Apr 17, 2025
LetHIMSortEmOutWhen you consider half the comments on youtube are usually trolls,
Also stop being such a smug f***ing brit
you think you're holier than thou but you just hang out with drakes cock in your ass. Go gnaw on some cementA judge will not differentiate between comments made by trolls and a non-trolls. Not a single second will be spent looking into that.
You shouldn't get upset at me for trying to tell you that a legal case works differently than KTT2 or Twitter. You can think it's dumb, unfair, whatever, but that's just the way it is
orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025·1 reply
STEPPA PIGHave a law degree and I'm currently practicing. Using posts made by random people on the internet as evidence in a defamation lawsuit involving a celebrity is stupid af
that's crazy
I'm sure u know better than lawyers that have handled and won defamation cases go back to class bot🤣🤣
Apr 17, 2025·2 replies
Nix· editedThe deleted screenshot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1912887490945622368
Edit: They didn't link the post properly and it wasn't deleted.I don’t see what this is supposed to prove.. she works for Interscope correct? Ofcourse they celebrate an artist chart success. The front office gets a championship ring too after their team wins the chip
- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025·1 reply
Unforgivable· editedYou posted 10 times in the previous page but I'm "upset" :vlosereave:
Yes🤣🤣
btw this a classic🔥🔥🔥
- Apr 17, 2025·1 replyWRF
you know that's what discovery is for right?
and those sources is why they were granted discovery?
You definitely don't know wtf you're talking about. First of all, Drake wasn't granted discovery. UMG's motion to deny Drake discovery was dismissed. Secondly, a party isn't granted or denied discovery based on the strength of their evidence
- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025·2 repliesAvenueJones
For some reason it’s farfetched for some of them that a music label with as much leverage and power as UMG would use their power to boost the profile, reach and success of the artist they made a $400 million dollar investment in.
Wonder why Drake hasn't pushed to sell physicals and do the whole bundle s*** UMG is notorious for
- Apr 17, 2025orangetcovid
Yes🤣🤣
btw this a classic🔥🔥🔥
!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIhx2wZ8jnAWhen life imitates 🗑️
- Apr 17, 2025AvenueJones
I don’t see what this is supposed to prove.. she works for Interscope correct? Ofcourse they celebrate an artist chart success. The front office gets a championship ring too after their team wins the chip
I guess it's because they believe the numbers are fraudulent
goretex 💁🏽♂️Apr 17, 2025·3 repliesAvenueJonesI don’t see what this is supposed to prove.. she works for Interscope correct? Ofcourse they celebrate an artist chart success. The front office gets a championship ring too after their team wins the chip
hahaha why delete it then
- goretex 💁🏽♂️Apr 17, 2025
niggas said team kendrick #cooked
Apr 17, 2025Nix· editedThe deleted screenshot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1912887490945622368
Edit: They didn't link the post properly and it wasn't deleted.
- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025·1 replySTEPPA PIG
You definitely don't know wtf you're talking about. First of all, Drake wasn't granted discovery. UMG's motion to deny Drake discovery was dismissed. Secondly, a party isn't granted or denied discovery based on the strength of their evidence
lmao you must be advicing UMG too
Discovery has been ongoing. UMG was trying to stop it and the Judge dismissed it. Discovery is still happening
- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025
Team Drake🦉
- Apr 17, 2025·1 replyorangetcovid
lmao you must be advicing UMG too
Discovery has been ongoing. UMG was trying to stop it and the Judge dismissed it. Discovery is still happening
"UMG's motion to deny Drake discovery was dismissed"
Apr 17, 2025This is gonna get messy
- Apr 17, 2025·2 repliesgoretex
hahaha why delete it then
No clue, but how is this proof of any involvement of botting or cooking the numbers? Specifically Interscope? Is this is the first time label execs celebrated the success of a song?
Apr 17, 2025·1 replyNix· editedThe deleted screenshot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1912887490945622368
Edit: They didn't link the post properly and it wasn't deleted.I don’t get why this is a problem exactly
- Apr 17, 2025·1 replySTEPPA PIG
Have a law degree and I'm currently practicing. Using posts made by random people on the internet as evidence in a defamation lawsuit involving a celebrity is stupid af
It's not. A case wouldn't have legs if that was your sole evidence but it is absolutely something they can and should use among other things. They will have to prove that the slanderous lies that UMG spent a lot of money on promoting have affected his public perception - internet views and comments are a part of that. They will obviously also have to include other aspects such as brand deals, shows and everything related to his businesses, but you are out of touch if you think that a judge won't admit those as evidence.
Apr 17, 2025relapsed bisexualI don’t get why this is a problem exactly
You might bot streams when you say something like this!
- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025·1 replySTEPPA PIG
"UMG's motion to deny Drake discovery was dismissed"
somebody help bro out🤣🤣
the headline is UMG motion to stay discovery was dismissed.
Hence discovery can continue
Apr 17, 2025·1 replyNix· editedThe deleted screenshot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1912887490945622368
Edit: They didn't link the post properly and it wasn't deleted.- orangetcovid 👌🏿Apr 17, 2025AvenueJones
No clue, but how is this proof of any involvement of botting or cooking the numbers? Specifically Interscope? Is this is the first time label execs celebrated the success of a song?
Drake's lawyers are saying that Interscope Executives had incentive to boost that mid song
- Apr 17, 2025Midzy
Is this not the post?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jessica-staats-851b877_kendrick-lamars-not-like-us-scores-biggest-activity-7300206172358291458-eYRv
- Apr 17, 2025orangetcovid
somebody help bro out🤣🤣
the headline is UMG motion to stay discovery was dismissed.
Hence discovery can continue
That's what I said dumbass. The point is that a court doesn't look at the actual strength of evidence/sources at all when deciding on an application to prevent/compel discovery
