Legal News
Page: 5
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Daddy Yankee accuses his soon-to-be ex-wife of stealing $80 million from his company; Jay-Z’s attorneys demand dismissal after his accuser admits “mistakes”; Johnny Ramone’s widow wins a legal ruling in the battle over the punk band’s legacy; and more, including a special recap of the best-ever Christmas music lawsuits.
THE BIG STORY: Daddy Yankee’s Divorce Goes Nuclear
Just weeks after Daddy Yankee and wife Mireddys González announced they were divorcing following 20 years of marriage, his lawyers took things to another level.
Trending on Billboard
In a motion filed in Puerto Rico court, the reggaetón hitmaker accused González and others of withdrawing a stunning $80 million from the bank account of his El Cartel Records “without authorization.” He’s seeking an injunction forcing her “immediate removal” from the company and the disclosure of information to unravel whatever harm was allegedly done.
In addition to the accusations of stolen money, the lawsuit makes other notable claims — like alleging that González shut him out of the negotiations that led to October’s $217 million sale of part of his catalog to Concord. He claims he doesn’t actually know exactly what was sold, and that the price “turned out to be unreasonable, disproportionate and far below the real value.”
For more details, go read the full story from Billboard‘s Griselda Flores. And stay tuned at Billboard for more developments as the case moves forward.
CHRISTMAS SPECIAL: Holiday Music Lawsuits
With the holidays right around the corner, I broke down the many times that Christmas music has ended up in court — from Mariah Carey’s ongoing copyright battle over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to Darlene Love’s fights with advertisers to repeated courtroom clashes over religious freedom. Before you kick off til the new year, go read the full story here.
Other top stories this week…
“I HAVE MADE SOME MISTAKES” – Jay-Z demanded the dismissal of a rape lawsuit linking him to the allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs, just hours after his accuser gave a bombshell interview to NBC News admitting inconsistencies and “mistakes” in her story. Jay-Z’s attorneys said they would seek to strike the complaint and seek penalties against Tony Buzbee, the attorney who filed it: “It is stunning that a lawyer would not only file such a serious complaint without proper vetting, but would make things worse by further peddling this false story in the press,” said Jay-Z attorney Alex Spiro. “We are asking the Court to dismiss this frivolous case today, and will take up the matter of additional discipline for Mr. Buzbee and all the lawyers that filed the complaint.”
ELSEWHERE IN DIDDY WORLD – On Friday, Combs said he would drop an appeal seeking to be released on bail, meaning he will remain in jail until his May trial on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges — a move that came after the bond request was rejected by federal judges three separate times. Then on Monday, the judge overseeing the criminal case rejected accusations from Diddy’s legal team that federal prosecutors leaked the infamous video of the Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie, ruling there was no proof to such a charge.
HEY HO, LET’S SUE – Johnny Ramone’s widow, Linda Cummings-Ramone, won a legal victory over Joey Ramone‘s brother, Mickey Leigh, in their never-ending feud over control of the pioneering punk band’s legacy. An arbitrator ruled that Leigh’s manager, David Frey, must be terminated as a director on the band’s board for a wide variety of improper conduct, including improperly greenlighting a film project at Netflix with actor Pete Davidson attached to star as Joey. The ruling also detailed how Frey had tanked an opportunity for Linda to throw out the first pitch at a Ramones-themed New York Mets game: “There was no reason to lose this opportunity other than to continue the animosity and dysfunction,” the arbitrator wrote.
QUANDO RONDO SENTENCED – The rapper (Tyquian Terrel Bowman) was sentenced to nearly three years in federal prison after striking a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to a federal drug offense in Georgia. The deal saw the Savannah-based rapper admit to a single count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in return for prosecutors dropping more serious charges involving methamphetamine, fentanyl and cocaine.
ASSAULT CASE SETTLED – Paula Abdul and former American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe agreed to settle a lawsuit in which she alleged that he sexually assaulted her in the early 2000s when she was a judge on the show. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and Abdul simply said she was “grateful that this chapter has successfully come to a close and is now something I can now put behind me.”
TIKTOK AT SCOTUS – TikTok asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it. The appeal to the high court came just days after a federal appeals court affirmed the law’s constitutionality, rejecting TikTok’s claims that it violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. With the petition filed, the justices are on the clock: The statute banning TikTok — a crucial music industry promotion tool and a platform that now boasts more than 170 million users in the U.S. — goes into effect on Jan. 19.
