Jenkins Altario

Fan of Anime🪆@NICKIMINAJ 🦄 & Sometimes LIFE 🤲🏽
* Liable To Violate X Terms during Confrontational Replies to MY Tweets *

[Unpopular Opinions @UnpopularAngles]

Everybody called Nicki Minaj a coke head whole time it was Doja Cat and Cardi B. Yikes.

[HOT99 @HOT99NEWSPAPER]

Imagine if Nicki had actually accepted that proposal to free her brother and drop the case. I’m pretty sure they just wanted leverage to use against her in the future. We all saw their playbook they tried to isolate her, claim she was crazy, and say she was on drugs, but it backfired completely and exposed them. They need to free her brother, because I know he's innocent, and free Tory too

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

@Itsdanyeltv STFU with this Stupid Shit

[Justice @MegansLyingToe]

Fought so hard to have the trial in Florida even tho neither lives there bc she knew she had the judge in her pocket. Now she wants to bring it to Texas to bleed her dry. Broke ass, spiteful ass whore. Those lawsuits against her about to drain her dry for being so vindictive!

[Mr Troublesome @1st2bomb]

PSA…
🚨A Shakur family spokesperson just called for justice for the second time — naming P Diddy, Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z, Interscope, Dre, Jimmy Iovine & Tim.
He’s a Digital Underground member who also wrote lyrics 4 The Game and Dr. Dre.
The plot keeps thickening
Via Makaveli Media

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

@TifahCrump777 & thats why I call all of em MEN,
Cause they ONLY want to be women when its time to put them Tacky Ass Outfits / Bad Wigs On OR when they want to fight a REAL woman

[𝒯𝒞⁷⁷⁷ @TifahCrump777]

Trans women will always contradict themselves 😂😂 they’re “women” until it’s time to expose a man for hitting on them.

[𝕄𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕛𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕪 𝔼𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕖 @FeelTheBass86]

He is alleging that Jay-Z knew as well… which would be a conflict of interest Jay-Z’s personal lawyer Alex Spiro represents Tupac’s estate as well

These people know what they’re doing. It’s all interconnected

[ComeWithFacts @ComeWithFacts]

🚨 UPDATE: Tony Buzbee, David Fortney and the Buzbee Law Firm have now filed their motion asking Judge Dale Ho to dismiss Jay Z’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Buzbee’s central argument is that Jay Z cannot establish malicious prosecution because the firm had probable cause to bring Jane Doe’s lawsuit. They argue Doe repeatedly accused Jay Z of sexually assaulting her, signed affidavits and declarations supporting those allegations, and continued to stand by the central accusation. According to Buzbee, attorneys are entitled to rely on objectively reasonable representations from their client unless there is an obvious reason to believe the allegations are inherently false.

Buzbee also pushes back hard on Jay Z’s claim that Doe’s case was inadequately investigated before filing. He points out that Jay Z’s own complaint acknowledges that Doe was interviewed by AVA Law before being referred, that multiple attorneys later interviewed her and fact checked portions of her account, and that a retired police detective was also involved. Buzbee argues the law does not require lawyers to possess enough evidence to win the entire case before filing a complaint.

As for the inconsistencies in Doe’s story, Buzbee argues those issues go to credibility and do not automatically eliminate probable cause. He says Jay Z is relying heavily on details discovered later, including witness recollections, internet research, questions about Doe’s mental health and the February 2025 recorded interview, but malicious prosecution is judged based on what the attorneys reasonably knew when the original lawsuit was filed and pursued.

Buzbee also directly challenges Jay Z’s characterization of that recorded interview as Doe “recanting” or confessing the case was a sham. He asks Judge Ho to consider the full transcript and argues Doe actually continued to say that something happened when she was 13, that it involved Jay Z and Diddy, and that when Buzbee asked whether Jay Z was there, she told him yes. Buzbee acknowledges the exchange was pressured, ambiguous and contradictory, but argues it was not a clear retraction and points out that Doe later reaffirmed her allegations under oath.

On malice, Buzbee argues Jay Z has not pleaded specific facts showing the lawsuit was filed for blackmail, extortion or some purpose other than litigating a client’s claim. He calls those allegations conclusory and argues the obvious alternative explanation is simply that Doe was referred to the firm, accused Jay Z of assaulting her and the firm filed suit on her behalf.

Buzbee also argues Jay Z has not alleged the “special injury” required for a civil malicious prosecution claim under New York law. He says reputational damage, denied credit, lost business opportunities and alleged losses involving Roc Nation do not meet the heightened standard, and stresses that Jay Z cannot personally recover damages allegedly suffered by separate corporate entities simply because he owns an interest in them.

