NEWS
Diddy is taking another shot against the attorney for many of his sexual assault accusers, Tony Buzbee — this time arguing that the lawyer shouldn’t be allowed to handle cases in the federal district in which many of his suits are filed.
On Tuesday (February 25), the Bad Boy mogul’s attorneys filed a memo in New York federal court arguing against a motion Buzbee, a Texas attorney, made to be granted admission pro hac vice — meaning that, even though he’s not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which the case takes place, he’d still be allowed to be involved.
The authors of Diddy’s letter, lawyers Mark Cuccaro, Erica A. Wolff and Michael Tremonte, said that they “have never opposed a pro hac vice application, and we do not do so lightly here.”
But, they continued, Buzbee’s “egregious misconduct” forced their hand.
The team’s main argument centers around the fact that Buzbee filed nearly two dozen civil suits against Diddy in New York’s Southern District, before getting permission to practice there. In addition, they argue that Buzbee’s public comments about Diddy, including on The Chris Hansen Show, “violated New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct by, among other things, repeatedly insisting that Mr. Combs is guilty of the criminal charges pending against him.”
Finally, they argue that Buzbee’s statements about pro hac vice were “deliberately misleading,” because he said that he was licensed to practice in New York state — which is true — but that the issue at hand was not about New York state, but rather about federal court in New York.
HipHopDX has reached out to Tony Buzbee for comment, but he did not immediately respond.
Diddy’s criminal case had recent developments as well.
In a court motion filed on Sunday (February 23), the embattled music mogul claims that the raids on his properties in Miami and Los Angeles were unconstitutional.
The filing states that the warrants used to secure the raids on the two properties were overbroad and included his iCloud account, mobile phones and hotel room.
The filing claims that the warrant applications “presented a grossly distorted picture of reality,” and excluded facts that would have been favorable to Diddy.
The motion, which is heavily redacted, does not reveal what evidence was allegedly excluded from the warrants but that the applications deliberately excluded information that the overseeing judge should have seen, specifically about a witness Diddy’s team claims was fabricating evidence.
The filing states: “The government got its warrants, leaked damaging information, and then executed its military-style raids at Combs’s residences. Here, rather than giving the reviewing magistrate a fair summary, the government hid exculpatory evidence to bolster its case.”
Prosecutors are also accused of engaging in “systemic deception” in order to obtain the warrants.
The motion states that evidence for the warrants came from a person only referred to as “Producer-1” who made allegations against Diddy that were “never credible”.
It is also claimed that “Producer-1” is not set to testify against Diddy in his upcoming sex trafficking trial.
The filing also repeats Diddy’s defense that “Victim-1” who is known to be his ex-girlfriend Cassie, was a voluntary participant in all sexual activity with the currently incarcerated record label boss.
Diddy wants all evidence obtained through the raids on his property via the warrant to be suppressed or for the judge to hold a hearing to discuss how the government obtained the warrants.
Perry Farrell has released another public apology following an on-stage confrontation involving his bandmate Dave Navarro.
The Jane's Addiction frontman was involved in a physical altercation with guitarist Dave Navarro last year during a live performance, an incident that prompted the band to cancel their reunion tour and eventually led to their split.
“I'd like to address what happened on stage last year,” Perry, 66, said in a statement shared across both his personal Instagram account and Jane's Addiction’s official page. “I've reflected on it and know I didn't handle myself the way I should have. I apologize to our patrons and my bandmates for losing my temper and for disrupting the show.”
He went on to admit that he did not meet fan expectations and described himself as deeply remorseful toward everyone impacted by the incident.
“Jane's Addiction has been at the center of my life for decades. The band, the songs, the patrons, and the impact that we've had on music and culture mean more to me than any words I could ever possibly write down,” he shared.
“My aim has always been to give our audience the best possible show, something real, honest and positive. In Boston, we fell short of that, and I'm truly sorry to everyone who was impacted.”
Jane's Addiction also issued its own statement regarding the altercation, which ultimately led to the group’s remaining members filing a lawsuit against Perry alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
“Today we are here to announce that we have come together one last time to resolve our differences, so that the legacy of Jane's Addiction will remain the work the four of us created together,” the band wrote, signaling that the group would not move forward with Perry. “We now look forward to the future as we embark on our separate musical and creative endeavors.”
