DJ Akademiks Live Streams - Drake Lawsuit Dismissed. What does it Mean? Breakdown by Akademiks

Episode Date: October 10, 2025

Streamed live on 10/9/25Cop some merch at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://djakademikstv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠���⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To get all Indictments and Lawsuits from our stream. Go to ⁠theakademy.blog⁠Make an account and follow my stream at⁠⁠http://www.kick.com/akademiks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.twitch.tv/akademiks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/c/Akademiks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow me Elsewhere.Twitter - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.twitter.com/akademiks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram -⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.instagram.com/iamakademiks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.facebook.com/iamakademiks⁠

All right. Welcome, y'all. Hello. All right, cool. All right, chat. Tonight we got one mission, really one mission only. We just want to really break down this whole Drake denial or actually dismissal by the judge. We're not going to get through too many topics, but we're going to try to spend some extensive time on that particular thing. I do want to welcome you guys to our second consecutive stream. We are on our third. 30 day journey. We only got 28 days left to go. This is day two. Okay. All right. So if you guys haven't seen the news, Drake lawsuit versus UMG was surreptitiously dismissed today. And I think it was really dismissed to the dismay of many people within Drake's camp and also to the lawyers. Now, how did this happen? What happened? Why did this happen? What does it mean?

I can tell you a few things off rip. Let me tell you this, man. This was like hitting a buzzer beater. Everybody from the industry hit me today. And I'm going to be honest with you. I never knew how much the Drake lawsuit was impacting overall music business. I'm not only really talking about only UMG, but people who work at Sony, Warner,

I could tell that this lawsuit that Drake filed was, you know, kind of ruffling some fetters. Regardless, it was basically like a buzzer-beater. Niggins start hitting me from that I ain't talked to in years. They say we back on road. It's lit again. It's lit again. That's what they told me.

I'm not going to cap with you. Now, we're going to break down what does that mean? Why did Drake get his lawsuit tossed? and what are his next steps and what will his relationship be with these entities and labels as he chooses to continue his music career. Now, welcome and welcome to y'all, all right? Now, I do want to tell you all right, and I'm going to be a straight shooter today. I know I'm late as per usual, so I don't got time to be just, you know, a lot of word salad. I saw a lot of people at me to say, ah, yo, you're crying.

This is why I know, you know, some people are haters and the K-bots there as dumb as could be. I've never liked this lawsuit from the get-go. I always told you all some of the Drake fans even said is because, oh, I, you know, I'm protecting UMG. I always just thought the lawsuit wasn't cool. And what I mean by it wasn't cool is that it was attacking basic fundamentals that is the core values of all rap beefs. And I thought I couldn't support the lawsuit even if I do think that the, are heinous and false allegations made by Kendrick Lamar who clearly, you know, put, I would think, a stigma on Drake.

These claims could not be, I couldn't support any judge granting defamation when I love murder music, indictment music. I love when niggas dissing a dead ops. I love when, again, I know Drake fans want to act like Drake is the first person to be offended, but trust me, disrespect has a long history in hip hop. So when I didn't like the lawsuit, I always told y'all why. I support a lawsuit in two ways, but not necessarily cause I'm blaming defamation on the label. The label should let the artists publish what they want.

Okay. However, I do think that if Drake had a reasonable argument about his contractual situation with UMG, he should file it. What does that mean? And I know Drake fans, you know, I'm not trying to talk. talk to Drake fans here, but, you know, I'm trying to address what I've seen. They're like, well, his reasonable argument is that they devalued him with the diss song to send third. Again, I was waiting on the smoking gun for where Drake could tangibly show, hey, I went to these people and asked them for 600 million. They said the price was too high.

Next thing I turned around that these motherfuckers are promoting a song like it's going out of style. dissed me with a bunch of lies in it, and then they came back and offered me $200 million. That's a haircut of $400 million. That was definitely some incorrect business practices, and I would probably be down with that. Again, I'm not with, I love disrespectful music. I love disrespectful music.

I love it. This is what I love it. There's nothing more I love more than that. I love when niggis disres. your dead granny, your dead mama, you're dead man. That's my type of songs. I'm sorry.

Like, I don't know what you're... Yo, blast his ass. Like, y'all loves songs like that. These are my type of songs. Now, with me not liking this lawsuit, it's me understanding that no matter how much I like Drake as an artist, I can't rewrite the rules if I like other things in hip-hop. Okay?

Now, do I think that someone being called a PDF? is down the road of defamation. I actually do. I don't believe you go at the publisher. I don't believe you go at the label. I believe you go at the person. So I've always stated that if Drake was going to file the lawsuit, he should file it at Kendrick Lamar.

Kendrick Lamar engaged in what most people could say is defamation. And I don't think UMG is liable for it. But we're going to get some new context of how the courts actually view this whole thing. And it's actually really enlightening, but I wonder how that's going to relate to how even the Megastallion versus Milagro Cooper case is going to pan out. And by the way, another thing that is mentioned here by UMG lawyers that was affirmed by the judge in her motion to dismiss this case was actually a case that had to do with ironically Star from Star and Buckwell, his name is or government name is Troy Terrain. We're going to read into all of these things, but let's get to it and let's break it down piece by piece. Now, the order came down today. I think most people were shocked.

I was shocked that it was granted, given the fact that Drake and his attorneys cited multiple times that they spent a lot. of money not only trying to serve people they spent a lot of money try to gather evidence in trying to to prove their point and I'm surprised that a judge wouldn't allow them based on the resources and the measures they went to try to prove this point at least allow him to get to trial the judge says this ain't no case okay so here it is the opinion in the order is or Graham versus Universal Recordings. This is out of the Southern District out of New York. And the judge's name is Jeanette Vargas, who's a district court judge.

And it says the case arises from perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre's history. A vitriolic war of words that erupted between superstar recording artist, Aubrey Drake Graham and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth or Kendrick Lamar in the spring of 2024. over this course of 16 days, the two artists released eight so-called discracks with increasingly heated rhetoric, loaded accusations, and violent imagery. The penultimate song of this feud,

Not Like Us, by Kendrick Lamar, dealt the metaphorically kill shot. The song contains lyrics explicitly accusing Drake of being a pedophile, set to a catchy beat and a propulsive bassline, Not Like Us went on to become a cultural sensation, achieving immense commercial success and critical acclaim. Now, this part is written up by the prosecutor.

I think she's a sign the order. Both Drake and Kendrick have recording contracts with the defendant, UMG. Drake alleges that UMG intentionally published and promoted the song Not Like Us, while knowing that the song insinuations that he has sexual relations with minors were both falls in defamatory. Drake has brought this action against UMG for defamation. Harassment in the second degree in violation of the Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. And before this court is the defendant's motion to dismiss due to Rule 12B6 of the civil proceedings.

Let's go read that rule. We're going to go through this really meticulously. So I want you guys to be knowing that. Okay. So rule 12, so rule 12 B six. Here it is B. Wait, hold on. 12.

A, that's going to be B six. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wow. Okay, so that was the motion for the dismissal. Because the court concludes that allegedly the defamatory statements and not like us, are non-actionable opinions. The motion to dismiss is granted. Actually, this is, well, the judges, this is an order, actually.

Here's a legal standard. To survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter. except it is true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on his face. A plaintiff may not simply allege facts that are consistent with liability. The plaintiff must nudge. The complaint must nudge plaintiff's claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. Okay. When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true or,

all well-pleaded allegations and draws all reasonable inferences and favorable of the non-moving party. The court does not credit legal conclusions couch as factual allegations. However, the court may also reconsider documents incorporated in the complaint and the reference and matters of the judicial notice may be taken. judicial notice is appropriate when a matter is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction or can be accurately readily determined from the sources whose accuracy cannot be a reasonable question.

Okay. A lot of words salad and I know you guys are saying, what the fuck does that mean? Okay, they're using some legal standards why they think this motion should be granted, which eventually did. So here's the background. It says the following background is largely taken from the allegations in amended complaint,

which are assumed true for the purposes of the motion. Additionally, the defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of certain extrinsic evidence pursuant to Rule 201 of law 1. the federal rule of evidence. These exhibits include lyrics of the song, release as part of Drake and Kendrick Lamar's rap battle. Now, I want to pause it there because I don't want to keep reading.