The motion also preserves another issue for later. Buzbee argues there is a serious question whether Doe’s original lawsuit actually terminated in Jay Z’s favor because the parties dispute whether her dismissal was part of an agreed exchange. Buzbee points to communications involving Marc Kasowitz and Alex Spiro concerning withdrawal of Jay Z’s Rule 11 motion, Doe dismissing ten days later and a commitment regarding future interactions. Buzbee says he does not expect Judge Ho to resolve that factual dispute at the motion to dismiss stage and may raise it later at summary judgment.

More below in the replies ⬇️⬇️

Motion to Dismiss/Memorandum of Law:

https://t.co/wORfJn9yza

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

@ZeeGucci @BrownLakis817 @itsmrszolanski @iamcardib Lmfao Stupid Ass bitch tweeting RIGHT NOW but acting like she didnt see this.
Slow & Stupid Just like CARDI

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

@CHUNKYBARBIEE Lmao Nicki aint been to work SINCE the tour Ended!
But let them tell it, she in debt 🤣

[Marra 💋 @CHUNKYBARBIEE]

I don’t remember Nicki having to do brand deal after brand deal after getting off of tour either time lmao that’s how u know labels took all that money

[tommy @tommydprimetim1]

TICKETMASTER’S MASSIVE BRAZIL DEAL HAS BEEN HALTED AND IS NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION.

Investigators will examine allegations that:

Competitors received different versions of the bidding rules.
A rival’s updated proposal was ignored.
A commercial condition may have been controlled by a competitor’s parent company, an apparent reference to @LiveNation.

@LiveNation already controls concerts at the stadium through 2031. Now @Ticketmaster wants the football tickets, premium seating and fan membership program too.

Who wrote the rules, who ignored the rival bid and who was really controlling this deal?

https://t.co/YyIIGMCKnA

[ComeWithFacts @ComeWithFacts]

🚨UPDATE 2: Jay Z v. Buzbee et al NYC:

Antigone Curis and Curis Law have filed their motion asking Judge Dale Ho to dismiss all remaining claims against them in Jay Z’s NYC lawsuit with prejudice.

Curis served as Jane Doe’s local counsel in the underlying lawsuit against Jay Z. She argues that Jay Z’s Third Amended Complaint fails to establish either malicious prosecution or a violation of New York Judiciary Law § 487, which addresses intentional deceit or collusion by attorneys.

On the malicious prosecution claim, Curis argues Jay Z has not pleaded facts showing that she knew or should have known Jane Doe’s allegations were false or that she lacked probable cause to file the lawsuit in October 2024. She says Jay Z instead relies on questions about Doe’s credibility, information uncovered by a news organization after the lawsuit was filed and other post filing issues that do not establish what Curis actually knew when the case was initiated.

Curis also argues Jay Z has not established the “special injury” required for a civil malicious prosecution claim under New York law. She says reputational harm, psychological distress and ordinary financial consequences from defending a lawsuit are insufficient. Curis also argues that Jay Z cannot personally claim alleged damages suffered by Roc Nation.

Curis further emphasizes that she was minimally involved as Jane Doe’s local counsel and says the Third Amended Complaint contains very few allegations specifically concerning her or her firm. She also notes that Jay Z dropped his previous conspiracy claim against the Curis defendants.

As for Jay Z’s new claim under New York Judiciary Law § 487, Curis attacks it on three grounds.

First, she argues Jay Z lacks standing because Curis represented his adversary, Jane Doe, and never had an attorney client relationship with him.

Second, Curis argues § 487 does not apply to alleged attorney misconduct occurring in federal court, pointing out that Jane Doe’s underlying lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Third, she argues Jay Z has not pleaded facts showing that Curis actually intended to deceive anyone. According to Curis, Jay Z’s allegations amount to claims that she “should have known” Doe’s allegations were false based on what an investigation supposedly would have uncovered, rather than facts showing she “did know” they were false when the lawsuit was filed.

Curis sums up that distinction pretty directly, arguing that Jay Z is essentially “pleading negligence while claiming intent.”

Curis and Curis Law are asking Judge Ho to dismiss both remaining claims against them with prejudice. They have also joined and adopted the arguments raised in the Buzbee defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent those arguments apply to them.

Motion to Dismiss/Memorandum of Law:

https://t.co/xISLa8b8h7

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

Thank You God for Allowing me to See another Day 🕊️ 🙏🏽

[Jenkins Altario @RedRubyDaYuji]

@DomaLatrice Exactly.
They want to be called “Women” but also want to demean and hold something over the niggas who deal with them.