Jay-Z’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, expects the rap mogul to be cleared of any wrongdoing in the coming days in the lawsuit filed earlier this month accusing him and Sean “Diddy” Combs of raping a 13-year-old girl at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards afterparty.
Spiro hosted a press conference at Roc Nation’s headquarters in New York City on Monday afternoon (Dec. 16) where he defended his client’s innocence in the case while laying out a slideshow aiming to poke holes in the apparent inconsistencies of Jane Doe’s filing made by attorney Tony Buzbee.
Spiro chose not to unmask the now 38-year-old woman from Alabama who filed the complaint but chose to sharply criticize her case and her attorney. “This is not for truth and justice,” Spiro said. “This is for money.”
He continued: “When something isn’t real, when something doesn’t happen, you’re going to get the details wrong because you weren’t really there. [It’s] not possible. It’s because this never happened.”
According to her complaint earlier this month, the accuser got a ride from Rochester, N.Y. to New York City as a 13-year-old in 2000 to attend the MTV Video Music Awards at Radio City Music Hall, where she remained outside and later came into contact with Diddy’s limousine driver.
Doe claims she was taken to a “large white residence” about 20 minutes from the award show venue where she was served a drink and then repeatedly sexually assaulted by Diddy and Jay-Z (born Shawn Carter) while another unnamed celebrity watched the rape take place. She says she then escaped the afterparty and made it to a gas station where she allegedly called her father to pick her up.
Jay-Z’s lawyer Alex Spiro hosted a press conference vehemently defending his client against the rape allegations made in the lawsuit. “It’s because this never happened,” he repeated. pic.twitter.com/XHfONUIMcd— LordTreeSa🅿️ (@LordTreeSap) December 17, 2024
But in an interview with NBC News on Friday, the accuser admitted to multiple inconsistencies in her story. And in the same story, her father admitted he can’t recall picking up his daughter following the alleged traumatic events 24 years ago. “I feel like I would remember that, and I don’t,” he said. “I have a lot going on, but I mean, that’s something that would definitely stick in my mind.”
At Monday’s event, Spiro focused on those seeming shortcomings in the story: “[Jane Doe] said she’s at the party alone, this 13-year-old girl, and she finds herself in the room with the three most famous people at the party — just think about how unnatural, how little common sense that makes. And according to her, one of the witnesses is a female celebrity who’s just standing there watching the repetitive rape of a child,” Spiro added. “There’s an adult female in the room watching the rape of a child. Afterward, she says she runs out of the house naked — none of them notice that? None of them pay any notice? For 24 years, none of them has said anything?”
While Jay-Z is named alongside Diddy, who will remain behind bars until his trial in May, Spiro attempted to distance Hov from the embattled Bad Boy CEO.
“Mr. Carter has nothing to do with Mr. Combs’ case or Mr. Combs,” he stated. “They knew each other professionally for a number of years. Just like in all professions, people know each other. At music awards, they support each other. They go to the NBA All-Star Game, they support each other. That’s just how professions work. There is no closer association between any of them — that’s also a matter of fiction.”
According to Spiro, Jay is “upset” about what he views as a baseless lawsuit. “He’s upset that somebody would be allowed to do this, would be allowed to make a mockery of the system like this,” he continued. “He’s upset that this distracts and dissuades real victims from coming forward. He’s upset that his kids and family have to deal with this. And he should be upset.”
In an earlier response statement, Jay-Z denied the allegations against him and called Buzbee a “deplorable human.” At Monday’s event, Spiro hinted at further legal action being taken against Buzbee, who he said “will be dealt with” separately following the lawsuit.
In an exclusive statement to Billboard on Tuesday (Dec. 17), Buzbee claimed that “Mr. Spiro has a history of making threats against opposing lawyers.”
Buzzbee continued: “We won’t be intimidated and will raise his conduct with the relevant entities. As for us, we will continue to conduct ourselves professionally. The only reason this dispute is in the public sphere is that Mr. Spiro filed a frivolous case against my firm and claimed extortion with absolutely no support for such an outlandish claim. We will file the appropriate paperwork in due course.”
Holiday music is a big business. It’s also a big source of litigation.
When Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You” stormed back to the top of the Hot 100 this month, it wasn’t alone. Each of the current top five songs are holiday tracks, with Brenda Lee’s “Rockin’ Around The Christmas Tree” in second and Wham!’s “Last Christmas” coming in fourth.