And again, we're going to get into the weeds. We're going to get into the weeds with some of these stuff. Essentially, and I think this is a huge ruling. And by the way, most of the case law that was used in here are hip-hop case laws. But I do want to say to y'all. The judge in his overall ruling is saying that if two people in the context and the tradition of what hip-hop is are going back and forth with disrespect or disrespectful songs, aka this songs, there is much more latitude to what can be said about one party if both parties are engaged. So essentially, by the mere fact that Drake chose to engage in a rap. battle he almost understood that there was going to be mud slinging and mud slinging that he would also be

doing as well based on that it's also understood within the culture of a rap battle that a dis or a disrespect is not necessarily seen as fact is seen as a opinion by usually the person saying that's going to be a big thing because again the supreme court nor any federal district court will not cast an opinion or give their ruling on any type of thing that is going to impede the first amendment right which they're saying that if someone has an opinion on something that is protected which means if kendrick thinks that drake is a certified whatever in the context of not only rap where that would be seen as an opinion, but also in the context of once you engage in a rap battle,

you know what it means. That's what they're saying there is no defamation for, okay? Let me keep reading. The following background is largely taken from the allegations in the amended and complained. Additionally, the defendant, which is Drake. No, not Drake. I mean, UMG.

Request the courts take judicial notice of certain extrinsic evidence pursuant to Rule 201. These exhibits include the lyrics of the songs released as part of the feud. The dates on which these songs were released and the lyrics of these songs are not reasonably subject to dispute. Okay. And the songs themselves are, with one exception, all reference in the amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will take judicial notice of the exhibits H through I and K through O to the request of a judicial notice to understand the defendant's alleged statements and their necessary power and context. Judicial, uh, okay, all right. Exhibit B and are directly lines, reference, and relied upon a plaintiff's amended complaint.

Plaint, let's go down and see what that is. Where is the exhibits? Do you skip them? Okay. We probably skipped them. All right. We're going to just keep going through it one at a time, right? Okay.

So let's get to the factual allegations. When you're reading a civil complaint, you want to get to the factual allegations because that's going to be what is going to be supposedly proved, right, by the plaintiff, right? The plaintiff is saying that Drake is a recording artist, prominent one at that, among other public facing endeavors. He's at a successful music career, that's a fact. The defendant through UMG publishing group holds exclusive publishing and distribution rights to Drake's music as well of that of the artist, Kendrick Lamar. Now, this is actually really telling. It says that Drake's publishing is actually within the...

house of or is within UMPG which we don't know if Drake owns his publishing we just know it's being administered by UMG which I know some of you I might be like what the fuck does that mean Drake's catalog and also Drake's um publishing is with UMG who why do I keep think he's going to leave UMJ it's on April 19th Drake released a this strong director at Kendrick Clemph It was called push-ups. In push-ups, Drake marks Lamar's height and shoe size. You big stepping with a size seven man's on.

Pipsqueak pipe down. And he questions Kendrick Lamar's success. You ain't in no big three. I'm the top of the mountain, so you're tight now. You just have to just to have this talk with your ass had to height down. A few days later, Drake released Taylor made freestyle in which he used an artificial intelligence-generated voice of the cease rapper Tupac and Snoop Dog

to gold, Kendrick Lamar. In the track, Tupac and Snoop share their disappointment that Kendrick has not responded to push-ups. See example, it says, Kendrick, we need you, West Coast Savior. You seem a little nervous about the publicity. You got to show this fucking owl

who the boss on the West. Okay, whatever. said Drake in his own voice for the taunts, Kendrick, for failing to come up with a satisfactory response, saying, I know you're in that New York apartment. You're struggling right now. I know it. In the notepad doing lyrical gymnastics, my boy.

He also surmises that Kendrick was purposely delaying the response because the artist Taylor Swift had just released an album. He says Swift, the biggest gangster in the music game, right now. She got the whole P.G. Lang on mute, like that Beyonce challenge. Y'all boys quiet for the weekend. Lamar then fired off at Drake on a song called Euphoria, which was released on April 30th. And in the track, Lamar claims, I make music that electrify him. You make music that pacify him. And that he would spare Drake this time. That's a random act of kindness. Huh

Know you a mass I'm manipulated And a habitual lie or two But don't tell no lie on me I won't tell no truth on you On May 3rd The feud between Drake and Kendrick escalated As they lob increasingly vicious

And personal accusations That over the course of the day First Kendrick released 616 in LA Okay He accuses Drake of plain dirty With propaganda And he wraps that Drake If Drake was street smart

He would have caught on That his entourage was only there to hustle him Drake's next response arrived later in the day In a song called Family Matters where he jabs at Kendrick's relationship with his partner Okay He says you to black messire Wifing up a mixed queen And hit vanilla cream to help out with your self-esteem On some Bobby shit you know I want to know what Whitney need

He And implies that Kendrick physically abused her You a dog and you know it you just plate sweet your baby mama captions always scream and save me you did all that you did her dirty all her life trying to make some peace

more of her drick calls him a question whether Kendrick Lamar is the biological father of one of the kids I heard him little kids might be day free huh now it says almost immediately after the release of family matters

Kendrick unleashed a scathing meet the Graham's track, in which he accuses Drake of being a deadbeat father and hiding his existence from his other children. You lie about your son, you lie about your daughter, you lie about them other kids that's out there, that's hoping that you come. Paul's buddy. Lamar also alleges that Drake has a gambling problem,

drinking problem, a pill popping and a spending problem, bad bitch with money, whorehouse soliciting women problems. problem therapy a lovely start he further insinuates that Drake was a predator and Drake should die so all these women can live with a purpose the next day on May 4th Kendrick released a song Not Like Us and it's explicitly named that because it says according to yeah it basically says not like us says Drake and his his associates are

PDFs. Jeez. Okay. Specifically, the track contains these lyrics. Say Drake. Heard you like him, young.

You better not ever go back to sell block one. To any bitch that talk to him and they love, just make sure you hide your little sister from it. They tell me, Chubs, he's the only one that get the hammy downs.

Party, he's at the party, but he played with his nose now. Baca, got a little bit of weird case. Why is he around? Certify love a boy, certify PDFs. Wop,wop, wop, wop, wop, wop, Wop. Fuck him up. Wap, wop, wop, wop, wop.

I'm doing my stuff. Why you troll like a bitch, ain't you tired? You were probably trying to strike a chord, but it's probably a minor. Okay. On the fifth, Drake responded with the song called The Heart Part 6, directly denying the allegations of pedophilia. I've never been with no underage, no one under rage. But now I understand why this is the angle that you really mess with just for charity.

I feel disgusted. I'm too respected if I was fucking young girls. I promise I would have been arrested. I'm too famous for the shit that you suggested. Drake is not a name that you're going to see on the sex offender list. Huh. Okay. Not like us was a huge commercial success.

It's gained immense popularity on streaming and social media platforms. And it's been streamed globally. believe more than 1.4 billion times on Spotify alone as of April 2025. On November 8th, the Recording Academy nominated Not Like Us for several Grammys. And in February 2025, it won record of the year. A week later on February 9th, Kendrick performed Not Like Us during the Apple Music Super Bowl halftime show. The performance is alleged to be the most. watch Super Bowl halftime show of all time with 133.3 million viewers. Okay.

Now, I feel like I'm getting slow into this, right? Okay. Let's read the judge's opinion. Oh, before we get to that, this is important. It says the fact versus an opinion. It says under the First Amendment, there's no such thing as a false idea. Only assertions of facts are capable of proven. False. Moreover, the New York Constitution provides the absolute protection of opinions, okay?

Thus, court must distinguish between statement of fact, which may be defamatory, and expressions of opinion, which are not defamatory. So I hope you guys understand what's being said. If someone espouses their opinion, that wouldn't be a defamatory statement. and have the full protection under the New York Constitution. Whether a challenge statement is a fact or an opinion is a legal question. The plaintiff argues that it's inappropriate for the court to determine at the pleaded stage whether a reasonable listener would perceive the recording as fact or an opinion. Yet, because this is a question of law, New York courts

routinely resolve this question at the motion to dismiss stage. Okay. So essentially, they claim they're answering the question of, does this song meet the burden of it's being presented as a fact, not as a opinion? Okay. Okay. All right. So they addressed it at this stage, da, da, da, da,

whether a statement is a factor of opinion is a question for the course of law, is decided based on what the average person is hearing or reading and the communication would take to mean and is appropriately raised at the motion to dismiss stage. Okay, great. Holding to that, because whether a statement is the fan material presents a legal issue to be resolved by the courts,

the definition actions are particularly suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Particularly, there is a particular vague in resolve or value, I mean, value in resolving defamation claims in the pleading states so as to not protract litigation through a discovery and trial and thereby chills the exercise constitutionally and protects the freedom.