[Dominique♍️ @DomaLatrice]

Now, if she considers herself a woman how are they DL— i am genuinely asking

[ComeWithFacts @ComeWithFacts]

🚨 Moments after Duane Keith “Keefe D” Davis was found guilty of Tupac’s murder, a friend of the family and Digital Underground member best known as Young Mass or MassV said something interesting about possible co-conspirators and/or people he believes should be looked into.

Specifically, people who he said “profited off of Tupac’s death.”

He named a few people and record label: Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Jay Z and Interscope Records… 👀

Does he know that Alex Spiro, one of Jay Z’s attorneys, is currently representing Tupac’s estate?

If he didn’t know before, I’m sure he got a call after.

Credit: USA Today
https://t.co/1vea2AiESk

[Tesla Owners Silicon Valley @teslaownersSV]

.@theXtakeover is officially partnering with @regalroomsatx for NICKI NIGHT

The night before X Takeover, come kick off the weekend with us as DJ Southern Belle (@killdadj_) spins Nicki all night long

RSVP: https://t.co/0SLLrxP7gl
Tickets here: https://t.co/155L7GJynF

#NickiNight #XTakeover #TenTen @FeelTheBass86

[ComeWithFacts @ComeWithFacts]

🚨 UPDATE in Jay Z v. Buzbee et al NYC:

Jane Doe has filed a detailed motion asking Judge Dale Ho to dismiss the claims against her in Jay Z’s NYC lawsuit, arguing the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her and that, even if jurisdiction exists, his defamation and malicious prosecution claims still fail.

Doe, who resides in Alabama, argues that both claims ultimately sound in defamation because Jay Z alleges he was injured by her allegedly false accusations and the resulting damage to his reputation. She argues New York’s long arm statute specifically excludes defamation based claims against an out of state defendant like herself and therefore the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her.

If the judge disagrees, Doe argues the defamation claim should still be dismissed because California law applies. Interestingly, her attorneys point to Jay Z’s own position in his previous California litigation against Tony Buzbee, where they say he argued California law applied and that he suffered the brunt of the alleged harm in California, where he lived at the time.

Doe then argues that California’s fair report privilege provides absolute protection for her statements to NBC concerning allegations contained in her lawsuit. Her attorneys emphasize that NBC repeatedly presented the interview as reporting about a pending lawsuit, displayed portions of the complaint, described the accusations as allegations and included responses from Jay Z and others. They argue the privilege does not require every statement to be a word for word reproduction of the complaint as long as the overall gist or sting of the judicial proceeding is accurately conveyed.

Doe also attacks Jay Z’s malicious prosecution claim on two separate grounds.

First, she argues he has not alleged the “special injury” required under New York law for malicious prosecution arising from a civil lawsuit. Jay Z alleges reputational damage, emotional distress, lost business opportunities, a $20 million loss involving Roc Nation and the denial of a $115 million line of credit to a business in which he owns an interest.

Doe argues those allegations do not meet the heightened special injury requirement. She also argues losses allegedly suffered by Roc Nation or another company cannot simply be treated as Jay Z’s personal injuries because he has an ownership interest in those businesses.

But one of the most interesting parts of the motion concerns how Jane Doe’s original lawsuit against Jay Z actually ended.

Doe argues the dismissal was the result of a negotiated compromise, not simply her unilaterally abandoning the lawsuit.

According to the filing, on February 4, 2025, Tony Buzbee’s outside counsel Marc Kasowitz proposed an agreement to Jay Z’s attorney Alex Spiro under which Jay Z’s side would withdraw its Rule 11 sanctions motion, Jay Z and his attorneys and agents would agree not to harass or otherwise interact with Doe and certain other individuals, and Doe would dismiss her lawsuit with prejudice ten days later.

Doe says Spiro responded “OK” that same day. Jay Z’s Rule 11 motion was subsequently withdrawn and, ten days later, Doe dismissed her lawsuit as contemplated by the agreement.

That matters because Doe argues a malicious prosecution claim requires the previous lawsuit to have terminated in Jay Z’s favor, and under New York law a lawsuit that ends as the result of an agreement, compromise or inducement does not satisfy that requirement.

Doe is therefore asking the court to dismiss the claims against her without prejudice if Judge Ho finds there is no personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, if the court reaches the merits, she wants both claims dismissed with prejudice.

These are Jane Doe’s arguments in her motion. Judge Ho has not ruled on them, and Jay Z will have an opportunity to respond.

Motion to Dismiss/Memorandum of Law:

https://t.co/afL8K5rMzU