Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Reacts to Disturbing Jay-Z Rape Allegations

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. When a major celebrity just gets accused of raping a minor in a bombshell lawsuit, we got to bring in a high-profile litigator. Enter Ben Shue, Johnny Depp's lawyer, who famously represented him in a trial with competing claims of abuse. We are going to be breaking down right now the new claims. and the legal warfare that's happening in the case of Jay-Z. Welcome to Sidebar.

Starting point is 00:00:35 Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Webber. All right, so we want to continue this conversation on Jay-Z and this massive lawsuit that he's now facing. It is still pretty shocking. The fact that a woman claims when she was 13 years old, she was raped by Jay-Z, Sean Carter, and Sean Combs at a VMA's after party back in 2000. And if you haven't been following our coverage of this, this was a suit that was originally filed back in October by Texas attorney Tony Busby, and it didn't originally name Jay-Z, this alleged attacker was only identified as Celebrity A, but depending on who you ask, there might have been a breakdown in the behind-the-scenes. Maybe we say negotiations is the right word regarding revolving the suit, because Busby ends up filing a lawsuit on his client's behalf, and now he has named Jay-E as a defendant in this amended complaint. Now, Jay Z's version of what happened here is that

Starting point is 00:01:34 he refused to be what he and his lawyers call extorted or blackmailed by Tony Busby. In fact, in a statement in response to the lawsuit, Jay Z said in part, quote, my lawyer received a blackmail attempt called a demand letter from a lawyer named Tony Busby. What he had calculated was the nature of these allegations and the public scrutiny would make me want to settle. No, sir. It had the opposite effect. It made me want to expose. you for the fraud you are in a very public fashion. So no, I will not give you one red penny. And also said in his statement,

Starting point is 00:02:06 you have made a terrible error in judgment thinking that all celebrities are the same. And then later he said, I look forward to showing you just how different I am. Now, Busby also responded on X, denying that this was the case, writing in part, quote, no one has made any threats. Jay Z's assertions are bogus and laughable.

Starting point is 00:02:24 Instead, our firm sent a standard demand letter seeking a mediation on behalf of a woman who alleges Jay-Z sexually assaulted her as a minor. The letter was vetted and approved by our client whose preference was to attempt resolution short of filing a lawsuit. This approach is common in these types of cases. What you are seeing played out now is a coordinated and desperate effort to focus the public's attention on me personally to avoid attention on the allegations being made by my clients. And we learn that Jay-Z is also believed to be the John Doe who recently filed a lawsuit anonymously against Tony Busby,

Starting point is 00:03:00 claiming extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We didn't know who it was, but it seems to be that it was Jay-Z. And now there is also this heated back and forth about whether Jing Doe in this lawsuit should be able to proceed anonymously in her lawsuit. Jay-Z and his legal team are pushing for her to have her reveal herself,

Starting point is 00:03:21 partly because they say Jay-Z has a right to know his accuser, to investigate her claims, to challenge her, it's only fair. Busby counters by saying this is highly sensitive material and revealing her identity could cause her further trauma. Also, there is a safety concern about her identifying herself. And now, in an interesting side tidbit, which we'll get into, a woman allegedly reached out to Jay-Z's legal team explaining her experiences with Tony Busby's law firm

Starting point is 00:03:49 where she is essentially claiming that she was dropped as a client when she refused to adopt a sexual assault narrative that the firm wanted her to proceed with. It's shocking. I'm going to get into that. And by the way, as an aside, let me also say real quick, it's not just us here at Long Crime that have been covering these ditty stories and updates for you. Websites all over the internet

Starting point is 00:04:09 are grabbing readers with headlines like Puff Daddy stays in jail for trying to influence witnesses. Woman sues Sean Combs for raping her. And that is exactly where a platform like Ground News comes in. So what they are is a small independent team that we actually partner with because they can help us deliver just the facts when we report on stories like this. You can go to G-R-O-U-N-D dot news slash sidebar to follow along while I show you how it works with this Diddy story. So we get a quick summary of how Diddy's lawyers

Starting point is 00:04:37 claim prosecutors allegedly unlawfully obtained his jail cell notes, including attorney client privileged information. Remember that? Well, based on every source that Ground News found on reporting on this, the left are clearly dominating coverage, making this a potential blind spot for more conservative news consumers, but it's not just about who's covering the story. It's also about how they're covering it. Well, Ground News calculated, the majority of these articles come from highly credible sources so you can instantly see which headlines are more objective and which might be skewing the facts.