Cool. All right. In distinguishing of fact of opinion, three factors guides the court. One, whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood. whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false, and whether the full context of the communication in which the statement appears on the broader social context and the surrounding circumstances are such as to signal readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely an opinion.

Hmm. Interesting. Interesting. Okay. So look at least. So look at the look. like this is the court kind of like, you know, looking at this motion to dismiss and saying, let's figure out if most of this stuff was presented as a fact or just as an opinion. So the court is conducting this inquiry through the lens of a reasonable listener. In Levin v. Maffee, the plaintiff suit is focused on a single factual message conveyed by the recording, the false allegation that Drake is a PDF. The recording is myupically focused on end-tenth, ensuring that

I can't read today on ensuring that listeners didn't take away one message from the song is Drake a PDF the statement has a readily readily understandable meaning and is capable of being proven true or false but even

accusations of criminal behavior are not actionable if it's understood in context they are opinion rather than fact okay surrounding circumstances. Next, the court considers the full context of the communication in which this statement appears. All right, this ain't insane much.

Let me get to the meat and potatoes is bullshit. Give me one second. By the way, this order did come down today, so give me one second. Okay. All right. All right. So let me, again, I want to speed through this a bit because this becomes voluminous. and I don't want to just like say a bunch of word salad

without you guys understand exactly why this is actually being dismissed for the people who are drink fans listen don't worry here's some Kleenex you'll be fine we're all grown what we're going to try to understand is what the judge is thinking right because I do believe that this case being dismissed at this stage is you know from I've spoken to some legal minds it's kind of unusual right but it's clear that the

judge, at least in her purview, she's using one test on if this case should survive. What is this test that she's using? The test is, hey, did Kendrick say this and say it as a fact versus an opinion?

Also, they're taken into the forum in the context of how this was said. This was said in a mudslinging contest, a rap battle, a place where disc songs are released after each other to disrespect the person and it's understandable and expected that there will be disrespect or denigration

via music. Okay. A rap this track would not create more expectation in an average listener than the lyrics state sober facts instead of an opinion of the, the, wait, a rap this track would not create more of an expectation, the average listener, that the lyrics state. sober facts instead of opinion, then the statements at issue in those cases. For example, in euphoria,

Lamar calls Drake a master manipulator, a habitual liar, and a scam artist. Drake responds in family matter by heavily implying that Kendrick is a domestic abuser. He also raps that he heard that one of Kendrick's sons may not be biologically is. He heard that it might be Dave. I'm playing.

Let me stop. Why would you ever, why would you ever, why you never hold your son and tell him say cheese we could have left those kids out of this don't blame me I heard one of them little kids might be day free in meet the grams

Lamar takes issue with Drake involved in his family in their feud saying that dear Aubrey I know you probably thinking I wanted to crash your party but truthfully I don't have a hate and bone in my body this supposed to be a good exhibition within the game but you fucked up the moment you called out my family's name

why you had to stoop so low and discred to some decent people. In the same track, Lamar alleges that Drake uses the weight loss drug Ozmpic. Don't cut them corners like your daddy did. Fuck what a Zempic did.

Don't pay to play with them Brazilians get a gym. Lamar also insinuates that Drake knowingly hires sexual offenders. Grew facial here because he understood being a beard just fit him better. He got sex offenders on OVho.

that he keep on a monthly allowance and a particular reference in a tailor-made freestyle, Drake challenged Lamar to make the pedophilia accusations at issue using artificial generated voice of the cease rapper Tupac. Hmm. It is in context when you say such lyrics that, say Drake, I hear you like him young. The similarity in wording suggests that the,

strongly suggests that this line is direct callback to Drake, lyrics in a prior song. The plaintiff argues that the court should ignore songs that came before and assess not like us as a singular entity. So basically, they want to judge this as a singular entity, and I would imagine this is why it's getting dismissed. The plaintiff argues that the court should ignore the messages that came before. Okay, we read that. The plaintiff contends that the court should not consider those other tracks in assessing how the average listener would off the recording would perceive the

allegations regarding Drake. There's a number of flaws in this argument. Not like us cannot be viewed in isolation but must be placed in an appropriate factual context. And this is immuno AG versus more, blah, blah. Statements must be first viewed in the context and in the order for courts to determine whether a reasonable person would view them as expressing or implying any facts. Here the factual context is the insults and trash talking that took place between or via these this tracks and weeks leading up to the publication of Not Like Us. The songs released during the rap battle are in dialogue with each other.

prior songs and then respond to insults and accusation made by the rival. The songs, thus, must be read together to fully assess how the general audience would be perceived in the statement. So basically, they're on a level of saying, let's figure out what a normal person who's a fan would look at this case or even have a demeanor to this case because if the regular fan think this is an opinion, what the fuck are we going to do, right? Notably, the Second Circuit rejected the second argument in Terrain. Now, this is important right here.

Troy Terrain, in case, Starr and Buckwell, actually, um, he, he had a motion dismissed after he sued someone because they called him a PDF and they called him a predator and all that type of stuff. When he sued them, they argued that the district court improperly

considered the statements that, uh, All right. I don't know. Okay. All right. The district court properly considered all the statements made during the feud between all the disc jockeys and regardless of what they were included in the complaint. Moreover, more over a while the plaintiff is correct that the intended audience for the recording is a general public and not a subset of rap devotees or Kendrick Lamar fans. The recordings in the rap battles were likely released to the general public.

those were not songs accessible to the select niche few but tracks released by commercial successful artists were interesting I'm trying to get a quick breakdown here because there is a lot going on to it did my man let me one second okay

perhaps most fatally for the plaintiff's argument it would render protection for artistic impression expression dependent on an impermissible retroactive analysis. At the time he released not like us, Kendrick Lamar could have not been aware

it would be breaking record streaming win record at the year at the Grammys or being featured in a Super Bowl halftime show. Yet the plaintiff would have the court divorced the recording from the context in which it was created because those subsequent events. Whether the publications constitute

actionable fact or protect opinion cannot be cannot vary based on the popularity they achieve constitutional guarantees does not rest on such a flimsy foundation the plaintiff counters and says that

if the recorded and protected opinions at the time of its initial publication UMG publication or republication of not like us in the months following after it achieved its unprecedented level of success exposes it to liability.

This argument is logically incoherent. If the recording was not actionable opinion at the time when it was introduced, then the republication would not expose UMG to liability. Okay, they are going into the weeds here. Jesus Christ. Give me a second, man. They are going crazy. I'm not going to a lot of you.

Give me one second. Okay. Well, Drake's defamation lawsuit against U.S.C. Has been dismissed. And I'm not a lawyer, but y'all know I read all 38 of them pages. So here's a recap. Let's start with the judge's opening words for the order, which says, quote, this case arises from perhaps the most infamous rap battle in the genre's history.

The vitriolic war of words that erupted between superstar recording artists, Drake and Kendrick Lamar in the spring of 2024. Over the course of 16 days, the two artists, released eight so-called disc tracks with increasingly heated rhetoric, loaded accusations, and violent imagery. The penultimate song of this feud, Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar, dealt the metaphoric killing blow. The song contains lyrics explicitly accusing Drake of liking children, set to a catchy beat and propulsive baseline. Not Like Us went on to become a cultural sensation,

achieving immense commercial success and critical acclaim. Now, Judge, are you a fan? Now, as a reminder, Drake was suing UMG for defamation, harassment, and violation of the New York business law. One of his main points in this lawsuit was that UMG defamed him when they published, promoted, exploited, and made money off of Kendrick's song, knowing that what Kendrick said in that song was false and dangerous, particularly the A minor line, him being Malibu's Most Wanted, and then the song's cover art, which was of Drake's house with offender icons all over it. So first up are the lyrics and the overall message of not like a, which was that Drake is a person who engages with young children.

And the question the judge has to answer is, were those lyrics meant as an opinion and therefore they fall under free speech? Or are they meant to be taken as fact and therefore defamatory? And according to the judge, context matters here. The judge says, although the accusation that Drake likes young kids is certainly serious, the broader context of this being a heated rat battle with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants would not incline the reasonable listener to believe that not like us impart verifiable facts about Drake.

