Legal News
Page: 48
Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked Thursday, one month before it was set to take effect, by a federal judge who called the measure unconstitutional.
The ruling delivered a temporary win for the social media company that has argued Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature went “completely overboard” in trying to regulate the app. A final ruling will come at a later date after the legal challenge moves through the courts.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said the ban “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses” while singling out the state for its fixation on purported Chinese influence.
“Despite the state’s attempt to defend (the law) as a consumer protection bill, the current record leaves little doubt that Montana’s legislature and Attorney General were more interested in targeting China’s ostensible role in TikTok than with protecting Montana consumers,” Molloy wrote Thursday in granting the preliminary injunction. “This is especially apparent in that the same legislature enacted an entirely separate law that purports to broadly protect consumers’ digital data and privacy.”
Montana lawmakers in May made the state the first in the U.S. to pass a complete ban on the app based on the argument that the Chinese government could gain access to user information from TikTok, whose parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing.
The ban, which was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, was first brought before the Montana Legislature a few weeks after a Chinese spy balloon flew over the state.
It would prohibit downloads of TikTok in the state and fine any “entity” — an app store or TikTok — $10,000 per day for each time someone “is offered the ability” to access or download the app. There would not be penalties for users.
TikTok spokesperson Jamal Brown issued a statement saying the company was pleased that “the judge rejected this unconstitutional law and hundreds of thousands of Montanans can continue to express themselves, earn a living, and find community on TikTok.”
A spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, also a Republican, tried to downplay the significance of the ruling in a statement.
“The judge indicated several times that the analysis could change as the case proceeds,” said Emily Cantrell, spokeswoman for Knudsen. “We look forward to presenting the complete legal argument to defend the law that protects Montanans from the Chinese Communist Party obtaining and using their data.”
Western governments have expressed worries that the popular social media platform could put sensitive data in the hands of the Chinese government or be used as a tool to spread misinformation. Chinese law allows the government to order companies to help it gather intelligence.
More than half of U.S. states and the federal government have banned TikTok on official devices. The company has called the bans “political theatre” and says further restrictions are unnecessary due to the efforts it is taking to protect U.S. data by storing it on Oracle servers. The company has said it has not received any requests for U.S. user data from the Chinese government and would not provide any if it were asked.
“The extent to which China controls TikTok, and has access to its users’ data, forms the heart of this controversy,” the judge wrote.
Attorneys for TikTok and the content creators argued on Oct. 12 that the state had gone too far in trying to regulate TikTok and is essentially trying to implement its own foreign policy over unproven concerns that TikTok might share user data with the Chinese government.
TikTok has said in court filings that Montana could have limited the kinds of data TikTok could collect from its users rather than enacting a complete ban. Meanwhile, the content creators said the ban violates free speech rights and could cause economic harm for their businesses.
Christian Corrigan, the state’s solicitor general, argued Montana’s law was less a statement of foreign policy and instead addresses “serious, widespread concerns about data privacy.”
The state hasn’t offered any evidence of TikTok’s “allegedly harmful data practices,” Molloy wrote.
Molloy noted during the hearing that TikTok users consent to the company’s data collection policies and that Knudsen — whose office drafted the legislation — could air public service announcements warning people about the data TikTok collects.
The American Civil Liberties Union, its Montana chapter and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights advocacy group, have submitted an amicus brief in support of the challenge. Meanwhile, 18 attorneys generals from mostly Republican-led states are backing Montana and asking the judge to let the law be implemented. Even if that happens, cybersecurity experts have said it could be challenging to enforce.
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.
Kelly Clarkson has won a legal ruling that her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him for procuring business deals while he served as her manager.
In a Nov. 21 decision, California’s labor commissioner ruled that Blackstock procured a number of deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
By doing so, Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower ruled that Blackstock violated California’s Talent Agencies Act (TAA), which bans anyone other than a licensed talent agent from procuring work for artists.
