Tony Buzbee Rips Jay-Z’s Legal Strategy Apart After Hov’s Motion To Dismiss Sexual Assault Suit

Tony Buzbee’s latest court motion in the Jay-Z sexual assault case, according to an exclusive AllHipHop report, responds to Hov’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit from Buzbee’s anonymous client. Moreover, the attorney claims that the Brooklyn rap mogul has a misguided legal strategy, is trying to move too fast with his claims, and will suffer the repercussions of not following the law to its fullest extent and intent. For example, one of the Roc-A-Fella boss’ arguments is that Jane Doe’s accusations can’t be relevant because they allege an incident in September of 2000, three months before the creation of the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act.

However, Tony Buzbee argues that Jay-Z missed the point of the Protection Act to begin with, as part of its purpose is to sidestep typical obstacles such as statutes of limitations even before its application as law. In addition, the lawyer also dismissed Jay’s focus on rulings from lower courts such as the Second Circuit or the New York Court of Appeals, as neither provided strong rulings on the Protection Act’s retroactivity and thus cannot prevent the case from moving forward.

Another one of Jay-Z’s arguments is that the Child Victims Act preempts overlapping statues and supersedes the Protection Act itself, so the sexual assault lawsuit should still face dismissal due to time constraints and due to statutes of limitations. “Local anti-discrimination laws are generally not preempted by state law in New York,” Tony Buzbee reportedly argued in his latest legal filing, positing that court precedent does not favor preemption. Finally, the attorney’s last point against Hov concerns the latter’s argument around geography. Since he claims the supposed assault that the anonymous accuser is alleging happened outside of New York City, then he believes Buzbee has no right to sue under the Protection Act.

Nevertheless, Tony Buzbee argued that Jay-Z made this point too early and did not even allow for a discovery process to determine this discrepancy. As you may know, the court allowed the suit to proceed recently, which means we will presumably get the answer to many of these questions and disagreements.