Starting point is 00:05:05 The bottom line here, don't let someone else's spin shape your understanding of the truth. Just head to g-r-o-u-n-d-d-n-d-newsslash-sidebar, or scan the QR code right there, and use our link to save 50% off of the top-tier vantage plan, which offers unlimited access. It's the same plan that we've been using. So thank you to ground news for sponsoring this episode of Sidebar. I have to bring on one of our favorites, renowned litigator, trial attorney Ben Shue, who famously represented Johnny Depp in his very high profile civil trial against Amber Hurd. My goodness, I mean, what do you want to talk about first? You want to first talk about the allegations in the Jay-Z lawsuit before we talk about the legal war that's going on?

Starting point is 00:05:44 What do you make of the fact that he has been identified in this case and the allegations against him? Good morning, Jesse. It's great to see you again. Yeah, these are shocking allegations. And I think he's put out a very forceful statement against them, which I think is a good move both in terms, both legally and in terms of PR, you know, assuming of course that he is innocent of that. I think these are the kinds of allegations that one would expect someone falsely accused to push back on. extremely strongly, which he is now done. For people who haven't read the complaint, let me just give them a sample. It reads, Combs then threw plaintiff toward a wall, again, allegedly 13 years old when this happened, Combs then threw plaintiff toward a wall, causing plaintiff to fall, plaintiff got up and stumbled, at which point Combs grabbed her again and threw her on the bed. At that point, Carter began removing plaintiff's clothes as she grew more and more disoriented.

Starting point is 00:06:46 And then the complaint says that Jay-Z raped this 13-year-old and then did he. allegedly raped her too, and she claimed she actually fought back, hit combs in the neck, was able to grab her clothes, run out of the room. Ben, could she win a case like this based purely on her testimony? If this is so old, you know, maybe there's no surveillance, maybe there's no text messages, maybe there's no forensics, could she win based purely on her account of what happened? She could theoretically win if her testimony were especially compelling, but I think you put your finger on one of the real weaknesses is that these allegations are ancient. One thing that left out to me is the allegations also include that there was a witness,

Starting point is 00:07:33 a witness, you know, other than a ditty who, a female, another woman, her testimony, and obviously she will be subpoenaed, could be crucial. I mean, if that testimony corroborated the plaintiff's claim, then that would be something that would really be a game changer. But the plaintiff alone, I think, is going to face some credibility issues, especially when you have Jay-Z. I mean, Ditty, the allegations are pretty widespread, but there haven't been similar allegations about Jay-Z, and that really sets his case apart.

Starting point is 00:08:12 I believe you're referring to Celebrity B, this female celebrity who was in that room. Do you think this person has settled maybe her claims with Tony Busby? What do I mean by that? If she was present, I imagine that Tony Busby might have reached out to her and said, listen, I can file a lawsuit against you too because of you being there. You were present. You were a witness.

Starting point is 00:08:37 Maybe. And do you think that this is a person who maybe already settled her claim so that she would be a cooperating witness for Tony Busby? case? I mean, tell me how you think that might work. That would be a brilliant move if that's what Busby did, because otherwise he is making really, you know, the worst, the harshest kinds of allegations. And he's signing his name to it. I mean, he referred to his client vetting a demand letter. Well, sure, the client is supposed to vet the demand letter in terms of the factual allegations, but the legal allegations, the legal import of that is in the province of the

Starting point is 00:09:18 attorney. So you can't necessarily just hide behind your client. But were he to have made a deal with Celebrity B, that would really backstop both his client and himself in terms of his potential exposure for being involved in frivolous litigation. But you think Celebrity B would take any kind of? of deal where they have to testify and say, yeah, I was in a room while a 13-year-old was being sexually assaulted. And yeah, I'm not being sued now because I settled my claims. Either way, if this is true and this person knows who Celebrity B was, I can't even imagine even if they were cooperating witness of some kind that they don't look really, really bad from this.

Starting point is 00:10:04 I totally agree. I think that premise is dubious for the reasons you mentioned. I mean, Celebrity B, while it would be a terrible thing not to have reported these crimes, and they're very serious crimes, if in fact they were committed, but it's unclear what if any civil liability Celebrity B would not have, or would have for not being a good Samaritan. I mean, I think the statute on that, to the extent that there's any liability for not reporting had long since been passed. So I don't think she would have any legal or factual incentive to make such a deal. I think her incentive would be not to cooperate at all and to deny that she witnessed any such thing. Right. Let's get into a little bit of this legal

Starting point is 00:10:59 warfare that's going on. What do you make of the fact that Busby revealed Jay-Z as Celebrity A based on what he says was a failure to meet on mediation, that this was a standard demand letter. What do you make of his version of events? Well, I have one problem. I mean, he's right in the sense, as you know, Jesse, that it's standard and it's smart to give a potential defendant an opportunity to settle prior to sending a prior to filing a lawsuit. because at that point, the plaintiff would have kind of detonated the grenade and forced the defendant in a position where he almost has to fight. Whereas when you send a demand letter and say that you're interested to talk and settle the matter on a confidential basis, that is an appropriate

Starting point is 00:11:50 standard thing to do, assuming that you have a legitimate claim. Where I think he's on weaker ground is where he is litigating this in the media and making statements defending himself. One of my mentors always told me, never defend yourself, defend your client, and always remember that you're representing yourself. And the only time you answer any allegations against yourself is when a judge is specifically asking you to.