All told, Blackstock must pay back commissions earned on four deals: $1,983,155.70 for securing Clarkson’s role on The Voice; $208,125 for a deal to promote Norweigan Cruise Lines; $450,000 for an agreement to promote Wayfair; and $93.30 to host the Billboard Music Awards in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Importantly, the commissioner rejected Clarkson’s claim that Blackstock was also required to pay back commissions he earned from helping to secure The Kelly Clarkson Show — which could have seen him owe much more. His involvement in that deal, including “strategizing” with her agents, was clearly “at the request of CAA” and thus not a violation of the law, the commissioner ruled.
“When a manager strategizes with the agent during a negotiation and does not approach the potential employer without the agent’s permission, they are doing exactly what the TAA demands of them,” Garcia-Brower wrote.
After a marriage of seven years, Clarkson filed for divorce from Blackstock in June 2020. The case was finalized two years later, with the singer agreeing to pay her ex-husband monthly child support of $45,601 for their two children, plus a one-time payment of just over $1.3 million.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on this month’s decision.
The Nashville judge overseeing the bitter lawsuit between Hall & Oates sided with Daryl Hall on Thursday (Nov. 3) and ruled that John Oates temporarily cannot sell his share of the band’s joint venture to Primary Wave until a private arbitrator hears the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Hours after attorneys for the two singers squared off in court, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend an existing restraining order that’s been blocking Oates from selling his share of their joint venture to industry heavyweight Primary Wave.
Without such an order in place, Perkins ruled that Hall might face the “irreparable harm” of the sale being finalized before he is able to prove his claim that the deal violates the terms of their partnership deal.
“If the transfer goes forward before the arbitrator has an opportunity to consider and rule upon plaintiffs’ application for interim injunctive relief in the arbitration, then it could, as a practical matter, render much of the relief Plaintiffs are seeking in the arbitration ineffectual,” Perkins wrote.
The new restraining order bars Oates from completing his sale to Primary Wave until February or until an arbitrator can decide whether to impose a similar restraining order — whichever comes first.
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday.
Hall & Oates pumped out six chart-topping singles and four chart-topping albums during the 1970s and 1980s and continued to successfully tour as recently as last year. But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, accusing him of violating their partnership agreement by attempting to sell his half to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that’s purchased catalogs and other IP linked to many iconic musicians in recent years.
Fearing the deal would close before the arbitration case was heard, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale. Perkins quickly did so, blocking the Primary Wave sale from closing until Thursday when he could hear from both sides.
At a live hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court earlier on Thursday, a who’s-who of music attorneys battled over whether to extend the restraining order. Representing Hall was Christine Lepera of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who argued that it would be “most efficient” to put the sale on ice until the arbitrator could weigh in. Derek Crownover from the firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, representing Oates, fired back that no additional injunction was needed — that Hall was “not entitled to any relief at all.”
Though the case started out under seal and shrouded in mystery, the legal battle between Hall & Oates has turned increasingly public — and increasingly nasty — over the last week.
On Wednesday, Hall said he had been “blindsided” by the Primary Wave deal and called it the “ultimate partnership betrayal” by his former partner. “Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates said in his own declaration that he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall would make such “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements” about him. “I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
Following Thursday’s decision, the case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Attorneys for Hall & Oates members Daryl Hall and John Oates clashed in a Nashville courtroom Thursday during the first showdown in an increasingly bitter lawsuit between the longtime musical partners.
At a live hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court, a who’s-who of music litigators battled over whether Hall was entitled to an order extending an existing restraining order that’s been blocking Oates from selling his share of their joint venture to industry heavyweight Primary Wave.
Representing Hall was Christine Lepera of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who argued that it would be “most efficient” to issue a court order putting the sale on ice until a private arbitrator can hear the case and decide whether Oates was legally allowed to sell his stake to Primary Wave.
Firing back for Oates was Derek Crownover from the firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, who said that no additional injunction was needed — that Hall was “not entitled to any relief at all” — and the dispute should simply be allowed to play out in arbitration. Crownover said that at most, the judge should extend the restraining order by only a few weeks.
