powerful people to harass and silence anyone who criticizes them, stifling free speech about important public issues.
“The Supreme Court has held that this heightened standard always applies where the plaintiff is a public figure, and it is designed to promote robust expression and debate,” said Adam I. Rich, a music and First Amendment attorney at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.
So, what’s the verdict? No matter how ugly the insults between Drake and Kendrick, it seems like the beef between them is probably going to remain in the form of verse rather than legal briefs.
“As both a lawyer and a fan,” Rich says, “I hope Drake and Kendrick turn the heat down and play the next round out in the studio, not the courtroom.”
Former Nickelodeon producer/writer Dan Schneider fired back at the team behind the bombshell series Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV on Wednesday (May 1) in a lawsuit in which he alleged that the documentary series wrongly implied that he sexually abused the child actors he worked with.
According to the Associated Press, Schneider filed the defamation suit against Warner Bros. Discovery and other companies behind the investigative series in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming in the suit that the show’s trailer and episodes deliberately mixed and juxtaposed images and mentions of him with the criminal sexual abusers spotlighted in the show with the implication he was involved.
Former teenage actor Schneider (Head of the Class) split with Nickelodeon in 2018 after more than a decade at the center of some of the network’s most successful, star-making shows, including All That, The Amanda Show, Kenan & Kel and as executive producer of Zoey 101, iCarly and Victorious, with the latter three, respectively, launching the careers of Jamie Lynn Spears, Miranda Cosgrove and Jenette McCurdy and Victoria Justice and Ariana Grande.
Trending on Billboard
Schneider took center stage during many storylines in Quiet, which interviewed the casts and crews of several of Schneider’s most successful shows to describe how the sets he was responsible for often sexualized their young teen stars in a sometimes tense, toxic work environment some described as abusive. The series originally ran on the ID channel in March and is now available to stream on Max.
Among the bombshell revelations in the series that spotlighted descriptions of sexual abuse of child actors was the emotional commentary from Drake & Josh star Drake Bell, who described his grooming and sexual abuse by former childhood dialogue coach Brian Peck; Peck was convicted of sexually assaulting a Nickelodeon child actor (Bell) in 2004. In the third episode, Bell graphically recounts the abuse he suffered at Peck’s hands when he was 14- and 15-years-old.
Other former actors on Nickelodeon shows from the Schneider era also allege that they were rife with sexism, racism and inappropriate behavior involving underage stars and crew and alleged predatory behavior. The show suggests that Schneider’s shows tended to put young women in comedic situations with overt sexual implications, while depicting him as an angry and emotionally abusive boss, including specific allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination form women who worked as writers under him on All That.
Among the allegations are that he displayed pornography on his computer in their presence in the writers’ room and often asked for massages from female staffers with the implication that they could help get the women’s sketches on the shows, which he has denied.
According to the AP, the suit claims “Quiet on Set’s portrayal of Schneider is a hit job. While it is indisputable that two bona fide child sexual abusers worked on Nickelodeon shows, it is likewise indisputable that Schneider had no knowledge of their abuse, was not complicit in the abuse, condemned the abuse once it was discovered and, critically, was not a child sexual abuser himself.” In addition to Discovery — parent company of ID and Max — the suit names the show’s producers as well, Sony Pictures Television and Maxine Productions. The suit claims that the series and its trailer unjustly implicated Schneider in child sex abuse by showing pictures of him, some with his arm around young actresses, amid discussions of what they said were unsafe environments on his sets.
The series claims that kid actors were made to wear suggestive costumes and act in inappropriate sketches with clearly pornographic undertones. All That actor Leon Frierson talks about his superhero character, Captain Big Nose, who wore tights and underwear and a prosthetic nose with matching noses on his shoulders.
“You can’t help but notice that it looks like penises and testicles on my shoulders,” he says in the series, adding that one sketch included Captain Big Nose blasting a giant sneeze caused by his allergy to asteroids, with the punchline consisting of him shooting messy goo on the face of a young woman. “The joke in that sketch is effectively a cum shot joke. It’s a cum shot joke for children,” culture writer Schaachi Koul says in the premiere episode of the five-part series. “Looking back, it’s very strange. Frankly, it was just uncomfortable,” says Frierson, who also describes that getting close to “kingmaker” Schneider could result in another level of success for the young actors. “It was important to be on his good side, and he made it known who was on his good side,” he says.
Nickelodeon, which was not named in the suit, said in a statement in the series that it could not “corroborate or negate” the allegations from two decades ago, but that it investigates all formal complaints and has strict protocols for shows starring minors.
Schneider, 58, was not interviewed for the series, but issued a YouTube video apology after the show aired in which he said he was sorry for “past behaviors, some of which are embarrassing and that I regret.” The suit is seeking financial damages to be determined at trial for what it described as “the destruction of Schneider’s reputation and legacy” via “false statements and implications” as well as the editing and removals of portions of the series and trailers.