All those streams make for some serious royalty money. Lee’s perennial classic earned nearly $4 million in 2022, and even lesser songs like “The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don’t Be Late)” typically earn hundreds of thousands per year. In 2018, Billboard estimated that the entire Christmas music genre raked in $177 million in the U.S. market alone – a total that has almost certainly grown in the years since.
And where popularity and money go, lawsuits usually follow. As veteran music industry attorneys are fond of saying: “Where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”
Trending on Billboard
With the holidays right around the corner, Billboard is breaking down the many times that Christmas music has ended up in court – from Mariah’s ongoing copyright battle over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to Darlene Love’s fights with streamers to repeated courtroom clashes over religious freedom. Here are the five big cases you need to know:
‘All I Want For Christmas Is’ … A Copyright Lawsuit
Carey’s 1994 blockbuster is THE modern holiday song – now re-taking the top spot on the Hot 100 for six straight years and earning a whopping $8.5 million in global revenue in 2022. So it’s no surprise that she’s facing a lawsuit seeking a cut of that cash.
Starting in 2022, Carey has faced copyright infringement allegations from songwriter named Vince Vance, who claims she stole key elements of “All I Want for Christmas is You” from his 1989 song of the same name. He claims that the earlier track, released by his Vince Vance and the Valiants, received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her now-better-known hit.
“Carey has … palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance wrote in his latest complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun.”
Unsurprisingly Carey’s lawyers see things differently. In a motion filed earlier this year seeking to end the case, her legal team argued that the two songs shared only generic similarities that are firmly in the public domain – including basic Christmas terminology and a simple message that’s been used in “legions of Christmas songs.”
“The claimed similarities are an unprotectable jumble of elements: a title and hook phrase used by many earlier Christmas songs, other commonplace words, phrases, and Christmas tropes like “Santa Claus” and “mistletoe,” and a few unprotectable pitches and chords randomly scattered throughout these completely different songs,” Carey’s attorneys wrote at the time.
With Christmas now looming, it looks like Vance might be getting a lump of coal in his stocking: At a hearing last month, the judge overseeing the lawsuit said she would likely side with Carey and dismiss the case.
Good Grief: ‘Charlie Brown Christmas’ Sues Dollywood
Less than two months before Peanuts television producer Lee Mendelson passed away in 2019, his production company sued Dolly Parton’s Dollywood theme park – accusing the park of using the music from his “A Charlie Brown Christmas” without permission.
The songs of jazz pianist Vince Guaraldi’s legendary soundtrack to the 1965 television special, including classic originals as well as updated standards like “O Tannenbaum,” are firmly in the Christmas canon – and none more so than “Christmas Time Is Here,” which Guaraldi co-wrote with Mendelson.
In a lawsuit lodged in federal court, Lee Mendelson Film Productions Inc. accused Dollywood of using that song for decades in Christmas-themed theatrical production without proper licenses, calling it “willful copyright infringement” and “blatant disregard” of the law.
As is often the case in such lawsuits, Dollywood had secured a blanket license from BMI to publicly play millions of songs for its guests, but would have needed a separately-negotiated “dramatic license” to use it in a stage play: “Defendant knew from the beginning of its infringement that its performance license from BMI does not cover ‘grand’ or ‘dramatic’ rights,” the company wrote.
With a trial set to kick off in December 2021, both sides agreed to a confidential settlement that summer to resolve the case.
Concert Clash: Holiday Cheer or State Religion?
Do Christmas concerts at public schools violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state? It’s a question that’s been fought in court many times – and when a federal appellate judge weighed it in 2015, she didn’t miss the opportunity to sprinkle holiday references into her opinion.
For decades, Concord High School in Elkhart, Indiana held an annual winter concert centered on an “elaborate, student‐performed nativity scene,” featuring religious songs (including “Jesus, Jesus, Rest Your Head”) along with a narrator reading passages from the New Testament.
Unsurprisingly, after students and parents sued in 2014, a federal district court ruled that such an overtly Christian show violated the First Amendment and its ban on the establishment of a state religion. But when the school later made substantial changes — removing the bible readings and adding songs representing Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, among others — both the district judge and an appeals court said the new version of the show passed constitutional muster.
In her 2018 appellate opinion, Judge Diane Wood waxed poetic – saying that “since ancient times, people have been celebrating the winter solstice” and that the Concord High case put the court “in the uncomfortable role of Grinch.”
