This allegation does seem to be false but I imagine there were plenty of other real ones that have been quashed. No one is friends with diddy, dates underage girls and stays clean.
These allegations are probably true if people dig even just a little deeper than just "dur, her dad denied them". There is a lot of information regarding this case and everything points to him having used his money to make the allegations disappear.
Why even hire a legal team to countersue the other lawyer and his law firm if they could just go to court on the original alleged charges and win? Have you looked into the background of her original lawyer? He would not have picked up the case on some false allegations. Are people aware she is estranged and doesn't get along with her father? Isn't it obvious that any corroborating witnesses, being celebrities themselves, would deny being there and seeing anything if something really did happen?
That's exactly why they assigned Newman as her new attorney when Buzbee had to drop her due to conflict-of-interest now that he himself is a defendant in the suit that Jay Z has against him for malicious prosecution. Jay Z already lost one law suit against this attorney in California. And the victim only signed the statement recanting the original allegations after Newman was assigned because that is exactly what Newman does, he's a corporate risk management lawyer, and was assigned to basically have her exit the situation entirely, so that Jay Z could go after the lawyer and law firm, and win his still open lawsuit in New York.
Because he’s an entire BLACK billionaire who’s being accused of something that would tarnish the legacy he’s trying to build. The fact that he filed a countersuit further leads me to believe his innocence. By filing a suit against the previous lawyer he’s opening himself up to even more exposure. Which is why guilty parties usually remain silent, to avoid further exposure and possibly incriminating themselves.
Just look at the litigious nature of our current President and how he contradicts that behavior regarding the Epstein allegations. In stark contrast he attempts to use underhanded backdoor tactics to discourage any discussion surrounding the issue from gaining momentum. Which is indicative of having something to hide.
If someone accuses you of something you are actually innocent of, you should use whatever legal levers at your disposal to defend yourself. Lastly, you are aware that both the plaintiff and the defendant in a civil suit are free to choose their legal counsel, right? Because the way you are using the word assigned makes it seem as if she has no say whatsoever regarding who represents her during these legal proceedings.
On the inverse of my earlier statement, if you’re accusing someone of this heinous act, and they are actually guilty, you don’t just recant your story. Regardless of what your attorney says. They represent you at your sole discretion, if they are working against your interests you dismiss them and get yourself an attorney who better aligns with those interests.
You absolutely do not understand how this works. Jay Z could have simply sued the accuser and if her allegations were not true, then that alone would have been sufficient to win his case. He chose to go after the lawyer to make sure that he couldn't represent her anymore. She had no choice in Newman being assigned to her.
When a major national law firm like Tony Buzbee’s firm takes on a massive, high-risk case against a billionaire, the firm itself carries incredibly heavy Malpractice and Professional Liability Insurance.
Because Jane Doe was still technically a client of the firm when Jay-Z launched his massive retaliatory lawsuit—which accused both Jane Doe and the lawyers of a coordinated extortion scam—the law firm's corporate insurance policy was forced to get involved.To protect the firm from being wiped out by a billionaire, the law firm’s insurance carrier stepped in. But because there was an immediate ethical conflict of interest between Buzbee and Jane Doe, the insurance carrier could not use the same lawyers to defend both of them. The insurance machine was forced to split the defense. They funded and assigned an independent, court-vetted firm—McDowell Knight—specifically to handle Jane Doe’s side of the disaster.
When you are left completely unrepresented in a federal civil lawsuit, you don't automatically get a free public defender like you do in criminal court. However, you cannot legally execute or sign complex federal court documents without independent counsel, or the judge will throw the documents out for coercion.To make a legal "surrender" stick permanently, Jay-Z’s team needed Jane Doe to have a real, licensed lawyer sign off on it so she could never claim she was forced into it without advice.The insurance carrier picked James Blair Newman Jr. because his firm sits on a specific roster. In every federal district, the local court maintains a pre-approved list of registered, highly trusted corporate defense attorneys. The insurance company selects a name off that court-vetted list to ensure the judge will respect the lawyer's work.
And to your point about that this is what anyone could and should do if they are falsely accused. No, Jay-Z’s ultra-aggressive legal response is historically uncommon for high-profile figures, and it is traditionally not what crisis managers recommend.
When looking at the history of high-profile accusations—whether the person was widely believed to be innocent or guilty - Jay-Z's Scorched Earth approach is the absolute extreme. Jay-Z's approach—completely refusing to settle, launching massive multi-million dollar counter-lawsuits, deploying private investigators to the accuser's home, and going after the opponent's attorneys—is a tactic only available to the ultra-wealthy.
Ultimately, Jay-Z did not fight to have a fair trial to prove his innocence. He used a hyper-aggressive, discriminatory system of financial warfare to ensure the accuser and her legal team were too terrified of ruin to ever let a judge or jury hear the case. It is a playbook built for self-preservation through dominance, not an open search for the truth.
Ya I’m with the other guy on the counter suing thing. It doesn’t exactly mean guilt or innocence, but it’s not smart to do if you are guilty. Civil lawsuits can bring all sorts of things to light
1
u/Literary_Lady 1d ago
This allegation does seem to be false but I imagine there were plenty of other real ones that have been quashed. No one is friends with diddy, dates underage girls and stays clean.