JAY-Z Continues to Challenge Accuser’s Lawyer

Photo by Getty Images

JAY-Z has reportedly lodged a motion providing more defenses to his lawsuit against him, alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl at a celebrity afterparty alongside Diddy. The recent court documents reveal that JAY-Z’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, claims that the suspected victim’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, “got basic facts wrong” in his statements.

Hov’s legal team addressed the allegations, citing how Jane Doe’s father had zero memory of the incident. The father also denied Buzbee’s claims, stating that he drove 10 hours from Rochester to NYC to pick up his daughter after the alleged assault. Spiro then took a step further, suggesting that Buzbee should be penalized for presenting the jury with an inaccurate testimony on Doe’s behalf. He asserted, “Mr. Carter seeks only to hold Mr. Buzbee to the ethical standards that constrain any responsible attorney who would solemnly sign his name to allegations in court.”

Spiro’s first attempt to dismiss the case was on January 8th.

Notably, Spiro used this as an opportunity to call out numerous discrepancies in Buzbee’s statements, declaring the lawyer to consequentially receive sanctions. In Buzbee’s recent memo, filed on January 22nd, the lawyer responded to claims made in Spiro’s January 8 letter. In contrast to Spiro’s defense, Buzbee asserts that he verified the accuracy of Doe’s story before filing the motion.

He stated that he “ran a background check on plaintiff and retained a retired police detective to research and confirm other aspects of plaintiff’s account.” “[N]one of those individuals has even been named, let alone produced as a declarant,” Spiro fired back in the new letter. “Nor does the Opposition specify which ‘aspects’ of Plaintiff’s complaint were ‘fact-checked.’” Buzbee then commented on Spiro’s recent letter, voicing, “With every frantic filing the defense in this case grows more desperate. The rules apply equally to everyone, even those who wrongly think they are above the law. No one is above the law. The ‘basic fact’ that is obvious to everyone is that the defendant’s motion is frivolous.”