At the end of the hearing, the judge overseeing the dispute, Chancellor Russell Perkins, said he would issue a ruling later on Thursday on whether he would extend the restraining order.
Hall & Oates pumped out six chart-topping singles and four chart-topping albums during the 1970s and 1980s, and continued to successfully tour as recently as last year. But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, accusing him of violating their partnership agreement by attempting to sell his half to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that’s purchased catalogs and other IP linked to many iconic musicians in recent years.
Fearing the deal would close before the arbitration case was heard, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale. The case was filed under seal, shrouding it in mystery and leading to days of speculation about why the beloved singers were suing each other. The judge overseeing the case quickly issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the Primary Wave sale from closing until Thursday’s hearing could be held.
The live hearing came just hours after Hall and Oates directly attacked each other for the first time in court filings.
In a sworn statement on Wednesday, Hall said he had been “blindsided” by the Primary Wave deal and called it the “ultimate partnership betrayal” by his former partner. “Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates said in his own declaration he was “tremendously disappointed” about that Hall would make such “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements” about him. “I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates became clearer Wednesday (Nov. 29) when Daryl Hall filed court papers accusing musical partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly moving to sell his half of their joint venture to Primary Wave – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A week after news of the dispute between the yacht rock legends first surfaced, Hall filed an unsealed declaration (obtained by Billboard) that was filled with new revelations – not just about his partner’s “ambush,” but also about the duo’s ongoing “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about his personal feelings toward his former partner.
“Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates filed his own statement in response, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
“I have no idea who or what is motivating Daryl to take these steps and make such salacious statements, but I am deeply hurt,” Oates wrote.
After teaming up as a pair of Philadelphia singers in 1972, Hall & Oates hit the top of the Billboard Hot 100 a whopping six times, first with “Rich Girl” in 1977 and then with “Kiss On My List,” “Private Eyes,” “I Can’t Go For That (No Can Do)” “Maneater” and “Out of Touch.” The duo have continued to successfully tour for years, including as recently as last year.
But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, challenging his partner’s alleged plan to sell his half of their joint venture (Whole Oats Enterprises) to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that has acquired many iconic music catalogs in recent years. Fearing that the deal would close before the case was decided, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale.
The lawsuit was filed under seal, shrouding it in mystery and leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo were suing each other. The complaint was then unsealed last week, revealing the basic details about the proposed sale to Primary Wave and Hall’s objections. But Wednesday’s filings painted the clearest picture yet of the bitter dispute between the former partners.
In his declaration, Hall called Oates’ agreement to sell to Primary Wave a “completely clandestine and bad faith move in blatant violation” of their agreement, which he said clearly requires full consent from both partners.
“John Oates and the Co-Trustees engaged in the ultimate partnership betrayal,” Hall wrote. “They surreptitiously sought to sell half of the WOE assets without obtaining my written approval.”
Hall said he first learned of the proposed sale to Primary Wave in late October – news that he said left him “blindsided.” He said it came as the two sides were engaged in mediation on other issues and as he was about to embark on a tour, causing him “tremendous upheaval, harm, and difficulty in my life.”
“I believe that John Oates timed the unauthorized transaction to create the most harm to me,” Hall wrote.
Hall seemed particularly upset about the idea of selling to Primary Wave in particular. He said he had “no intention of becoming partners with Primary Wave” and that Oates could not “thrust a new partner upon me in this outrageous fashion.”
“The potential of being forced into a partnership with Primary Wave without my consent is incredibly upsetting,” Hall wrote. “There is no amount of money that could compensate me for being forced to partner with an entity that I did not agree to partner with, and whose business model does not comport with my views regarding the WOE assets. The harm is unimaginable.”
The biggest problem for Hall, the filing indicated, was the idea of granting Primary Wave control over his name and likeness rights – something he called “highly personal assets.”
“Primary Wave is a company that brands itself as having a strong focus on exploiting not only copyrights but the trademarks and name and likeness rights of the artists from whom they purchase catalogue rights,” Hall wrote. “If Primary Wave becomes my partner they … will likely have a goal to use theWOE assets, and my name and likeness, for branding and exploitations.”