Starting point is 00:12:25 And I think that Busby crossed that. line in the sense that he's now giving press conferences talking about himself and his own actions when he should be representing his client that's just my opinion but i i think it's i think it's unwise for him to get into a p r war do you think that this is rises to the level of extortion as j z's claims because let me read you a portion from one of their filings to coerce mr carter into compliance plaintiff and attorney busby imposed an arbitrary deadline in their extortion at demand letter, warning Mr. Carter that they would take a different course if he did not agree to a confidential mediation to resolve this delicate and important matter. Without even waiting

Starting point is 00:13:06 for the deadline provided by the extortion at demand letter to pass, Attorney Busby posted on social media that he intended to file a lawsuit naming Mr. Carter and attaching the extortion at demand letter to punish Mr. Carter for seeking redress from a court. All along, Mr. Carter refused to bow to attorney Busby's scheme, faced with a choice to either pay an exorbitant and some to silence plaintiffs wild false allegations of sexual assault, risking a rep or harm to his reputation, family, career, and livelihood, or face a barrage of baseless lawsuits and financial ruin, Mr. Carter stood his ground. On November 18th, 2024, Mr. Carter filed a complaint against Attorney Busby and his law firm for his extortionate conduct. So a little bit what

Starting point is 00:13:45 you said about the media, but what do you take about that version of events? Yeah, I don't have any problem with Busby giving a deadline. You really have to give a deadline. Otherwise, there's no incentive for the potential defendant to ever respond. But what the problem in this scenario is that he didn't give the defendant the full benefit of the deadline. In other words, if you give somebody a deadline, respond by December 27th, you shouldn't say anything until December 27th unless the defendant has already said, no, we're not going to pay, go ahead and file your lawsuit. So I think if you give somebody a deadline, I think you should honor it. You shouldn't act prematurely. If you go public prematurely, you know, it's a badge of bad faith. Whether it is bad faith or not, it's open

Starting point is 00:14:31 to question. But it's, you know, I think you've got to be true to your word. If you want to give them a deadline, let them have until the deadline. Also, I want your thoughts real quick on something else, Ben. You know, the idea that Jane Doe should have to reveal her identity. And A, whether or not the court will say she has to reveal her identity. And B, is that the proper from Jay Z's camp to do. So there's two sides of this. Busby says in part, sensitive details of sexual assault.

Starting point is 00:14:59 Her having to reveal that is incredibly traumatic. The media tension on this case would create a chilling effect from other people coming forward. Combs has made threats of violence in the past, so her, you know, revealing herself could be problematic. Jay-Z argues, look, I have a right to know

Starting point is 00:15:15 who my accuser is to research that person. People won't come over with helpful evidence that could help my case, my defense, if they don't know who this person is, the public has the right to know who she is. She is the one who filed a lawsuit, put her credibility into issue by voluntarily filing a lawsuit. Who's right? I have fairly strong opinions on this since I've had several clients who've been in that position, and I think the Jay-Z counsel is absolutely right on this.

Starting point is 00:15:41 If you make serious allegations of this nature, you shouldn't be able to hide behind the shield of anonymity. These are incredibly serious. I mean, to me, I would rather be accused of murder than rape of a child. If you were going to make these kinds of allegations, I think you have to be revealed. Now, exceptions for that are the ones you mentioned. If this victim or alleged victim were still underage, I think there would be a strong argument for protecting what would be a child. But this is an adult woman at this point. Second exception is the one you also reference the possibility of violence.

Starting point is 00:16:27 Now, that's quite real, and I think that's something the judge would have to weigh, although I don't think there's any indication that any threats have emanated from Jay-Z's camp. Right. But absence something like that, a real showing of potential danger should the plaintiff's name be revealed, I think it's absolutely fair for the accuser's name to be mentioned. And the reason why I think also in terms of the fairness is that if that person's name is out there, then people may come forward. You know, if there have been other, I had a case where we did a similar thing,

Starting point is 00:17:10 that our client was accused of civilly of sexual battery. and we moved the court to have that adult plaintiff name. The court granted that. And when that happened, we got all kinds of communications from the public at large saying, we know this person. And it turned out that person had a lot of skeletons in his closet. And frankly, we would not have had access to that. but for, you know, that information being out there.