That doesn't stand. Moving on to the album cover art, the judge says that this too is just an opinion and no reasonable person would view the image and believe that law enforcement had in fact designated 13 residents. Now, I want to say I stray away from some of the judge's opinion here. And by the way, I was, you know, again, even though I will admit I do not like this lawsuit. I always thought it was weak and flimsy. I will say that the judge blanket dismissal is a little bit shocking to me.

I mean, some of these things that Drake is bringing up, even though it's supporting the defamation and maybe the business practice count, I'm with Drake on this. If you put his house with a bunch of those things, I think to the average listener who is not that too, in, they might think that, oh, isn't Drake being investigated or accused of a crime? I think that would be reasonable. In Drake's home as offenders.

And so that also is dismissed. Up next is the harassment claim. And for this one, the judge basically says that New York does not have a civil cause of action for harassment, meaning harassment is not something you can sue for in New York. It seems that in New York, harassment is a criminal matter, meaning it's something you report to the police, not something you sue over. And even in the exceptions where you are allowed to sue for it, the judge says Drake's case doesn't meet those requirements. And you can even see here, the judge notes that courts routinely dismissed civil harassment claims as not cognizable under New York law.

So lyrics, imagery, and now harassment dismissed. The last claim for the lawsuit was the violation of New York business law, and this had to do with UMG allegedly using their resources to make Not Like Us more popular than it was. Drake's team claimed that UMG used bots. They paid influencers and radio DJs to play the song. And they claimed that UMG got Spotify to redirect searches for Drake's music to Kendrick Song. And to this, the judge says, even if all of that is true, how did it harm consumers, aka the audience, which is a requirement for this New York business law. According to the judge, in the complaint... Oh, wow, and we're going to get to read that, but check this out.

that particular portion of the law is not about protecting Drake, it's about protecting the consumer. So they're like, the consumers could still access the product. The judge isn't going to make a determination on about which rapper is getting promoted more, promoted less. They just want to know, is the consumers access to these artists altered, which supposedly wasn't? Drake and his team never claimed that consumers were harmed because they had to pay more money for something

or that they bought something they wouldn't have otherwise purchased because of a misrepresentation or that consumers received less value for something that they did purchase. At most, according to the judge, UMG engaged in practices to make Not Like Us seem more popular than it actually was without connecting that activity to any consumer harm. And therefore, this claim must also be dismissed. And so the entire lawsuit has been dismissed. I think Kendrick on the way to the studio right now. Okay.

We'll get back into it a little bit. So, right. Tone and language. Now, this is kind of important here, right? So it says a tone and language. Now, the recording can only be reasonably understood as an opinion is reinforced by the language employed in the song. The court examines the tone and apparent purpose.

loose figurative or hyperbolic statements, even if deprecating the plaintiff imaginative expression cannot constitute actionable defamation. A court may also consider whether the general tenure of the publication negates the impression that the child's, Challenged statements imply defamatory facts about the plaintiff.

In Rapport, and I don't know what case this is, I think it's Barsoor versus Rappaport. For example, the court concluded that the tone and apparent purpose of the disc track, especially considering the hyperbolic and vitriolic words and imagery, further reinforced for the audience that the video is not to intend to reflect an accurate and factual assessment of Rappaport. The district court faced no difficulty in concluding that the context of this disc, reasonably this track video reasonably signals the viewers that the challenge statements are prejudiced of paninated viewpoints of bar-stool defendants. The Second Circuit affirmed that the district court analysis included that the name, nature of the tone of the surrounding language can function as a strong indicator,

the reasonable reader to the reasonable reader that the statement is not expressing or implying any facts. Not like us is replete with profanity, trash talking, threats of violence, and figuratively in hyperbolic language, all of which are indicia, or I would say indicative, of opinion. A reasonable listener would not equate a song that contains lyrics, says, ain't no law. Boy, you ball boy. Fetch Gatorator something since 2009. I had this bitch jumping with an accurate, accurate factual report.

So basically, they took some lines that ain't about nothing and they said, no one would listen to this song and say, oh, this is all facts, right? No reasonable person, okay? according to the reasonable listener of not like us accordingly a reasonable listener of not like us will conclude that kendrick is rapping hyperbolic virtuperations and the plaintiff contains contends that in determinative the lyrics in not like us expresses factor opinion the court must consider the subjective view of listeners as well as commentators in the rap industry and press who understood the recording image and video as an attempt to convey a precise factual information and the amended complaint sites uh extensive extensively to comment

extensively to comments and posts from YouTube and Instagram that expressed the belief that the recording had exposed the truth and that Drake was truly engaged in pedophilia and sexual violence against children. Wow. But distinguishingly, between fact and opinion is a question of law for the courts

to be decided on based on what average person is hearing or is reading the entire communication to meet. This dispositive inquiry in which a reasonable listener could have concluded that the statements were conveyed were

conveyed facts about the plaintiff. The courts had made the determination by looking at the full context and surrounded circumstances of the challenged communication. The court that based upon a full review of context in which Not Like Us was published, a reasonable listener would not conclude that Not Like Us was very conveying objective facts about Drake. The video expressed by blah blah blah and other YouTube, okay, who are these YouTubers?

Instagram commentators quoted in a complaint do not have the court's analysis. In a world where billions of people are active online, support for almost any proposition, no matter how far-fetched and fantastical and unreasonable, can be found with little effort due to any number of comment sections, chat rooms, and servers, that some readers may infer a defamatory meaning from a statement that doesn't necessarily provide or render the information. friends reasonable under circumstances. Jesus Christ, this reading is long chat. I haven't a lot of you. I am going to a lot of you. This shit is so long. Give me one second. Where's it a little legal? Oh, let me listen to. Okay, it's Inner City Press, Matthew Russell Lee,

here in Foley Square. And what we can announce is that late this afternoon, Judge Vargas, has dismissed Drake's lawsuit against UMG recordings, Inc. This is actually the lawsuit about tenterical Mars, not like us. And we covered it. We covered the back and forth about the bots, about various theories of harm. But in a 38-page decision just issued late this afternoon, Jeanette A. Vargas, district judge, says, in essence, because the court concludes that the alleged defamatory statements, and not like us, are non-actual opinion, the motion to dismiss is granted. This case is dead. Now, of course, I believe it will be appealed. It will be appealed. But that's why she took so much time.

It was long ago that we live-tweeted the oral arguments. She goes through all the factors. She wasn't very convinced about the box business. But there's a key sentence. There's a key section where she talks about the First Amendment. And she basically says that no reasonable listener would have believed that this was a statement of fact, that the rap genre and hyperbole is a word that she uses, results in the inability to sue for defamation in this case.

tone and language, that the recording can only reasonably be understood as opinion is reinforced by the language employed in the song. Okay. So let me just give my thoughts on this entire thing. This was always a weak-ass lawsuit from the get-go. I like Drake. This is a weak lawsuit. It's a weak lawsuit in the fact that, again, if you listen to disc music, I, listen, I don't like that there was a false allegation put against my guy. It was false.

but such is the case with hip-hop people call people R words people say really nasty things about each other so the idea of suing the publisher and I kind of look at it like in the media sense you're suing the publisher which you know at first he was going at DSP's radio and UMG they would be the publishers of said material

I thought he should have sued Kendrick Lamar. Now, what do I think about the decision? I think this was going to be a landmark precedent case. And I'll give you an example. I just went to federal court. And Meg Nostalian and then they got me in federal court. And during my deposition, they asked me a question.

They said, yo, how's you get this DNA report that you tweeted? my exact answer was I wouldn't tell y'all even if I knew then I said I don't recall in the hearing that I went before the judge shout to my man Brandon Day the honorable judge Brendan Day he pointed out that while

making his ruling on the order which if you don't know his ruling is that I'm going to sit for another short deposition but they can't ask about Drake Steak and Nickin and all the stuff they got to keep it to this one particular subject or follow-up questions regarding it. But I'll tell you why I told you that. I told you that because this becomes landmark situations.