“But we accept this position, because we live in a society where all religions are welcome,” Judge Wood wrote. “The Christmas Spectacular program Concord actually presented in 2015 — a program in which cultural, pedagogical, and entertainment value took center stage — did not violate the Establishment Clause.”
Baby Please: Darlene Love Sues Over Her Voice
Before Mariah was the “Queen of Christmas,” that title was sometimes used for Darlene Love – and the original queen hasn’t been afraid to enforce her rights to her iconic holiday tracks “A Marshmallow World” and “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home).”
Back in 2016, attorneys for Love filed a lawsuit against Google over allegations that the tech giant used “Marshmallow” without permission in advertisements for its Nexus smartphones. A few months later, she filed a nearly-identical lawsuit against cable network HGTV, accusing the channel of using “Come Home” in another set of ads.
Darlene Love photographed on November 14, 2020 in Spring Valley, NY.
Mackenzie Stroh
Those might sound like copyright lawsuits, but they weren’t. Instead, Love accused the companies of violating her so-called right of publicity by using her voice in the commercial, claiming that her voice was so well known that using the songs falsely implied she had endorsed those products.
“Defendant’s actions were despicable and in conscious disregard of Love’s rights,” her lawyers wrote at the time. “Defendant turned her into an involuntary pitchman for programs of dubious quality. Defendant created multiple commercials that falsely implied to the public that Love had endorsed HGTV’s programming.”
If successful, the cases could have raised difficult issues for advertisers who want to feature popular songs in their commercials — potentially requiring that they both clear the copyrights to the music and obtain explicit permission from any famous performers. But the litigation never got far: Love dropped her lawsuits later that year.
‘Christmas in Dixie’ Royalties Battle In Australia
When a singer-songwriter named Allan Caswell filed a lawsuit claiming that the country band Alabama had stolen key elements of their 1982 country hit “Christmas in Dixie” from his earlier song “On The Inside,” the case came with a twist: He wasn’t actually suing the band itself.
Instead, he filed his lawsuit against his own music publisher, Sony ATV Music Publishing Australia, for failing to collect royalties from the allegedly copycat song. According to an iteration of the lawsuit filed in 2012, the publisher’s musicologist concluded years earlier that the two tracks “shared a level of similarity” that went beyond a “random occurrence of sheer coincidence.”
But why sue Sony and not Alabama? According to Caswell, it was that the American band was also signed to another unit at Sony – and he claimed that his publisher was refusing to take action as a result.
“That’s the problem,” Caswell told a local TV station in Australia. “I’m signed to Sony ATV. Alabama is signed to Sony Music. So it’s all in-house. There’s no incentive for them to take action. They basically can’t take action because they’d be suing themselves.”
In 2014, an Australian judge dismissed claims by Caswell, ruling there was no evidence that Alabama frontman Teddy Gentry had ever heard “On The Inside” before he wrote his Christmas track. “I am satisfied that it is unlikely that he could have heard the plaintiff’s song by picking it up from the theme music of episodes of Prisoner,” the judge said at the time.
Jailhouse Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree
If you were subjected to “constant” holiday songs for 10 straight hours every single day while serving a prison sentence, you might file a lawsuit too.
That’s what an Arizona inmate named William Lamb did in 2009, accusing Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (yes, that Joe Arpaio) of violating his constitutional rights with a non-stop slate of Christmas tunes at a Tucson correctional facility.
According to Lamb, the prison swapped out regular television programming in favor of “constant Christmas music,” which was played in the facility “continuously and repeatedly” from 9 am to 7 pm. The playlist included secular tracks like Elmo & Patsy‘s “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” and The Chipmunks, but also the Tabernacle Choir singing traditional Christmas carols.
In his lawsuit, Lamb alleged that holiday music marathons “forced him to take part in and observe a religious holiday without being given a choice,” violating the First Amendment. Arpaio argued back that the music served a secular purpose, aimed at “reducing inmate tension and promote safety in the jails” during a “difficult time of year for inmates.”
In a ruling just a week before Christmas in 2009, a federal judge agreed – saying the music served a valid non-religious purpose and didn’t primarily push religion on the inmates.
“Although Plaintiff asserts in his complaint that the purpose of the music was to force him to participate in a religious holiday, he does not explain how playing the music had a primary effect of advancing religion,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “To be sure, some of the music was religious, but the Supreme Court held [in earlier cases] that some advancement of religion does give rise to an Establishment Clause violation. A remote or incidental benefit to religion is not enough.”
