Defamation
Page: 2
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.