In the motion with me, they, the judge made it very clear. He actually went on like a five-minute, like, soliloquy saying, hey, Mr. Allen, what we have here in New Jersey is called a shield law that protects journalists and media company. He says, hey, listen, I'm not making a decision that will be, that any other future cases should look back at this case to see how I treated either you as a media company or newer media people that might be streamers. There's a lot of precedents. That's how court works. if one judge says this behavior results in this, usually most other judges,

when queried with a similar decision, they'll make the same or the similar choice. Okay? So that's important. Now, it works opposite for Drake. Because if Drake motion, well, you know, it could have still went to trial. but what this motion definitely said is that

it's not going to protect people in a rap battle from getting your feelings hurt and had they said there was merit to this case I would imagine that we would see much more lawsuits fly off because yo you call me you call me fat in a diss song you said this about my relative or you said that about whatever that caused me emotional damage.

I need some money. And from what we could see is that the judge in this Drake situation is categorically denying and will not make it a, he doesn't want to start a precedence that anybody who gets dissed. Now, I got to keep referencing Drake fans because they always lose me when I'm speaking to them with this one point because they always say nah man it ain't the same yo that ain't the same if somebody call you a PDF well under the eyes of the law somebody call you fat or a PDF while they might have different um weights and values in how it could be how how how both of these you know insults or whatever could probably proportionately affect your career or your your business

On face value, it's disrespect, right? So the point is, if they allowed or they said Drake's legal battle is all the way fine, and this even goes to a trial, you don't even know what might happen there, what ends up happening is everybody's going to get sued because you have now opened Pandora's box. So I believe the judge didn't want to open Pandora's box and basically said to Drake, yo, this was this person's opinion more than it was a representation of the facts. So because of that, defamation, which requires a bunch of things, not only it requires malice, it requires, it requires malice.

You got to be able to prove the damages that this deposition. Oh, not deposition. This defamation is caused. And with all of those things, you could get a favorable look in a defamation case, right? But this judge stopped at this first checkpoint here and said, yo, this is opinion. Now, I disagree with it. I don't believe some of these things are only just kicked as not necessarily, this is my opinion and whatever whatever.

I think Kenjah kind of puts a little bit more mustering it to kind of make it look like, bro, this guy did some shit. I'm going to be honest with you. The judge didn't agree though. Not necessarily, this is my opinion and whatever, whatever. Oh, never mind. I'm playing that. Where is it?

By the way, this was a, this expected drink PR machine is a bit more. measure it in light of this. Sophia just email me this one sentence. We intend to appeal the court's ruling and we look forward to the court of appeals reviewing it. Okay? I asked replies to Sophie asked how much

her company's paid to send these press releases. That is, of course, not expecting her to tell me, but if she's going to solicit questions, why not throw one out there so far? No reply. You could tell Meg, don't fuck a Drake. mega what are you called again

Megan Cuniff Okay All right I do want to continue to read And I know some people say Yo That other woman already

Summed it up I just wanted to read The last part of it Which is usually This is the full like thing Okay actually that woman did Some of them pretty good So

Second degree of harassment They're saying They can't recognize A cause of action to recover damages from this. This is more of a criminal thing, not a civil thing. Got that. Mixed opinion.

Although pure opinion cannot constitute actionable defamation, which is very important. This is kind of going to bleed, even though it's two different district. This is Southern District of New York. Malagra Cooper's cases in the, I believe, Southern District of Florida. You know, Megynastalian is suing people for defamation. and I'm wondering how much, you know, again, I don't know fully what Meg either did or whatever, but it looks like this might be a similar rule in which I'm surprised that didn't get thrown out as well because, yeah, people gave their opinions.

If you listen to my deposition with Meg's people, we gave her opinion. I give my opinion and they don't like my opinion, right? So you hear a judge says pure opinion cannot constitute actionable defamation. Now, that's very important because I do. think that in this change in times people are now trying to bully people's opinion and and call it defamation right um a mixed opinion which is an opinion that implies that they that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it that is actionable wow okay so a pure opinion is not actionable but a mixed opinion is

actionable but the mixed opinion is defined as an opinion that implies that based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reasons actionable okay the mixed opinion holds the implication that the speaker knows certain facts unknown to the audience which supports his opinion and are detrimental to the person about whom he's speaking about whether statements constitute mixed opinions constitutes a legal question which must be answered by considering the context of the entire communication

and of the circumstances in which they were spoken or written whether the average listener would reasonable understand the opinion as implying the assertion of undisclosed facts justified the opinion. Okay. Just as the overall context of not like us,

it forecloses the argument that his lyrics, that his lyrics can be read as factual assertions. The same context negates any implication that Kendrick Lamar's lyrics are based on undisclosed facts. So they're saying that what Kendrick is saying is what's called a pure opinion as opposed to a mixed opinion. So mixed opinion would be like, Yo, that nigga over there?

He's an R word. Don't ask me how I know, but I know some shit. I've seen the shit. He's an R word. Now, that would be a mixed opinion, as opposed to me saying, that nigga is creepy or that nigga that nigga looked like an R word or,

yo, he probably is an R word, right? One's a pure opinion. one is acting like I have facts that everybody reading it don't know. Okay, where an audience may anticipate the use of epitiths. So now they're bringing back in the context. And when they mention the context, right, it's a holding to where statements are made in circumstances where an audience may anticipate the use of epitence,

fire, rhetoric, and hyperbole, inference could not reasonably be drawn that assertions were based on undisclosed facts. In the context of this rap battle, rap this battle, no reasonable person would listen to Not Like Us and assume that Kendrick Lamar uniquely had access to credible, provable facts that Drake, that revealed Drake to be a PDF. I'm going to be honest with you. I disagree with that.

The way how Kendrick was talking, it felt like he was going to reveal many things that he really had a kid, that Drake may have a crazy case that. a crazy case that he's hiding into, which we've now found out, like, that's not the case at all, right? The plaintiff's arguments in the lyrics that not like us can be read

to suggest Kendrick's reliance upon undisclosed facts being availed. The plaintiff first posits that the line, Sajric, I hear you like them young, indicates Lamar has heard from an outside source with evidence confirming that Drake is a PDF.

As discussed infra, however, that ignores this line is reasonably understood to be a direct response to Drake's challenge to Lamar in Taylor Made Freestyle. Okay, wow. So it's coming to pass that Drake's Taylor Made Freestyle bid him in the ass. They're using it against him, as judges, they're saying,

yo, you invited the nigga to say it about you. You guys are in a rap battle. He's not saying it like, yo, I got the info on these people. He's saying it as a pure opinion. What more do you want, right? He says, talk about Drake like in young girls. Heard it on the button podcast.

It got to be true. So this lyric clearly prods Kendrick Lamar to discuss pre-existent rumors about Drake's interest. and minors. Lamar's response lyrics are thus akin to the accusation

of pedophilia in terrain that the Second Circuit concluded constituted pure opinion. There the Second Circuit concluded that a reasonable person would understand based on the context that the defendant, this jockey, was

using the term PDF in response to directly pertinent comments made by the plaintiff during their warfords and not relying upon undisclosed facts. The plaintiff's next point to the lyrics. Rabbit holds so deep. I could go further, I promise.

Plaintiff argues that a reasonable listener could view the lyric as suggesting that Kendrick has specific evidence to back up his assertion of pedophilia. It is also not all that clear that this natural that this is a natural reading of the lyric

wow by the way look look how much stuff they try to put to support it hard part six only fucking with Whitney's not Millie Bobby Browns I never looked twice at a teenager to understand the relevancy blah blah okay yeah they're putting

all the shit in the shit God damn chat give me one second just give me one second Shall I pull this shit up? Okay, I can't pull it up. Anyway, what do I think this means for, what do I think this means for Drake's career?

I believe Drake, I believe Drake's situation with Republic slash UMG is going to be fractured. I don't care, no matter, I think they put out a statement saying, hey, now we could go back to promote this music or whatever the case is. Yeah, that sounds good.

But I think what Drake comes up, kind of got himself into is that Universal's like not only do we just give you the whipping in court now we got a really humbly o'ass because we can't have you in the position where you think you could just willy-nilly go ahead and file some type of civil suit that kind of fucks up our business so I definitely do believe I believe 100% that UMG is going to be looking at how much money they had to spend here and they're going to get that off the back of Drake I'm sorry to tell you rock with Drake and everything but I think they're going to look at look at that to say, Drake, one way or another, we're going to get that money back from you,

brother. Okay, one way or another. Relations with minors were false and defa. In some breaking news, Drake's defamation lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar is not like us, has been dismissed. Let's read what Judge Vargas had to say. This case arises from perhaps the most infamous rat battle in a genre's history, the vitriolic war of words that erupted between superstar. Okay, we read that already.