A representative for Primary Wave did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday evening.
Hall also revealed that the dispute came amid a broader “divorce” with Oates. His former partner had recently become “adversarial and aggressive” and intended to “burden and harass me.” Eventually, they began discussing a dissolution of their touring company and other joint ventures. But he says that Oates never once discussed selling his share in Whole Oats Enterprises, the joint venture at issue in the case.
“John Oates was very combative and protective with respect to WOE, and consistently conveyed his desire to keep his ownership and that partnership intact and operative—there was never a hint that he would try to ambush me with a sale,” Hall wrote.
The new filing also cleared up exactly what assets are controlled by Whole Oats Enterprises. They include the band’s trademarks, their personal name and likeness rights, their record royalty income, and “certain HO social media and related website assets.” Another entity, Hot Cha Music, LLP, controls the band’s valuable musical composition copyrights – meaning they are not at issue in the case.
In his own filing Wednesday, Oates offered far fewer details than Hall had; he repeatedly said that he was subject to confidentiality agreements that restricted what he could say. But he refuted his partner’s core accusation about a secret deal that violated their partnership contract.
“I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
A court hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday morning in Nashville.
Rapper Polo G is suing a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
In a complaint filed Monday (Nov. 27) in New York federal court, attorneys for the rapper (real name Taurus Bartlett) accused Netherlands-based J. Noah B.V. of violating his intellectual property rights, claiming the company “lied to the public” by continuing to promote shows “they knew would not occur.”
“Bartlett’s counsel demanded that defendants immediately remove all uses of Bartlett’s client’s name and image from the website, from Instagram, and from all other social media channels,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote. “Inexcusably, defendants failed to do so, and ignored this demand entirely.”
“Even more egregiously, J Noah’s Instagram account continued to contain advertisements for alleged performances by Bartlett … that defendants are fully aware would not be occurring,” the rapper’s lawyers added.
Those splashy allegations are layered on top of a more run-of-the-mill underlying contract dispute over an agreement for 10 concerts, which Polo G’s lawyers say J. Noah has “wrongly” accused the rapper of breaching.
In the complaint, Polo G seeks a ruling that he had “no obligation to perform” at the shows because he sustained an “injury that prevents him from performing” — a valid reason under the contract, his lawyers say. On the contrary, he claims that it’s actually J. Noah that breached the deal by failing to pay his full $495,000 in fees as required under the contract.
But the lawsuit also goes much further than that — turning a contract dispute into intellectual property litigation by claiming that J. Noah then continued to wrongfully use Polo G’s “name, likeness and trademark” even after the deal had been terminated.
“Through these knowingly false advertisements of fictitious concert performances using the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s image, Defendants have engaged in knowingly false advertising—thereby committing a fraud on the public and causing irreparable harm to the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s reputation,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote.
A spokesperson for J. Noah did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
A judge overseeing the estate of Aretha Franklin awarded real estate to the late star’s sons, citing a handwritten will from 2014 that was found between couch cushions.
The decision Monday came four months after a Detroit-area jury said the document was a valid will under Michigan law, despite scribbles and many hard-to-read passages. Franklin had signed it and put a smiley face in the letter “A.”
The papers will override a handwritten will from 2010 that was found at Franklin’s suburban Detroit home around the same time in 2019, the judge said.
One of her sons, Kecalf Franklin, will get that property, which was valued at $1.1 million in 2018, but is now worth more. A lawyer described it as the “crown jewel” before trial last July.
Another son, Ted White II, who had favored the 2010 will, was given a house in Detroit, though it was sold by the estate for $300,000 before the dueling wills had emerged.
“Teddy is requesting the sale proceeds,” Charles McKelvie, an attorney for Kecalf Franklin, said Tuesday.
Judge Jennifer Callaghan awarded a third son, Edward Franklin, another property under the 2014 will.