Music Business Year In Review
Daddy Yankee filed a legal motion Friday (Dec. 13) in Puerto Rico seeking an injunction against his soon-to-be ex-wife Mireddys González, alleging she withdrew $80 million from the bank account of his El Cartel Records “without authorization,” according to court documents obtained by Billboard.
The filing by the reggaetón hitmaker (Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez) was made in a court in San Juan against González, her sister Ayeicha González Castellanos and El Cartel Records, a company founded by Yankee where González allegedly serves as CEO and González Castellanos serves as secretary/treasurer.
The 16-page filing claims that “in spite of the plaintiff being the owner of the shares of the company and being the reason for the existence of the corporation Cartel Records Inc., today he lacks access, interference and information, to all that he generated and continues to generate and to which he is entitled.”
Trending on Billboard
Now, Yankee is asking that the court provide “immediate removal of the plaintiffs from any function or interference in the corporations as officers or administrators thereof and the delivery of the information and documentation that they have illegitimately withheld.”
Yankee claims that González and González Castellanos improperly moved to “concentrate in their persons a greater power over the operations of the Cartel than was authorized, which has resulted in a detrimental and negligent performance for the company.” He also claims they “failed to render an accurate account of their actions, disregarded formalities and requirements of the corporate legislation, irresponsible financial decisions.”
In one claim detailed in Friday’s court filing, Yankee says González hired a third party to represent El Cartel in the sale of the plaintiff’s music catalog to Concord, which Billboard reported in October. He claims the transaction was formalized by selling these rights at a price that “turned out to be unreasonable, disproportionate and far below the real value.”
“Despite the plaintiff having signed the agreement, under the advice of that third party and the defendants, the plaintiff was not provided with a copy of all the contract documents, and to this day he does not know the real scope of the transaction, nor does he have detailed knowledge of what was or was not sold, nor the limitations he may have on the use of his musical creations,” the filing reads.
According to the legal filing, the huge theft of company funds occurred on Thursday (Dec. 12) after Yankee had already revoked González and González Castellanos’ authority and had “warned that they could not carry out any transactions on behalf of El Cartel.”
“Without the knowledge and authorization of the plaintiff and in violation of the requirements of the Law, a bank transfer was made, withdrawing, according to the information obtained, eighty million dollars from the corporate account of the entity,” his lawyers wrote.
Billboard reached out to González and González Castellanos for comment but did not hear back at press time.
The new legal battle comes just weeks after Daddy Yankee and González announced they were divorcing after 20 years of marriage.
“With a heart full of respect and honesty, I want to share some important news about my personal life,” Yankee said in a statement on his Instagram Stories on Dec. 2. “After more than two decades of marriage and after many months of trying to save my marriage, which my wife and I share, today my lawyers respond to the divorce petition received by Mireddys.”
Besides her role as CEO of El Cartel, González was also the manager of the reggeatón artist and is widely known to wield broad influence over Yankee’s music career. As the artist previously told Billboard: “She’s the boss. She has always been the boss.”
TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance urged the justices to step in before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline. A similar plea was expected from content creators who rely on the platform for income and some of TikTok’s more than 170 million users in the U.S.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about a third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
Trending on Billboard
The case could attract the court’s interest because it pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
The request first goes to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in the nation’s capital. He almost certainly will seek input from all nine justices.
On Friday, a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency plea to block the law, a procedural ruling that allowed the case to move to the Supreme Court.
The same panel had earlier unanimously upheld the law over a First Amendment challenge claiming that it violated free speech rights.
Without a court-ordered freeze, the law would take effect Jan. 19 and expose app stores that offer TikTok and internet hosting services that support it to potential fines.
It would be up to the Justice Department to enforce the law, investigating possible violations and seeking sanctions. But lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance have argued that the Justice Department might pause enforcement or otherwise seek to mitigate the law’s most severe consequences because President-elect Donald Trump pledged during the campaign that he would “save TikTok.”
Trump takes office a day after the law goes into effect.
The Supreme Court could temporarily put the law on hold so that they can give fuller consideration to First Amendment and other issues.
On the other hand, the justices could reject the emergency appeal, which would allow the law to take effect as scheduled.
The case has made a relatively quick trip through the courts once bipartisan majorities in Congress approved the law and President Joe Biden signed it in April.
