The Moscow Murders and More

Tony Buzbee And Alex Spiro And Their Battle Over Rule 11 Sanctions (12/31/24)

In a letter dated December 13, 2024, addressed to Honorable Judge Analisa Torres, attorneys representing Sean Combs in the case Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al. (Case No. 24-cv-07975-AT) presented arguments regarding procedural and substantive issues. The letter outlines Combs' legal team's position on specific aspects of the case, including potential conflicts with related ongoing legal proceedings and the sufficiency of the allegations against him. Combs’ counsel requested the court's consideration of these issues to ensure a fair and efficient resolution.

The attorneys emphasized their client's cooperation with the judicial process and reiterated his denial of the allegations, describing them as meritless. They argued that the claims should either be dismissed outright or narrowed in scope to prevent undue harm to their client’s reputation and resources. The letter concluded with a formal request for the court to address their concerns in upcoming hearings, reflecting Combs' commitment to defending himself against the charges while seeking an equitable outcome.

In a response addressed to Honorable Judge Analisa Torres, attorneys for the plaintiff in Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al. (Case No. 24-cv-07975-AT) opposed Shawn Carter's request for an expedited Rule 11 motion. The plaintiff's counsel argued that Carter’s motion was premature and unnecessary, highlighting that Rule 11 sanctions are typically reserved for clear-cut instances of frivolous or improper filings, which they assert do not apply in this case. They emphasized the importance of allowing the legal process to proceed without undue interference or tactics designed to intimidate or derail the plaintiff's claims.

The response further contended that Carter’s request for expedited consideration was an attempt to avoid full scrutiny of the serious allegations brought against him and the co-defendants. The plaintiff's legal team maintained that their claims are grounded in substantive legal and factual bases, warranting careful examination rather than dismissal at this stage. The letter concluded with a request for the court to deny Carter's motion, allowing the case to progress in accordance with established procedures.