“Schneider will be the first to admit that some of what they said is true,” the lawsuit claims according to The Huffington Post. “At times, he was blind to the pain that some of his behaviors caused certain colleagues, subordinates, and cast members. He will regret and atone for this behavior the rest of his life. But one thing he is not — and the one thing that will forever mar his reputation and career both past and present — is a child sexual abuser.”
In a statement to HuffPo, Schneider said the series “highlighted mistakes I made and poor judgment I exhibited during my time at Nickelodeon. … There is no doubt that I was sometimes a bad leader. I am sincerely apologetic and regretful for that behavior, and I will continue to take accountability for it.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Online investigator and YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry, money in hip-hop and get-rich-quick social influencers — has prevailed in a long-running defamation lawsuit filed by Derek Moneyberg, the online persona of self-proclaimed wealth coach Dale Buczkowski.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Buczkowski operates a number of big-ticket wealth management coaching services, including his “Mastermind Network” — which charges users a $20,000 initiation fee and a $5,000 annual renewal fee — and his “1-ON-1 Training,” which starts at $75,000 per year, according to his attorney Tamara Beatty Peterson.
The defamation suit — filed on June 21, 2021, in U.S. District Court in Nevada — accused Cornelia of making false and defamatory statements against Buczkowski during two interviews with a former friend and associate of Buczkowski named John Mulvehill, whom Buczkowski also sued. During the interviews with Cornelia, Mulvehill questioned Buczkowski’s academic credentials and suggested Buczkowski’s success was due in part to criminal behavior. On a later broadcast, Cornelia openly mused about nominating Buczkowski for his annual “Charlatan of the Year” award.
Over the course of several months in summer 2023, U.S. District Court Judge James C Mahan dismissed the complaints against both Mulvehill and Cornelia. On July 23, Mahan ruled in favor of Mulvehill, finding that Buczkowski lacked jurisdiction to file his lawsuit in Nevada since Buczkowski couldn’t provide any evidence he lived in the state beyond “a handful of pieces of mail.”
Then, in late September, Judge Mahan tossed the defamation charges filed against Cornelia, ruling that Buczkowski was a public figure — a designation that requires a finding that Cornelia acted with actual malice, meaning “a statement is made with falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.”
“Here, all of the allegedly defamatory statements were uttered by Mulvehill, not Cornelia. Cornelia was simply interviewing Mulvehill,” Mahan wrote in his September ruling. “Regardless of this fact, the evidence in the record shows that Cornelia did not act with reckless disregard in conducting his interview with Mulvehill,” noting that “Cornelia published his videos based on reasonable information he received from reliable sources.”
That included a video from a former employee of Buczkowski “who corroborated claims about plaintiffs’ unethical business practices and their using young, unqualified people to write the instructional and promotional material for plaintiffs’ courses,” Mahan wrote. In his deposition, Buczkowski was asked about his claims that he had been interviewed by major magazines and television outlets seeking his financial acuity but was unable to name a publication he hadn’t paid to be featured in.
“Even if Cornelia were mistaken, his conduct is not remotely close to constituting reckless disregard. Thus, defendants did not act with actual malice, and the court grants their motion for summary judgment.”
Buczkowski has already filed an appeal of the ruling, and Cornelia has indicated he too plans to appeal Judge Mahan’s denial of Cornelia’s anti-SLAPP motion — a type of request that asks the court to dismiss a case on grounds that it attacks protected speech. Had Mahan granted the motion, Buczkowski could be found liable for Cornelia’s legal expenses.
“I feel incredibly relieved that the judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all claims. It was the correct ruling and another reminder to angry litigants that the legal system will deter those attempting to engage in lawfare,” Cornelia told Billboard in a statement.
“Because Moneyberg’s only interest is dragging this case as long as possible and attempting to defeat an underfunded litigant by spending his way to victory, he decided to appeal the judge’s ruling,” Cornelia continued. “I am excited for the finality of this case following the appeals process and seeing a judgment against Moneyberg for a significant amount of money. I will be pursuing him for 100% of my attorneys fees when this case is over.”
Billboard reached out to representatives for Buczkowski and did not receive a response.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Jason Koerner / Getty
The infighting within the A$AP MOB continues to worsen. A$AP Relli has now filed a lawsuit against A$AP Rocky and his lawyer for defamation.