Starting point is 00:17:49 So I think, now, Jay, Z's a slightly different situation because he's got a lot of resources and, you know, great lawyers at his disposal. But I think in terms of fairness, the presumption should be that a plaintiff should be named. And look, other courts in other Sean Combs cases have ruled that the plaintiffs, the Jane Does, have to reveal their identities. Anna Kane is one of the most recent examples of that. And by the way, if this Jane Doe has to reveal, herself. It might be a question whether she wants to continue the lawsuit if her name will be

Starting point is 00:18:18 public for everybody to see. Okay, before I let you go, Ben, have to talk to you about this final update. So Jayze's counsel filed a letter with the court saying that this woman called their offices and she says that she had called Tony Busby's firm regarding allegations of sex trafficking and abuse, but she made it clear to them and had nothing to do with Sean Combs. She says, first, the firm representative asked her, when did you meet Diddy? And she reemphasized again, my claims aren't about him. She said that they encouraged her to proceed anonymously, even though she claims she didn't want to. They also allegedly discouraged her from contacting law enforcement. And she said she felt pressured to make false claims about being drugged,

Starting point is 00:19:02 held down, physically assaulted. And she says when she refused to adopt that narrative, Busby's firm dropped her as a client. And the associate who spoke with this woman, recounted this conversation in a sworn declaration with the court. Now, Jay-Z's firm says this is further evidence that Jane Doe, in Jay-Z's case, shouldn't be able to proceed anonymously and that Jay-Z and his team have a right to thoroughly investigate and respond to these allegations. Now, according to TMZ, Busby responded to this, saying this is so ridiculous. If someone calls our intake and has a viable case that we believe has merit and we can pursue,

Starting point is 00:19:38 we will pursue it. We are currently pursuing hundreds of cases against individuals other than P. Diddy, what we won't do is pursue a case that we don't believe has merit. I can't speak to what she told the intake folks to even tell you what this woman claimed if and when she called, but then he says, we certainly don't need to pressure anyone to pursue a case. And he also introduced a filing where he's going to say, I'm going to respond in due time with a memorandum of law and other appropriate means, but he was basically denying this happened. Ben, your thoughts? Well, again, I think Buzzbee's talking too much. I mean, who does he represent? Does he represent himself or does he represent actual clients? I think these are two separate issues. I think this issue really relates more to a potential bar complaint against his firm. I don't know that it will help Jay-Z that much directly because this smacks to me like propensity evidence in the sense that, as you know, judges don't generally.

Starting point is 00:20:38 allow evidence of similar or allegedly similar conduct to be introduced in a particular case. So I think it's a bit of apples and oranges. I think it's potentially true, a real problem for Busby's firm. Not saying it's true. We have no idea. But I think it's a bar complaint issue rather than something that would help Jay-Z. are we in dangerous territory of someone suing someone for defamation because busby filed another letter with the court and he said that the correspondence with the court from j z side is nothing short of defamation hiding behind the thinnest veneer of litigation privilege like i know that there's accusations that are made between attorneys and between you know a defendant and a plaintiff but are we in dangerous territory of defamation suit yes and lawyers have to understand we've had this conversation before another country context. Lawyers have to understand that they're not immune from defamation liability. I mean, sure, when you're in court or you're, you know, making a court filing, there is a qualified privilege and immunity there. But when you step out of the courtroom and you're making statements to the media, you are no more immune than anybody else. And this is where I think there is a conflation among certain attorneys, especially in high profile matters.

Starting point is 00:22:05 to forget themselves a little bit. And again, to make statements on their own behalf or even on their client's behalf that are not privileged. And that really compromises the potential rights of the client because the lawyer is setting himself or herself up for potential defamation liability and the client. Because unless the client repudiates the statement of the lawyer,

Starting point is 00:22:33 that a client can be sued for defamation as well. You know, Jesse Weber, which he never would do, made a public statement on behalf of your client that was false, arguably not only you, but also your client could be sued. Well, we have a case like that right now. So I think, again, lawyers really need to remember who they're representing, what their cause is, and to resist the temptation to make public statements that could be problematic. It's getting ugly, and it's only been three days or four days since all this came out. I'm sure it's just going to get uglier.

Starting point is 00:23:13 But Ben Chu, thank you so much for coming on. Really, really love having your perspective, especially on a case like this. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jesse. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.

Your Ad Here

Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Reacts to Disturbing Jay-Z Rape Allegations

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.