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

Microsoft Word - FILE VERSION_Rule 11 letter (15471223_1).docx

gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.50.0.pdf

Duration:: 18m
Broadcast on:: 31 Dec 2024
Audio Format:: other

89% of business leaders say AI is a top priority. But with AI tools popping up everywhere, how do you separate the helpful from the hype? The right choice is crucial, which is why teams at one third of Fortune 500 companies use Grammarly. With over 15 years of experience building responsible, secure AI, Grammarly isn't just another AI communication assistant. It's how companies like yours increase productivity while keeping data protected and private. Designed to fit the needs of business, Grammarly is backed by a user-first privacy policy and industry-leading security credentials. This means you won't have to worry about the safety of your company information. Grammarly also emphasizes responsible AI, so your company can avoid harmful bias. CY 70,000 teams and 30 million people trust Grammarly at Grammarly.com/enterprise. That's Grammarly.com/enterprise. Grammarly, enterprise-ready AI. This podcast is sponsored by TalkSpace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help, but who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? TalkSpace. TalkSpace makes it easy to get the support you need. With TalkSpace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare, you'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, TalkSpace is here for you. Plus, TalkSpace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a zero-dollar copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com, match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space80@talkspace.com. - What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In a recent ruling handed down by the judge who's overseeing the lawsuit filed against Jay-Z and Diddy, she absolutely laid waste to Jay-Z's lawyers for their behavior. Well, in this episode, we're gonna jump into a back-and-forth email that was sent to the judge by Jay-Z's lawyer Alex Spero, and by Tony Busby. And this back-and-forth will give you a little bit of insight as to what the judge was talking about when she reprimanded Jay-Z's lawyer inside of that order. So let's start with the first letter, and this one was filed on December 13th, 2024. Jane Doe, Verschon Combs, et cetera. Dear honorable Judge Torres, we write to the court on behalf of our client, Sean Carter, on a matter of extraordinary and grave importance for the integrity of the proceedings in the above-caption case. Today at 7.27 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, NBC News reported on an interview that its reporters conducted with the anonymous plaintiff in this case. The interview outs plaintiff's allegations for what they are, a sham. Basic facts in her narrative, the who, what, when, and where are wrong? She claims her father picked her up after the assault, her own father denies that ever happened. She claims that she spoke with Benji Madden at the party that night, but he was on tour in the Midwest at the time, forcing her to admit, I have made some mistakes. I may have made some mistakes in identifying. She claims the assault took place at an afterparty at Mr. Combs home, but photos that night show Mr. Combs and Mr. Carter at Lotus Nightclub for the afterparty. When pressed, the plaintiff admitted she was guessing about key details, including the time it took to reach the venue. She admits she has no single corroborating witness over the past 24 years. These stunning revelations make clear that the complaint filed by plaintiff's attorney, Anthony Busby, therefore had no factual basis whatsoever. Even Mr. Busby is walking back the complaint, he put his name to, excusing these glaring inconsistencies by appointing the finger at the case being referred by another firm who allegedly vetted the story before sending it to them. The heinous allegations against Mr. Carter are patently false. The complaint filed by plaintiff's attorney, Anthony Busby, therefore had no factual basis whatsoever. The heinous allegations against Mr. Carter are patently false. In light of those developments, it's now clear that Mr. Busby signed the complaints and other filings in this case and violation of federal rule of civil procedure 11. Under that rule and attorney, who signs a document assumes an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing. Business guides incorporated, first chromatic, comics and entertainment incorporated, 498 US 533 551 1991. The attorney's signature denotes merit in the filing and sends a message to the district court that this document is to be taken seriously, ID at 546. New Alliance Party, verse FBI 858 F.SUPP 425 429 SDNY 1994. Plaintives may not file a complaint in this court without having made a reasonable investigation of the facts. In addition, attorneys who learn about filing a complaint that the factual assertions or false must immediately withdraw the claim. See City of Yonkers, verse Otis Elevator 844 F.2D 42 49 Second Circuit 1988. See also EG, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.1. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so, that is not frivolous. RC 2 Pharma Connect LLC, verse mission, pharma Cal 2022 WL 42 34 552 at 3SDNY September 14th, 2022, imposing rule 11 sanctions for amended complaint that repeated allegation that lacked evidentiary support. Given today's revelations, Mr. Busby almost certainly felt to undertake a reasonable inquiry into the facts before filing the complaint. He should never have brought the claims. See Fox versus Boucher 794 F.2D 3438 Second Circuit 1986. Affirming sanctions order where plaintiffs complain was entirely frivolous and was made as part of a conscious effort to harass the defendant. At minimum, he should withdraw them now, allowing these claims to remain pending even a moment longer, not only harms Mr. Carter, his family, his businesses, his employees, and his legacy. It also impairs the integrity of the judicial system, warts the pursuit of justice and silences the voices of true victims. Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Busby attempted to circumvent the authority of this court to enforce rule 11 and associated obligations by declining to seek admission to this court before signing pleadings and other documents. Mr. Busby has not licensed to practice law in this court, and he has not sought, let alone obtained, admission pro hoc vice. Yet in the nearly eight weeks since he initiated this proceeding, Mr. Busby has filed a complaint in this matter that was signed solely by him using an S signature, signed the amended complaint alongside other counsel that added Mr. Carter as a defendant and noticed a motion for the plaintiff to proceed anonymously accompanied by a supporting brief and a declaration once again only signed by him. Most recently on December 10th, 2024, Mr. Busby filed a letter which he also signed alone. Mr. Busby's failure to obtain admission to the bar of this court is a transparent attempt to circumvent the basic requirements of rule 11 and the rules of professional conduct. Admission subjects and attorney to the jurisdiction of the court and to sanctions for signing pleadings that are not grounded in the facts and the law. Mr. Busby thus appears to have strategically declined to seek admission in order to avoid sanctions for a complaint that he knew had no factual basis. Given these facts, Mr. Carter intends to file immediately a motion to strike the first amended complaint under rules 11, C2 and 12F. He respectfully requests that the court shorten the filing deadline for that motion from 21 days to one day from the date of service in light of today's stunning public disclosures and the severe ongoing harm to Mr. Carter's