The court accepts as a true all well pledged allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. And then they cite the next source. The court need not credit legal conclusions couch as factual allegations, however. Now, the judge went over this due process unfairly. And I tried to tell people who wanted to listen to OVO docket all day. They are posting bias. I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that they're posting bias information.

I think everybody has a spin of this information. Again, I think Kendrick fans, I think they were wrong and I think Drake fans were wrong. Because they're looking at it from a Kendrick and a Drake perspective. This was always bigger than Kendrick and Drake. This was about you need to set a precedent for music, right? By the way, I do think that there's parts of Drake's lawsuit that, you know, could be refiled. Right? I think Drake has a but oh I got to see if this shit was dismissed with prejudice okay here we go here we go

his motion to dismiss is granted it actually doesn't mention prejudice so it looks like it could be refiled again yeah so if you ask me if but I think Drake would have to expose himself I think Drake does have maybe some argument about, hey, this company is working against me contractually. Now, I don't think he wants to open up that Pandora's box because you're going to have to take the lid off all the UMG, you know, whether it's secrets or whatever that they've even helped you with. And again, I don't know if he'll refile that, but I do think the defamation should have always included. Kendrick. It should have included Kendrick maybe and UMG, but at this point, this looks so

fractured. Even if he refiles, I think the momentum behind is definitely gone. It never made it. Motion to dismiss. Okay. Everybody posting Kendrick likes going out of style.

All right. All right. Now, I always said that, you know, for the people who had thoughts and were hopeful that Drake's lawsuit was one for the artist, and he was fighting against the man. A lot of people said that because they were like,

yo, yeah, why are you like defending UMG a little bit here? Which I wasn't, but, you know, people felt like I was not as pro-Drake as I should be. I've always disliked this lawsuit from the perspective of, if Drake was trying to do this for artists, you need to rally the artists. Drake hasn't said a single word about this lawsuit himself.

It's like it's just kind of going on in the background lawyers are doing what they're doing. They're milking all of these artists combined, just like charging through the ass for hours. And I think Drake failed to let people know what the plight was if he was trying to go on an artist measure. He's trying to go for, hey, I'm doing this for all artists. I think nobody knew what the fuck he was doing

and probably thought that he was just a sore loser. So that became a big problem, if you ask me. Did he post anything to his thing? More life, my brother, Ovio, Nico. So Drake seemingly is ignoring this. Yeah. Is this the thing where everybody's reacting to it? Oh, no.

Yeah, I don't know what it becomes of this, man. Let's go to Ovio documents and see what they're saying. They're appealing the ruling. Anyway. All right, man. Okay. Chat. Um,

I felt like that was, kind of like long and drawn out because y'all just on face value just ask me whatever questions y'all want me to just directly answer about this this particular um motion to dismiss again you know i'm repeating myself but i thought i thought the case would have survived all the way to trial i still didn't think drake was going to win i think there was many things that needed to be proven and i don't think that he even came close to prove like some type of conspiracy that the universal like universal music group

somehow cooked up to try to devalue him and then promote Kendrick's song which became like the biggest diss song of all the time. It's a little bit out the weeds. I got to be honest. Let me go check on

King Academics. You say if he appeals, he looks more goofy than he did without the beard. I mean, I got to imagine that Drake spent a million dollars on this. Now he's a billionaire, but I do think that the loss optic-wise doesn't look good. It actually makes him look like an amateur. And again, that's my guy, but it does make him look like, you know, this is a motion to dismiss.

I'm so surprised that this motion to dismiss was granted. Will Drake ever address this? I don't know if he will. I haven't asked him about it. I don't know. Anyway, let me move on. We might jump back to it. Really quickly, Tim Westwood has been officially charged with several counts of sexual assault, aka R word.

Okay? Now, it said the former BBC Radio 1 DJ Tim Westwood has been charged with sexual offenses against seven women, including four counts of R word. Now, this is a criminal case, not even civil. The Metropolitan Police say the 60-year-old guy had been charged with offenses dating from 1983 to 2016. Now, Chad, what does this mean? They literally think this guy is the Bill Cosby of the UK. You get what I'm saying? Except what Cosby was to say?

He used to be told him about Jello. Shit, look like this nigga had tea and crumpets for these chicks. Like, he probably was Bill Cosby and the tea and crumpets. I know it's not funny, but come on now. Metropolitan Police says a 68-year-old had been charged with the offenses dated from 1983 to 2016. Officers said their investigation remained open and urged anyone with further information to come forward. He has been charged with 15 offenses related to seven young women, four counts of R-word, nine counts of indecent assault, and two counts of sexual assault. The alleged violence include the R-word of a female age between 17 and 18 in London between 95-96, as well as,

sexual assault of the same girl in central London in a similar time period. He's also been charged with R-word and sexual assault of a female age between 17 and 18 in London between 2000-2002. The R-word of a woman in her 20s in London in 2010. Other charges include indecent assault of a 17-year-old girl in Fulham, London in 1983, sexual assault of a woman in her 20s. Oh, wow, this is a lot of shit, man. Yeah, this is a lot, a lot of shit. Our investigation remains open and we encourage anyone who has been impacted by this case or anyone with information to come forward to speak with us.

They got a hotline for this nigga, man. Shit. Wow. Now, he was released by BBC one extra, like, I believe like two years ago. But they're saying in 2022, they published an account of 18 women who accused the former DJ of sexual misconduct and predatory behavior. alleged to have happened between 1992 and 2017. In response to historical allegations, he previously struggled to deny the allegation

of an appropriate behavior. He stepped down from a show on Capital Extra in April 2020 and left Radio 1 and Radio 1 Extra after 20 years. He says it takes courage to come forward. That's what Detective Superintendent, Andy Furry said The woman have done so

Put their trust in us and we continue to provide them With all available support Our investigation remains open Wow Hmm he's due to appear at the Westminster Magistrate Court next month. So it's not even clear if he's... Has he been arrested?

Or is he being detained? I can't tell. Hmm. Now, this was announced early on... Unlike all these BBC stations. Listen to this. Now, let's return to that breaking news of the last few minutes. Just let me remind you what prosecutors here in the UK have said

They have charged the former BBC radio DJ Tim Westwood with four counts of rape, nine counts of indecent assault and two other counts of sexual assault. So those details coming in in the last few minutes. Here in the studio with me is our senior UK correspondent Seema Ketcher. And Seema, just tell us a little more what the Crown Prosecutioner have actually said in the last few minutes. Yes, right. So Matthew, as you say, Tim Westwood, 68-year-old, used to be a DJ on one extra for many, many years. He has now been charged with nine counts of indecent assault, two counts of sexual

assault, four counts of rape. Now, these relate to non-recent offences between 1983 and 2016, involving seven women. So they're not recent. And he's going to appear at Westminster Magistrate's Court on the 11th of November. We can tell you what the CPS say. They say that they've decided to prosecute Tim Westwood for a series of serious offences, our prosecutors have established that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active and that the defendant has the right to a fair trial. I can bring you a few more details from the Metropolitan Police about these allegations of these offences. He has been charged with the

following in 1983, a 17-year-old girl was indecently assaulted in the Fulham area of London. In 1986, a woman in her 20s was sexually assaulted in the Vauxhall area of London between 1995 and 1996. A female between the ages of 17 and 18 was raped in London. It is also alleged that the same woman was sexually assaulted in... You know, again, and pardon me, maybe I shouldn't even ask this, but how is all the shit going down? How is all of this bullshit going down? Like, is he, like, inviting him over to where he lives at?

Like, is he partying with these people? How come there's so many 17-year-olds? He's 68 now. Huh. Central London within the same time frame. Between 2000 and 2001, a female between the ages of 17 and 18 was raped and sexually assaulted in London. In 2010, a woman in her 20s was raped in London. in 2010. A woman in her 20s was sexually assaulted in Stroud. In 2016, a woman in her 20s was sexually

assaulted in the Finchley area of London. As I said, these charges relate to these, sorry, charges relate to seven different women. A couple of questions. Remind people watching around the world a little more about who Tim Westwood was. How long did he work for the BBC? When did these allegations first emerge? And has there been any reaction from him or the BBC? Yes, so he worked on one extra for many, many years, one of the most famous DJs at that time. And some of our viewers and listeners may recall that in, let me just remind you of the day, the 22 in April, the BBC actually carried out an investigation where it heard from 18 different women making very serious. Yeah, now, you know, Tim Westwood, I only seen from the entertainment aspect.