Aretha Franklin had four homes when she died of pancreatic cancer in 2018. The discovery of the two handwritten wills months after her death led to a dispute between the sons over what their mother wanted to do with her real estate and other assets.
One of the properties, worth more than $1 million, will likely be sold and the proceeds shared by four sons. The judge said the 2014 will didn’t clearly state who should get it.
“This was a significant step forward. We’ve narrowed the remaining issues,” McKelvie said of the estate saga.
There’s still a dispute over how to handle Aretha Franklin’s music assets, though the will appears to indicate that the sons would share any income. A status conference with the judge is set for January.
Franklin was a global star for decades, known especially for hits in the late 1960s like “Think,” “I Say a Little Prayer” and “Respect.”
Young Thug’s attorney told jurors Tuesday (Nov. 28) that his client was “born into a society filled with despair” and merely rapped about violent crime because “these are the stories he knew” — and that prosecutors had cherry-picked lyrics that matched the crimes they hoped to pin against him.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A day after Atlanta prosecutors kicked off the artist’s racketeering trial by accusing Thug (Jeffery Williams) of running a criminal street gang that operated like a “pack” of wolves, his attorney, Brian Steel, responded by telling the jury that the rapper “doesn’t even know most of the people in this indictment” and had no reason to run a criminal organization.
“He’s not sitting there telling people to kill people,” Steel said. “He doesn’t need their money. Jeffery is worth tens of millions of dollars.”
In addition to refuting each of the alleged “overt acts” that form the basis for the RICO case against Thug, Steel defended his client’s First Amendment right to rap about the dangerous conditions he faced growing up in Atlanta’s Cleveland Avenue neighborhood.
“Yes, he speaks about ‘killing 12’ and people being shot and drugs and drive-by shootings,” Steel said, referring to a phrase that allegedly refers to murdering police. “This is the environment he grew up in. These are the people he knew, these are the stories he knew. These are the words he rhymed.”
“This is art,” Steel added. “This is freedom of speech.”
Thug (Jeffery Williams) was indicted last year on accusations that his “YSL” was not really a record label/music collective called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that committed murders, carjackings, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Along with other charges, Thug stands accused of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. If convicted on all eight of his counts, Thug faces decades in prison.
Go read an explainer of the YSL case here, including a full breakdown of the charges and a deep-dive into the background of the accusations.
Throughout his opening statements Tuesday, Steel told a story of a young, impoverished kid whose disdain for police and the justice system stemmed from real-life instances of neglect and mistreatment. Steel said Thug had watched presumably innocent people face serious consequences after “snitches” told lies to them, and had witnessed his mother be handcuffed after his brother had been shot. During that incident, Steel said Thug had watched police place a sheet over his brother’s face despite the fact that he was still breathing.
Describing his client as a malnourished child with rotted teeth, Steel said Thug had turned to rap as a way out of poverty. He “idolized” rappers Lil Wayne and 2Pac, the attorney told jurors, and even took his stage name from the latter’s 1995 song with Smooth titled “P.Y.T (Playa Young Thugs).” Steel said the stage name wasn’t intended to be menacing but is, instead, an acronym for ‘truly humbled under God.’
Steel spent a majority of his more than two hours of opening statements going through each of the individual charges and “overt acts” — the small actions that make up a RICO charge.
One of those alleged acts is that Young Thug rented a 2014 Silver Infiniti Q50 sedan that was allegedly used during the murder of a rival gang leader, Donovan Thomas, in 2015. But Steel denied that Thug had any involvement in the killing, saying he had regularly rented cars for friends and had been “sad” to learn of Thomas’ death.
Steel frequently criticized the use of rap lyrics as evidence — a controversial prosecutorial tactic that has drawn criticism in recent years. During Monday’s opening statements, for instance, prosecutors told jurors that a particular Thug lyric — “hundred rounds in a Tahoe” from the song “Slime Shit” — referred to Donovan’s killing in a Chevy Tahoe. But Steel disputed that argument, saying Thug rapped about various cars often and there was “no evidence of when that lyric was even created.”