As spotted on TMZ the man born Terrell Ephron is alleging that his former friend and collaborator has slandered his good name. Rolling Stone Magazine reports that the claim is based on comments both men made after Relli said that Pretty Flacko shot him back in November 2021. A representative for Ephron gave an exclusive statement to Pitchfork concerning the matter. “Yesterday, Terell Ephron filed a defamation suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Rakim Meyers, also known as A$AP Rocky, and his attorney, Joseph Tacopina of Tacopina Law for statements made to several media outlets in 2022. The statements were false and malicious, and have caused Mr. Ephron extreme reputational and emotional harm which must be remedied. Mr. Ephron looks forward to his day in court.”
While A$AP Rocky has yet to formally respond to this additional lawsuit his legal eagle has and says this is merely a money grab attempt by Relli. “This is actually nothing more than a publicity stunt which is going to backfire badly. I more than welcome this lawsuit especially because the resolution of the criminal case has not happened yet” Tacopina said in a statement to TMZ. “This opens up this extortionist to depositions under oath now before the resolution of the criminal case. It will expose the fraud he committed and unfortunately for his lawyers, it will cause them to be responsible for legal fees in this case. They don’t know the facts of this case or the actions taken by their client. But, I will be more than happy to educate them.”
A$AP Rocky has denied shooting A$AP Relli.
Photo: Jason Koerner / Getty
HipHopWired Radio
Our staff has picked their favorite stations, take a listen…
HipHopWired Featured Video
Tasha K, one of the biggest celebrity bloggers in the game, apologized to Cardi B after a $4 million defamation lawsuit verdict was upheld this week. Taking to Twitter, the media figure promised that the snafu leading to the lawsuit will never happen again but seemingly deleted the tweet although it was shared via Instagram.
Tasha K, birth name LaTasha Kebe, filed an appeal to the $4 million defamation lawsuit filed by Cardi B after Kebe made a post in 2018 accusing the rapper and social media star of having sexually transmitted diseases. The court sided with Cardi B, ordering Kebe to pay just under $4 million in damages. Tasha K was, at first, defiant after the ruling and kept the posts up until she was presented with further legal action that would have led to her imprisonment.
Related Stories
An appeal against the defamation lawsuit was appealed by Kebe last September and she was ordered the next month to pay the outstanding damages until a hearing in court transpired.
“Damn Winos!” We lost the appeal against Cardi B sad day. But I’m gonna be alright. I appreciate all your love & support. Throughout this fight. Today we throw in the white flag. What happened will never happen again. To Cardi & her team, I apologize sincere. We live and learn,” Kebe’s tweet read.
She followed that tweet with, “Please Do NOT Donate to Any GoFundMe’s in my name at all! If you get scammed, it ain’t on me! Just FYI.”
Leaning into the results of the verdict, Tasha K shared a photo of herself in a McDonad’s uniform with the caption reading, “#TashaKGetsAJOB I will let y’all what Part-Time gig I get so I can pay off this damn debt. #iaintgotit but I’m gonna get it” and tagging fast food brands Wendy’s and Burger King along with the aforementioned McDonald’s.
Cardi B has yet to make a public comment about the defamation lawsuit verdict being upheld.
—
Photo: Getty
A federal jury has issued a verdict mostly clearing Damon Dash in a lawsuit that accused the Roc-A-Fella Records co-founder of sexually assaulting a photographer, Billboard has confirmed.
Monique Bunn sued Dash in 2019, claiming he had inappropriately touched her while she was sleeping at his house during a video project. She then tacked on defamation charges to the case, after Dash accused her on social media of charging thousands of dollars to a credit card without permission.
But following a four-day trial, the jury found that Dash was not liable for sexual assault, seemingly swayed by Dash’s testimony that the allegation was “ridiculous.” The jurors did find him liable for defamation but awarded Bunn just $15,000 in damages. A hearing on additional “punitive” damages is set for Thursday.
Bunn had sought tens of millions of dollars from the lawsuit, including for accusations that Dash failed to give her back a huge trove of her photos. But despite an earlier ruling by the judge that said Dash was liable on that claim, the jurors awarded Bunn no damages over the unreturned property.
The verdict was first reported by Law360 and confirmed to Billboard by attorneys for Dash. Attorneys for Bunn did not return a request for comment on Thursday (Feb. 16).
As reported in detail by Law360, Bunn testified last week at trial that the one-time hip-hop mogul had groped her during a 2019 video shoot at his house. While sleeping in his daughter’s room, she said she awoke to feel “something on the left side of my like lower back onto my butt, down my thigh.”
Bunn then also reportedly testified that Dash’s response to her allegations — a social media post and a radio interview in which he claimed she had stolen money from him — had destroyed her career. “I lost everything, I have nothing,” she said.
In his own testimony earlier this week, Dash reportedly called the allegations “ridiculous,” flatly denying any misconduct and calling Bunn a “con artist” who was making false accusations against him.
Following the verdict for Dash, either side can appeal the outcome — first by asking the judge to overturn the verdict against them, then by taking the case to a federal appeals court.
-
Pages