So I want to be just careful. I don't know what he had going on. I don't know what culture he was fostering from what I'm hearing. When you hear that this amount of women, clearly he must have something going on that continually to put women in harm's way. Obviously, if any of these women are victims, we send our, you know, prayers to those people. But we don't know what this is.

Now, he's been like, you know, these rumbring, of, yo, he did X, Y, and Z has lasted for the last few years. But I'm also really wondering because he was the premier DJ in the UK that was connecting with all the hot artists from the United States. I'm wondering how many of his colleagues knew about this or maybe it's new to them as well. Do they know that some of this stuff was going to come out? Because, again, the investigation, I felt like I kept hearing this rumbling for like years To the point that I was like, nah, I ain't nothing going to happen out of this.

To now he's actually charged. So we're going to have to see. Counts of indecent assault and two other counts of sexual assault. So those details coming in in the last few minutes. Here in the studio with me is our senior UK correspondent, Seema Ketcher. And Seema, just tell us a little more what the Crown Prosecutioner have actually said in the last few minutes. Yes, right. So Matthew, as you say, Tim Westwood, 68-year-old, used to be a DJ.

on one extra for many, many years. He has... Okay, so not too sure what's happening there, but, you know, I think it's important that, you know, he keeps his presumption of innocence. And, but I will say this don't sound right. When you have multiple people and look like they're all, you know, within very suspicious age.

And I guess I'm saying that because, you know, I don't know what the law is there in the UK, but I mean, it kind of shouldn't matter, like especially if you're in your 40s, just generally you shouldn't be wanted to date a 17-year-old or deal with the 17-year-old. Dan's a project. What up with you, brother?

He said, your, Ack, you became my new go-to for late-night content. Thank you, my guy, thank you. By the way, great interview. I was watching while I was on stake earlier. Great interview with 6-9, man. Dan's going to go get the content. I haven't gone a lot of you. will.

All right. So, okay, so I don't really know what's going on, but it appears that everybody weren't that surprise. Like, I think from us, I could imagine the bloke to be doing such things like this. But when these allegations came to light, everybody in the UK, none of them was like, what? Everybody was like almost on some about time shit. So I don't really know.

And I don't want to, you know, just kind of like say something to make him look crazy. All right. I got to fix my sleep schedule, man. These late-night streams are not hitting. I can't even lie to you. I do want to cover this, but I'm not going to cover it tonight. Okay, chat, and I'm going to have to apologize, chat, because I ain't going to lie in there. I am tired.

Remember, I was wired off for coffee. I still only slept like three hours, so I'm like done, bro. So tomorrow, I'm going to have to catch up on sleep tonight. Anyway, so Derek Groves, the only inmate, from the New Orleans prison that escaped that you know kept his head low and he was escaped and he was out for 145 days. It was actually finally captured yesterday. This was a picture of him being taken into custody now the ironic situation around him being recaptured and this is a video of him actually being put into the cop car and while the video is on him, you see him winked to the camera. Oh, he kisses blows a kiss to the camera.

This is the look of a motherfucker who you could tell. I don't know what his charges or when he was supposed to really get out, but he enjoyed every 145 minutes of that freedom, man. Every, not 45 minutes, every 145 days of that freedom. Now, if you're wondering why he got caught, this is, you know, still speculation, but they're claiming that reportedly him and his girlfriend was arguing. And somehow the police were called, and that's when they realized he was there. Someone says a WSP, WSB, I'm guessing WSB TV,

just reported that a neighbor said he had been living there with his girlfriend. Then the neighbor said that they heard Derek and his girlfriend fighting early morning, and a few hours later a SWAT converged on a neighborhood. I bet nobody called the New Orleans tip line at all. The girlfriend probably got mad and ratted him out. Give me a second. Let me just look at this. Now, he was returned to a court where he had this to say.

This is what he said in court. Where is that? Where is it? And then authorities emerge with a man in custody. His hands appeared to be zip tied behind his back. It appeared that he was cooperating with police and not resisting their arrest. This is him in court. Do we have dirt ropes?

If you can come up, sir. I'm right here. Have a seat, if you don't mind. Good morning. So, sir, I'm Judge Wolfe. This is your extradition. I'm going to go over your rights so you can decide whether you want to waive extradition or not. You're wanted out of the state of Louisiana for aggravated escape.

I'm going to explain to you first what happens if you decide to having it. Why, when these niggas like escape prison, they're always in the most obvious place. It's like these niggas, these niggas trying to go to Magic City or something. What the fuck are you doing in Atlanta, bro? Like, what are you doing? Now, granted, like, I kind of know the answer. So it's a rhetorical question in a sense. Like, clearly, you know, he was, which find these guys can't be that hard.

They're going to be hanging out with an ex-girlfriend, a baby mama. They hanging out with a sneaky link. They're going to be at somebody's house. And this is why when people say, you know, why are you not in Mexico? This guy has nothing. He goes to Mexico, like his ass will be, shit. His ass will be in a fucking chalupa, all right? Like, they'll get his ass to fuck on out of there.

Like, everybody thinks they're going to escape. Like, you're going to run. You escape to Mexico. And then you and Pablo and Juan are going to be like fucking building tunnels like El Chapo, nigga. No, the fuck you're not, nigga. They're going to kill your ass in a jiffy. All right?

Get you the fuck on out the way, give you a one-way ticket to heaven to a juice world concert, nigga. Like, they don't give a damn. extradition hearing, then what will happen if you decide not to have one? So you have the right to an extradition hearing if you choose. You have the right to hire an attorney to prepare for and conduct that hearing. If that's your choice, I will postpone the hearing for a reasonable time, 60 to 90 days, for you to obtain counsel. The law does not give you the right to a public defender or appointed attorney for purposes of extradition.

If you choose to have the hearing, I will re-sacred case 60 to 90 days to a defendant. allow your attorney to prepare for the hearing. At the hearing will be three issues. Are you the person named in the warrant? Did the governor of Louisiana sign the warrant? And what you're charged with in Louisiana, is that a crime in that state? I cannot consider your guilt, innocence, the merits of the case, or evidence connected with the underlying case. If after the hearing, I determined that the requesting state Louisiana has met its burden of showing those three things, then they would have approximately 15 business days to pick you up. If they don't, Then you'd be brought back before me.

Yeah, Derek Groves, man. Listen, you know you can't beef with your bitch when you want to run, man. You know, as soon as you say something wrong to her, man, she definitely called the cops on this nigga. And also, Derek Gross, you fuck this up, bro. You lasted 145 days out of jail on the run. Nigger, you know this chick probably on Section 8 that you was fucking in living with her. I mean, at least wait until she get her tax refund check in January or February

that you could blow it in a month. mall or something. Damn, nigger. How are you going to get locked up before the holidays, my boy? No turkey, no stuffing. No,

no gifts, no, no nothing. No refund check from the IRS. You can't even claim your stupid ass as it depends. Well, you can't do that, but I'm just saying, bad timing, my boy, you got to realize you live

and it's probably one of them ghetto bitches. Because, and by the way, I wonder why she not charged. How is she not charged? She doesn't have the fugitive up in her crib Making scrambled eggs for this motherfucker Flipping pancakes for him While he's over here flipping her left right and center

And piping her down And you're trying to tell me that They don't get her locked up for aiding and a bedding You don't, what? Yo, yo, it's so it's a good thing. Again, you know, obviously there's a pros and cons But yo, it's such a good thing to be a woman When you think about cases like this

If this was a nigger that was housing him the whole time, You're getting charged. Aiden and a veteran, you know, I mean harboring a fucking fugitive, nigga. You're going to jail. But this chick, all she got to do is she just called the cops. They're not going to arrest her because she's technically a victim. Chad, how much you want to bet that the argument they were having, even a nigga on the

run, going to have another bitch. I guarantee you, word to, word two, word two. Even a nigga on the run going to have another bitch. I guarantee the argument, the last argument before she called the cops, they was arguing about another bitch. I'm telling you, even a nigga. on the run got a second hole, bro. I'm telling you.

