Diddy Thinks That Some of his Sexual Assault Charges Should be Dropped
Diddy attorneys have submitted a move asking the courts to reject Joi Dickerson-Neal’s complaint for sexual assault in part.
According to the Associated Press, the move, which was submitted on Friday, April 26, argues that the troubled Bad Boy entrepreneur cannot be held liable for breaking rules that weren’t in place at the time.
More precisely, the petition asserts that several of the provisions Dickerson-Neal cites in her lawsuit—such as those pertaining to revenge porn and human trafficking—were not in effect at the time of the alleged attack on Dickerson-Neal in 1991.
A judge has not made a decision on the case yet.
In the early 1990s, Joi Dickerson-Neal alleges that the rapper and producer drugged and sexually assaulted her while they were filming the performance.
“This last-minute lawsuit is an example of how a well-intentioned law [New York State’s Adult Survivors Act] can be turned on its head,” he said through his spokeswoman, refuting these charges. The 32-year-old Ms. Dickerson’s story is untrue and made up. She accuses businesses that never existed, even though Mr. Combs never physically hurt her. This is nothing more than an attempt to siphon off money.
The New York City native, real name Sean Combs, was charged in February by a producer called Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones of drugging and threatening him during a one-year period in addition to sexual harassment.
Furthermore, the lawsuit asserted that Ethiopia Habtemariam, the former CEO of Motown Records, was one of the participants in a drug and sex trafficking ring for the mogul’s purported “RICO enterprise.” She was particularly charged with knowing that the wine served at his events was contaminated with illicit substances.
Since then, Jones and his attorney Tyrone Blackburn have dismissed her from the case, and the 44-year-old has released a statement clarifying her role in the dispute.
She said, “I’ve been told and I think Mr. Blackburn has been lying to different social media platforms and news organizations about my agreement to ‘testify against’ Mr. Combs.” This is wholly incorrect. I am not personally aware of any supposed misconduct on the part of Mr. Combs, and I am unable to provide any testimony that would be detrimental to his interests.