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
A federal judge says Sean “Diddy” Combs can’t prove that prosecutors leaked the infamous 2016 surveillance video of him assaulting his former girlfriend Cassie – and is refusing to launch an investigation into his claims that the government is waging a “campaign” of such leaks.
In an order issued Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs’ request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing into those allegations. Combs had argued that prosecutors were using media coverage to “taint the jury pool” and deprive him of a fair trial.
Most notably, the judge said that Combs had failed to show that government agents leaked the Cassie video, saying the accused mogul “doesn’t point to any sound basis for this conclusion.”
“Combs never considers the possibility that many people beyond Victim-1 and government agents likely had access to the video, including Combs’s team (who paid security officers at the Intercontinental Hotel “$100,000 in cash to destroy” the video) and hotel employees and contractors,” the judge wrote.
Though he denied the request from Combs’ legal team, the judge also reiterated previous warnings to prosecutors to closely safeguard grand jury materials and avoid sharing other improper information with the press.
“The court is sensitive to Combs’s concern about the publication of stories claiming to disclose inside information about this case from unnamed ‘federal law enforcement sources who are involved in the investigation,’” the judge wrote.
“The court has already taken steps in this regard, and it is open to tailored applications for relief as this case continues,” the judge added. “The court once again reminds the government and its agents that if specific information comes to light showing that they leaked prohibited information, action will be taken.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
A trial is currently set to start on May 5. If convicted on all of the charges, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
The star’s legal team has spent months seeking to have him released on bail until the start of the trial. But after multiple failed attempts, his attorneys on Friday dropped their appeal of the bail issue, meaning the hip-hop mogul will remain behind bars at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn until the trial kicks off.
In October, Combs’ attorneys warned the judge that there had been “a series of unlawful government leaks” in the case, leading to “damaging, highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity that can only taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Combs of his right to a fair trial.”
The filing called the Cassie video – a clip that made headlines when CNN first aired in May — the “most egregious example” of such leaks, arguing it had been done in order to “mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself.”
“Rather than using the videotape as trial evidence, alongside other evidence that gives it context and meaning, the agents misused it in the most prejudicial and damaging way possible,” Diddy’s lawyers wrote at the time. “The government knew what it had: a frankly deplorable video recording of Sean Combs in a towel hitting, kicking and dragging a woman in full view of a camera in the hallway of the hotel.”
In a response weeks later, the government sharply denied those claims – and accused Combs’ lawyers of using such allegations as a ploy to “suppress a damning piece of evidence.”
“Without any factual basis, the leak motion seeks to suppress highly probative evidence … by claiming that it was grand jury material leaked by government agents,” prosecutors write. “But, as the defendant is fully aware, the video was not in the Government’s possession at the time of CNN’s publication and the Government has never, at any point, obtained the video through grand jury process.”
Jay-Z’s attorneys have written a letter to a New York courthouse revealing that the rapper intends to “immediately” file a motion to strike a recent complaint accusing him of raping a teenager 24 years ago.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In the letter obtained by Billboard, the legal team cited a new NBC report on Friday night (Dec. 13), in which the accuser — identified as Jane Doe in the lawsuit filed against Jay-Z (real name Shawn Carter) and Diddy — recalled the “catastrophic event,” while also acknowledging a number of inconsistencies in her original account. “I have made some mistakes,” she shared, noting that while she still stands by her accusations, there are a few details that are unclear.
One of the inconsistencies is that the woman originally said her father picked her up after the assault, but he denied that. She also claimed she spoke to singer Benji Madden at the event, though he wasn’t in New York at the time of the party.
The letter from Jay-Z’s attorney took aim at Doe’s attorney Anthony Buzbee. “Given today’s relevations, Mr. Buzbee almost certainly failed to undertake a reasonable inquiry into the facts before filing the complaint,” the message reads. “He should never have brought the claims.”
The letter concludes by noting that Jay “intends to file immediately a motion to strike the first amended complaint.”
In a press statement, Jay-Z echoed the sentiments of his attorney. “Today’s investigative report proves this ‘attorney’ Buzbee filed a false complaint against me in the pursuit of money and fame. This incident didn’t happen and yet he filed it in court and doubled down in the press. True justice is coming. We fight FROM victory, not FOR victory. This was over before it began. This 1-800 lawyer doesn’t realize it yet, but, soon.”