reputation. C. Fedarsiv P. 11C2, R3A, judge Torres' individual practices in civil cases. Respectfully submitted by Quinn Emmanuel and signed by Alex Spiro. All right, now moving on to the reply by Tony Busby. - This podcast is sponsored by TalkSpace. You know, when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help, but who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? TalkSpace. TalkSpace makes it easy to get the support you need. With TalkSpace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, TalkSpace is here for you. Plus, TalkSpace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a zero-dollar copay. No insurance, no problem. Now, get $80 off of your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space80@talkspace.com. - Dear Judge Torres, buy letter motion filed on December 13th, 2024, defendant Sean Carter notified court of his intention to file a motion, to strike in motion for sanctions immediately. Under rules 11c2 and 12f. As with defendant Carter's prior letters filed in this case, it is histrionic in tone, but substantively groundless. Defendant Carter threatens plaintiff with rule 11 motion, based on questions raised by one single television interview concerning events occurring 24 years ago, when plaintiff was 13 years old. Defendant Carter also asks his court to alter the federal rules of civil procedure in his favor by abrogating the mandatory 21-day rule 11 safe harbor period without any legal support or a factual justification whatsoever. The former is frivolous and the latter is impermissible. Defendant Carter's threat of a rule 11 motion is frivolous because it characterizes run of the mill disputes of fact is proof that plaintiffs can claim is baseless. None of the factual issues Carter identifies are sufficient, even to grant summary judgment in Carter's favor, much less support rule 11 sanctions. The fact that the defendant or a potential witness does not agree with the recollect, the facts alleged in the complaint does not and cannot give rise to a motion for sanctions for filing a baseless complaint. Defendant Carter's threat of an immediate sanction, motion on the first whisper of factual uncertainty is just one more instance of bullying intended to have chilling effects on plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, and any other potential plaintiffs watching the proceedings. A rule 11 motion is frivolous on the additional ground that expecting a victim of sexual assault over two decades ago when the victim was a minor and as her interview revealed also autistic to have perfect recall of all facts is outrageous. Defendant Carter to his plaintiff's words when she accuses her for instance of guessing at the timing of events alleged in the complaint such as the length of car rides but New York courts have expressly acknowledged that plaintiff in this type of case cannot be expected to have exacting recall and command of all relevant facts. See Pazzula versus Roman Catholics, Arc Diocese of New York, 2001 AD 3D 88104 and why appellate division 2021. We recognize that in matters of sexual abuse involving minors as were accounted by survivors years after the fact, dates and times or sometimes approximate and incapable of calendrical exactitude and approving allegations spanning a four year window of time in which the abuse could have occurred. There's no basis for rule 11 motion here and if filed such a motion would itself be subject to a rule 11 motion in response. Of course, we cannot prevent defendant Carter from wasting the resources of this court and all parties in pursuing one. However, defendant Carter's request at the court shorten the filing deadline for his threatened rule 11 motion from 21 days to one day is entirely improper. Carter fails to cite any precedent whatsoever to support this astonishing request because there is none. Carter also fails to cite any reason why the federal rules of civil procedure should be abrogated in his favor in this particular case. Again, there is none. The 21 day safe harbor under rule 11 exists to provide parties in council time to assess the objections being made and to withdraw or modify a pleading or other paper if necessary. FRCP 11C2 Fierro for a Scolucci 423, Second Circuit 2011. The safe harbor period has been recognized by the Second Circuit as a strict procedural requirement, Star Marketing Management Incorporated for a scoon-chung hin-ki soy and sauce factory, Second Circuit 2012, see also Fierro 423 safe harbor requires motion to be served 21 days prior to their filing. It cannot be shortened here because Mr. Carter and his council request as much, whether in an attempt to play gotcha or to exert additional pressure on plaintiff or for any other reason. From the outset, defendant Carter and his council have shrilly maintained an entitlement to different rules and faster procedures from expedited briefing on the issue of anonymity and a summary dismissal of plaintiff's complaint to now a wholesale elimination of the 21 day safe harbor rule under rule 11. In each instance, the goal has been to blur the facts and rush a decision, but there is aggressive advocacy and then there is bad faith. Mr. Carter's latest tactics, much like his open threat to refer plaintiff's attorneys for a disciplinary action cross that line. Moreover, outside of the courtroom, Mr. Carter has employed tactics of intimidation and harassment even more extreme, tortious and quite possibly illegal. My firm recently filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas that details how Mr. Carter's company rock nation and his council have bribed my clients to file lawsuits against my firm, threatened former clients, impersonated state officials and engaged in other behavior far beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Their tactics won't work and they will be addressed in more detail and connection with the party's briefing on plaintiffs anonymity. Like Mr. Combs, Mr. Carter is rich, famous and powerful. Mr. Carter will exert all the pressure he can to intimidate and harass plaintiff me or anyone else. The chilling effect of those efforts is substantial, as is a potential chilling effect of a rule 11 motion being brought in these circumstances. But ultimately in our system, the rules are the same for Mr. Carter and for the plaintiff here and the rule 11 safe harbor cannot be abrogated on his whim. Finally, defendant Carter raises the status of my admission in the Southern District of New York. As with his previous letters to this court, his December 13th letter includes a substantial amount of defamatory suggestions about me, including that I am somehow attempting to circumvent the authority of this court to enforce rule 11 against me. That's nonsense. I'm a member of the state bar of New York and am admitted to the Eastern District of New York. I intend to apply for reciprocal admission to the Southern District. The fact that I have signed pleadings and letters filed in this court does not reflect any attempt by me to evade responsibility for anything. To the contrary, I have signed those pleadings and papers because I am lead counsel in this and other similar cases pending in this district. This was signed by Anthony Busby and it was dated December 20th. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. - This podcast is sponsored by TalkSpace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help, but who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? TalkSpace. TalkSpace makes it easy to get the support you need. With TalkSpace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner or just need a little extra one-on-one support, TalkSpace is here for you. Plus, TalkSpace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a zero dollar copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space80@talkspace.com.