ADW S2 has me so scared for what they may do to ellington, id rather the writers break ellorah up than write him to be some cartoon villian

I’m a Drake fan. But him calling shit artifacts is very weird European of him. J Cole don’t say shit like that

Leon can do more w/ Dara. Dara respect him as a man. Wanda is entitled and manipulative. She been trying to string Leon along the entire time. It’s time for him to get back in the groove #TheDrop #TheDropFx #aSnowfallSaga

After Judge Bloom granted Demoree Hadley permission to amend her response opposing Desiree Perez’s motion for summary judgment, Demoree has now filed the amended response, along with a separate 20 page Statement of Material Facts and supporting exhibits. The amended response argues that Perez’s motion asks the court to accept her version of heavily disputed events as established fact when, at the summary judgment stage, genuine disputes of material fact must be viewed in Demoree’s favor. A major focus is the claim that Javon physically assaulted Demoree in September 2023. Demoree continues to deny that under oath and points to the Miami Dade State Attorney’s close out memo, which states that Demoree consistently maintained that nothing physical occurred, no witnesses actually saw Javon commit a battery, and the audio provided to prosecutors was an illegal recording that was still inconclusive of a battery. The amended response also challenges allegations concerning Demoree’s mental health, suicidal behavior and alleged drug use. Demoree relies heavily on her longtime psychologist, Dr. Luz Berrio, who testified that she never saw a clinical indication that Demoree was a danger to herself or others and never had concerns about substance abuse. A May 2024 letter from Berrio also states that Demoree consistently presented as intelligent and coherent, with no evidence of hallucinations and no reason to recommend hospitalization for a suspected thought disorder. The new supporting record also includes Demoree’s April 2024 12 panel hair follicle drug test showing negative results across every substance tested. Demoree contrasts that evidence with the substance abuse allegations Perez later made in seeking a Marchman Act order. The amended response also develops the timeline leading up to Demoree being Baker Acted. It points to February 2024 emails involving Perez’s attorney Brett Schwartz and the State Attorney’s Office after prosecutors indicated they could not pursue charges against Javon without Demoree’s cooperation. Schwartz wrote that he wanted the “game plan” to include “some type of involuntary temporary commitment” and said he and Desiree were looking into consulting a “brainwashing expert.” The response says Perez subsequently consulted three such experts before March 27. Demoree then connects those communications to what happened weeks later at the marina. She relies on Dr. Daniel Bober’s testimony and other evidence to argue that Perez was not merely providing information to an independent physician. According to the response, Bober testified that the plan was “orchestrated or created” between Perez and Sig 9 and that the landscaping meeting used to get Demoree to the marina was false. The filing also points to Perez’s communications with Bober concerning Demoree’s arrival, her identification and insurance information, taking her phone, restricting visitors and how long the 72 hour hold would last. Demoree argues those communications create a factual dispute over Perez’s role in arranging and procuring the detention and whether she acted in good faith. The Marchman Act is another major issue. The amended response says Bober sent Perez the contact information for a Marchman Act attorney the day after the Baker Act and told her to call him ASAP. Less than an hour later, according to the filing, a petition was filed alleging Demoree was using substances, crushing pills, continually high and incoherent. Demoree contrasts those allegations with her negative hospital toxicology, negative hair drug screen, Berrio’s testimony that she never had a substance abuse concern and statements cited from two other witnesses that Demoree did not use drugs or drink. See replies for more⬇️⬇️⬇️ Amended response: drive.google.com/file/d/1nDe… Material Facts: drive.google.com/file/d/13ef…

🚨 MAJOR UPDATE: Tony Buzbee and The Buzbee Law Firm just scored a major appellate win against Jay Z in California. The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the trial court’s anti SLAPP ruling in full, meaning Jay Z’s claims for civil extortion, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress remain struck. On the extortion claim, the appellate court rejected Jay Z’s argument that Buzbee’s demand letters were unlawful extortion. The panel found the letters were protected pre litigation communications tied to claims that were genuinely being contemplated for litigation, and said the narrow exception for conduct conclusively established to be illegal did not apply. The court also upheld application of California’s litigation privilege to the demand letters, finding they were logically related to anticipated litigation. On defamation, the court found Buzbee’s earlier public comments about unnamed celebrities, facilitators, and other people who could be implicated were not reasonably understood as specifically referring to Jay Z. For the statements that did implicate Jay Z in Jane Doe’s allegations, the court found Jay Z still failed to show actual malice. The panel emphasized that even an inadequate investigation does not, by itself, prove actual malice. Jay Z needed evidence that Buzbee actually knew the accusations were false or seriously doubted them. The court also rejected Jay Z’s attempt to rely on Jane Doe’s secretly recorded interview with investigators who said they were acting indirectly on his behalf. The panel upheld the trial court’s finding that the statements were inadmissible hearsay and raised concerns about how the interview was obtained, including the fact that Jane Doe was surprised at her home and questioned about communications with her lawyers. The appellate court also rejected Jay Z’s request for additional discovery to depose Jane Doe and Buzbee, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to reopen discovery. The result is a full affirmance. Jay Z’s California case against Buzbee remains dismissed under anti SLAPP, all three causes of action remain struck, the Jane Doe interview remains excluded, the discovery ruling stands, and Buzbee is entitled to recover his costs on appeal. This is a major win for Buzbee because the appellate court did not merely affirm part of the ruling. It left the trial court’s decision intact across the board. Appeal’s Court Unpublished Opinion: drive.google.com/file/d/1wjx…

a different world is such a lighthearted and messy show for all these serious theories and think pieces😭