At other points Tuesday, Steel repeatedly questioned the trustworthiness of Kenneth Copeland, a former YSL member who made headlines earlier this year when a video leaked showing him talking with police investigators. The attorney described Copeland as a “leech” and “snitch” who had lied to investigators to avoid facing his own criminal charges.
Copeland is listed as a prosecution witness in the case, and Steel’s statements — which suggested that Copeland could have actually committed some of the crimes in the indictment — indicate he believes Copeland could be a key witness for the other side.
Several of the alleged acts refuted by Steel involved riffs or interactions with other rappers, including the allegation that YSL affiliates had once fired gunshots at rapper Lil Wayne’s tour bus in service of Young Thug.
During his statements, Steel acknowledged that Thug had recorded a video about Wayne’s Atlanta appearance that showed him surrounded by people with guns. But he said Thug had been told to create the video by his management for entertainment reasons because such a beef “creates interest in fans.”
Steel also noted Thug’s publicized disputes with YFN Lucci. The attorney described Lucci as a less successful rapper who used Thug’s name for clout, including claiming to have sex with Thug’s fiancé. Steel asked the jury if the leader of a criminal street gang would’ve let that go unscathed for so long.
Thug’s attorney also alluded to Lil Uzi Vert, accusing prosecutors of misrepresenting text messages to make it appear that Thug was threatening the fellow rapper’s life when he wrote “YSL Rule the world kid. 24m on a nigga head…” Steel said the text was not a bounty but rather an innocuous reference to Vert’s highly-publicized decision to have a $24 million diamond implanted in his forehead.
The YSL trial will continue Wednesday with more opening statements from attorneys for the other five defendants (Marquavius Huey, Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick, Quamarvious Nichols, Rodalius Ryan and Shannon Stillwell). Once openers conclude, the district attorney’s office will begin presenting its case and calling witnesses – a process that could last months.
Atlanta prosecutors accused chart-topping rapper Young Thug of running a criminal street gang that operated like a “pack” of wolves during opening statements of the artist’s high-profile racketeering trial on Monday (Nov. 27).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Kicking off a complex trial that is expected to last as long as a year, Fulton County Chief Deputy District Attorney Adriane Love read a passage from Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book about wolf packs — and said that Thug’s gang had similarly “operated as a pack.”
“For ten years and counting, the group calling itself ‘Young Slime Life’ dominated the Cleveland Avenue community,” Love told the jury. “They created a crater … that sucked in the youth and innocence and even the lives of some its youngest members.”
Love repeatedly referred to Thug as “King Slime” and portrayed him as the clear leader of the gang: “The evidence will show that the members of YSL knew who their leader was, and they knew the repercussions of not obeying him.”
In an indictment unveiled last year, Fulton County prosecutors alleged that Thug (Jeffery Williams) and his “YSL” were not really a popular music collective called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that committed murders, carjackings, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Along with other charges, Thug is accused of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. If convicted on all eight of his counts, Thug faces decades in prison.
Go read an explainer of the YSL case here, including a full breakdown of the legal charges and a deep-dive into the background of the accusations.
After months of slow-moving jury selection, Monday morning was set to finally mark the start of the trial for Thug and five remaining alleged members of his gang. But the start of the hearing was delayed for an hour over a missing juror; then, just minutes into Love’s statements, the case was bogged down in objections, forcing Judge Ural Glanville to clear the jury from the courtroom.
Defense attorneys first claimed that Love was “burden shifting” in her explanation of the case to jurors – meaning she was wrongly making it appear that the defendants would need to prove that they were innocent. Thug’s lawyer, Brian Steel, then moved for a mistrial after he claimed that Love had shown jurors evidence that had already been explicitly banned from the case. Glanville later denied that request but admonished the state for how it had prepared its opening statements.
Eventually, after a lunch break and extended disputes among counsel for both sides, jurors returned to the courtroom for opening statements to continue throughout the afternoon.
This is a developing story and will be updated later today with more information from Monday’s hearing.