His lawyer Alex Spiro added, “It is stunning that a lawyer would not only file such a serious complaint without proper vetting, but would make things worse by further peddling this false story in the press. We are asking the Court to dismiss this frivolous case today, and will take up the matter of additional discipline for Mr. Buzbee and all the lawyers that filed the complaint.”
Over the weekend, Jay-Z was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 at an MTV Video Music Awards afterparty alongside Diddy. The shocking civil case was filed by an anonymous accuser and Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, whom Jay called a “deplorable human.”
The rapper also denyied all of the allegations against him when news broke. “You have made a terrible error in judgement thinking that all ‘celebrities’ are the same,” Jay-Z said. “I’m not from your world. I’m a young man who made it out of the projects of Brooklyn. We don’t play these types of games. We have very strict codes and honor. We protect children, you seem to exploit people for personal gain. Only your network of conspiracy theorists … will believe the idiotic claims you have levied against me that, if not for the seriousness surrounding harm to kids, would be laughable. I look forward to showing you just how different I am.”
Jay-Z continued: “My only heartbreak is for my family. My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people. I mourn yet another loss of innocence.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs has dropped his appeal to be released on bail, according to court documents filed on Friday (Dec. 13). The voluntary dismissal means the hip-hop mogul will remain behind bars at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn until the start of his criminal trial in May. “Mr. Combs does not seek to appeal […]
Paula Abdul and former “American Idol” producer Nigel Lythgoe have agreed to settle a lawsuit in which she alleged he sexually assaulted her in the early 2000s when she was a judge on the show.
Abdul filed a notice of settlement of the case in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday. It still must be approved by a judge.
“I am grateful that this chapter has successfully come to a close and is now something I can now put behind me,” Abdul said in a statement Friday. “This has been a long and hard-fought personal battle. I hope my experience can serve to inspire other women, facing similar struggles, to overcome their own challenges with dignity and respect, so that they too can turn the page and begin a new chapter of their lives.”
In his own statement, Lythgoe said, “We live in a troubling time where a person is now automatically assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, a process that can take years. That is why, like Paula, I am glad to be able to put this behind me. I know the truth and that gives me great comfort.”
The court filing said the settlement was unconditional, but did not reveal the terms, and Abdul’s attorney Melissa Eubanks said she could not comment on them.
The lawsuit filed nearly a year ago had also accused Lythgoe of sexually assaulting Abdul after she left “American Idol” and became a judge on Lythgoe’s other competition show, “So You Think You Can Dance.”
Lythgoe said at the time that he was “shocked and saddened” by the allegations, which he called “an appalling smear.”
After other lawsuits were filed alleging sexual misconduct, Lythgoe stepped down in January from his role as a judge on “So You Think You Can Dance.”
The 75-year-old English-born producer has been a prominent TV producer for decades in both the U.K. and the U.S., working on reality competition shows including “American Idol.”
The Associated Press generally does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Abdul has done.
Abdul, a Grammy and Emmy-winning singer and dancer, said in the lawsuit that she remained silent for years about the alleged assaults out of fear of retaliation by “one of the most well-known producers of television competition shows.”
She alleged that the first sexual assault occurred while Abdul and Lythgoe were on the road filming auditions for an early season of “American Idol,” which premiered in 2002.
Abdul says Lythgoe groped her in the elevator of their hotel after a day of filming and “began shoving his tongue down her throat.” Abdul pushed him away and ran to her hotel room when the elevator doors opened.
“In tears, Abdul quickly called one of her representatives to inform them of the assault,” the lawsuit says, “but ultimately decided not to take action for fear that Lythgoe would have her fired.”
Abdul starred as a judge for the first eight seasons, leaving in 2009.
In 2015, Abdul became a judge on “So You Think You Can Dance,” appearing alongside Lythgoe.
Around that time, Abdul alleged in the lawsuit, Lythgoe forced himself on top of her during a dinner at his home and tried to kiss her. Abdul said she again pushed Lythgoe away and immediately left.
Abdul left that reality show after two seasons. She has not worked with Lythgoe since.
In a statement at the time of the suit, Lythgoe said “While Paula’s history of erratic behavior is well known, I can’t pretend to understand exactly why she would file a lawsuit that she must know is untrue.”
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
Quando Rondo was sentenced to federal prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to a federal drug offense in Georgia. The rapper, whose given name is Tyquian Terrel Bowman, was sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment by U.S. District Court judge in his hometown of Savannah, local news outlets reported. Bowman, 25, pleaded guilty in August to […]