She probably got to the point of saying, man, if I can't have you to myself, let them niggas have you in jail. Elcio, what up? You say, yo, I imagine leaving the country should be easy. I mean, it's not like they check going into Mexico or thoroughly checked ships, right? Yo, so Lcio, here's the thing.

Yo, y'all be watching too much breaking bad. Yo, these niggas, yo, first of all, he's living off of his chick. That's why he's crashing at his chick's house. It's not like these, like y'all watching too much like Jason Boren shit where the nigger breakout and some Tom Cruise shit, he go to some random location, open up a briefcase with $50,000 a gun and three passports, my nigga.

That's not happening. This thing is broke as a joke. So you think he's just going to go to Mexico with his two long hands and he's going to be fine? Hell fucking no Resources do matter So when you say that Why can he go to Mexico With what

Who you think he's going to go to Mexico And motherfucking El Mancho is going to be like Oh shit I'm a criminal, you're a criminal Come over here, brother Fuck no They'll have this little nigga on a skillet That nigga, listen They would have had that niggas

sprinkled like ashes All over Guadalajara nigger all over Coolia Khan, nigger. They'd be singing caritas about this nigga until next year. Do you think it's sweet over there? Do you think it's Cancun? Do you just think you just walk over to Mexico

and it's lit? Fuck no. Shit, I'm pretty sure you thought about it. And then he said, man, I'm staying in Atlanta, man. You know, yo, I don't even got to know his girlfriend. I already got a picture of her. Some big, fat, black chick. She got two jobs

He provides some good penis for her He's giving her that You know he's giving her that shit And I'm telling you He probably got comfortable They got locked up there and there's the boxes You know he was done slanging some dick Feel me?

One of the big fat black chicks Who looked like they're sweating Margarine You know what I mean? Like some butter Lord, yeah Shout to those type of chicks Because those type of chicks

gonna take care of you man That's the fact. Ain't no pretty bitch staying with no bum-ass nigga who was a fusion. Fuck out of here. A bad bitch, a bad bitch shacked up with a fugitive. She would have been exposed that nigga

because them host take pictures every 35 seconds. He would have been in the back like, bitch what the fuck? Like trying to duck the flat hell now. I know what type of chick he was with. Them type of chick's got two jobs, good credit. They could cook.

And really, all they need is a skinny chicken chest nigger that could pipe them down good. Them chicks tired of using the rose toy. They just want a nigger. That's a fact. Those are the type of chicks who also usually become COs and fuck the inmates too.

Yeah. I just think he's stupid. You can't argue with the girl. Or when you start bucking back at her, you got to hit the race. Somebody said you escape prison, you fucking everything? Where are you fucking everything at? But I'm telling you, this is how much niggins ain't shit.

I guarantee the argument they had wasn't on some, yo, man, get your, yo, get your fugitive inmate ass on out of here. I'm paying all the bills you ain't doing shit. All you keep doing is playing the PlayStation like little oozy. Nah, I guarantee the argument was over another chick. I'm telling you, even a nigga that's on the run. Go have a side chick. Trust.

Trust me, brother. You don't believe me? We'll figure it out. Anyway. And I would consider releasing you. If after the hearing, I were to find that Louisiana failed to prove those three things, then you would be released. You also have the right to waive or not have that extradition hearing if you choose. If you waive your hearing, then Louisiana has approximately 15 business days from today to come get you.

If they don't, then you'd be brought back before me and I would consider releasing you. However, you may be held up to 30 days before being released. Regardless whether you're released in Georgia, you are subject to arrest again at any time, as long as this Louisiana warrant remains active. So even if you are released, you may wish to consider returning to Louisiana to have the matter resolved. Also, the media is here. I want to let you know. They filed the...

Always girl got charges a conspiracy to commit... simple escape. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. Some fairness of the law. I didn't know that. Thank you for that. It's GA. What up? Appropriate paperwork is called Rule 11. Yeah, the nigger was probably trying to steal an EBT car, man. God damn. Nigger using an EBT car to buy some Fortnite skins, man. She'd come in the crib of this nigga. You know what it is? That nigga was probably in the middle of like subscribing to one of these scallywags on only fans with security's car and she walked in a room like oh hell no and that was signed by one of our judges our chief judge and so they are here as well you also have the right to remain silent so let me just ask though

do you have any questions about your extradition rights no and do you want to challenge extradition or do you want to return to louisiana don't want to return well from you want to go back to louisiana yeah okay so i do find you freely voluntarily and knowingly what is why is he and And how long he got to serve? Because this thing looked like he came from the best vacation. This nigga looked well rested. He looked well rested.

Look like, you know what I mean? He got his mental, right? Look like he ready to go knock out a couple of years. He good. You're waving your extradition. Right. So I'm going to sign the paperwork. And that's all we're going to do here today.

Thank you, sir. Okay. It was keeping a low profile. They described him as intelligent, polite and manipulative. Chat, this is the girlfriend right here. Wait. His girlfriend, Dariana.

Oh, no, no, this is back in the day, I guess. Girlfriend Dariana Burden, a former, da-da-da, arrested for allegedly helping inmates escape. Yeah, this is the type of girls, I would imagine, yeah. Who's a new chick, though? Who's a new chick? We've got to find out the new chick. You're going to tell us, oh, we need to, look.

Anybody seen him? Yeah, go. I can tell you there's a truckload of cash for his arrest. It's a truckload of cash, y'all. Yo, I wonder if did the baby mama who called the cops, did she get the money? Or look? It's always a chick like that, Chad. And they always work as like a CEO or something like that.

They fucking all the inmates, bro. They fucking all the inmates, bro. Damn, damn. Let me see. I'm trying to see who the girlfriend was Or the girlfriend now Because I think this was the girlfriend back then I don't know

I don't know Or it might be current All right Anyway Any quick topic I gotta go fix my sleep schedule gang I haven't going to lie to you That won't be tired of me

But I gotta go fix this sleep schedule I'm not even drunk I'm just tired Who's she's showing off all his cars Wayne buying Swiss Beets. This is like a million dollar car. Holy.

It's a 6x6. Six by six. This truck for my birthday. You know what I mean? Now, I could, you know that I like to go camping with the family. So this is, now we can pull the airstream with the

six by... No, Wayne must really love Swiss Beasts. I mean, I guess Swiss Bees did... Um... What did Swiss B's do? He did Matt Bees for Wayne, right? We got Taylor Swift. All right, yeah, I get into some of the Taylor Swift shit tomorrow.

Oh, yeah, I get into Taylor Swift and Bad Bunny shit tomorrow. So Taylor, not only with sales, but Taylor talking about Jay-Z and Bad Bunny and the supposed boycott that they're going to do it. I'm going to get into a little bit politics tomorrow, honestly, because we're going to have to once we're told about Bad Bunny, we got to talk about Ice, and then we got to talk about attorney general Letitia James not being charged in a fraud case. Right? So I guess we'll cover that.

And then Bia hit me up today. She got my number. So I don't know if Bia trying to call into the stream, but we'll probably do it tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll do that one tomorrow too. Yeah.

Chat, I got to go fix the sleep schedule, man. I'm about to go take a nap, bro. So I know. I'm sorry, but I got to go stream earlier tomorrow. But I got to take a nap and fix my sleep schedule because the coffee. Fucked me up yesterday and I drank another coffee today that fucked me up again today because I did not sleep Anyway chat, I'm gonna be back on tomorrow man. I'm sorry for the for the for the short stream Oh, the cool kicks Rico shit. I got to like write this down then

Give me a second So what we got some more? We got first. I think we got Jim Jones reacts Reacts to MeatNack right? We have cool kicks Rico General Letitia James indicted Bad Bunny Boycott and Turning Point USA All-American game

show Ice Super Bowl Taylor Swift Biggs up Jay Z Cardi B versus Bia versus JT. Okay, I think we got, we have a good basis right here.

We have a good basis. We have a good basis, chat. Should we do a Kodak topic? Oh, we do a David update. David update and Kodak. All right, bad. All right, chat. I'm going to get off here.

I have the topic set up for tomorrow. Let me put this in my, you know. I'll be back on earlier tomorrow. Also, chat, I will be, I think I might be streaming with Aden this weekend. So I'll let you guys know. Okay. Chat, love y'all. I will see y'all tomorrow.

Please get some rest. I need some rest. And we'll continue.