Grant City Jack - Braves| Heat | Bucs |Panthers | *sigh*
Houston, Atlanta, Miami ✈️
Joined February 2012
- Tweets33.9K
- Following500
- Followers796
- Likes16.2K
That "biggest placement ever" was an interpolation of the biggest hit record of the year.
Camilla isn't a "lesser known artist".
21 isn't a "lesser known artist".
Game isn't a l"lesser known artist".
Report: Stephanie Vaquer 'Out Indefinitely' fightful.com/wrestling-news/…
Hypothetically, if he settled, signed a NDA, and released his claim rights as part of the agreement then he wouldn’t necessarily have to withdraw with prejudice to forfeit his right to sue.
Not saying it happened that way (but it’s in line with the theory of PR on Drake’s part from Challz). Thats assuming a lot bc idk why Avi would agree to that if his evidence was so rock solid they felt the need to settle….but it’s a possibility.
Perpetually Disappointed 😑 retweeted
MICHAEL FUCKING HAYES YOU NEXT
Bruce Prichard is expected to retire from his position as Executive Director - Creative Writing & Talent of WWE after WrestleMania season.
He would remain connected to the company on a consulting basis but would no longer live in Stamford or retain his current duties.
One source pegged WrestleMania as the end of the run, but another cautioned that with pro wrestling being the way it is, there could always be additional time after that.
- PWInsider
Actual lawyer reaching & making shit up out of ignorance too, right Challz?
We all just lack your level of supreme intellect my G. Be nice to us laymans Chuck.
#Drake Copyright Lawsuit Withdrawn/Dismissed
The Copyright infringement lawsuit against Drake regarding "Janice STFU" has been dismissed/withdrawn by the plaintiff, Aviel Calev Hirschfield.
A few things to note. It is unclear whether this dismissal was pursuant to a settlement. Thus, I cannot speculate either way.
The lawsuit was a boom or bust case: It would've risen or fallen on the basis of technology, namely, the metadata, stem, digital timestamps, editing/and or modification (if any) of the original recording. Computer analysis would've revealed when the recording was made, and/or modified. If it was created and modified after Drake recorded the song, plaintiff would've had a hard time proving that it was his original work.
Rule 11 of FR Civ.P: Because of Rule 11 concerns, I wouldn't have filed the lawsuit without having an expert examine the "original" recording and to determine its authenticity, date of creation and any editing or modifications. An expert can also detect any attempts to modify the metadata. As a lawyer, there are some cases in which you trust your client, but you verify before filing. Newsflash: Clients sometimes lie to their lawyers. ☹☹️Not cool!
The plaintiff's lawyer apparently believed his client in this case. This explains why the "original" recording was included as an exhibit in the complaint.
One thing I found very curious in the lawsuit (before it was dismissed) is the fact that the plaintiff did not even include the persons to whom he gave the recording as defendants in the lawsuit. Although suits are normally filed against the deep pockets, in this particular suit, the plaintiff didn't claim that he gave the recording directly to Drake. Instead, he gave it to 3rd parties who ended up using in Drake's song.
Here's what plaintiff said: "Avi had received audio files, containing music but no vocals, that were produced
by Michael Mulé and Isaac De Boni—a prominent writing and producing duo known as FnZ."
Plaintiff claimed that "With Drake in mind, in January 2026, in his home studio, Avi finished laying down his own vocals over FnZ’s music."
Next, plaintiff alleged that "Avi “bounced” the recording and sent it back to FnZ and other producers who work with Drake."
Under these circumstances, FnZ should've been included as defendants in the lawsuit. Their omission made me suspicious.
At any rate, the lawsuit has now been dismissed. While I don't know for a fact whether a settlement was involved, I highly doubt that there was a settlement. The reason is because the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that it can be re-filed. If Drake and his team paid any money (or other consideration) to the plaintiff, they would've insisted that the case be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it couldn't be re-filed.
Here's the notice of dismissal:
I ran this notion by Challz and was called naive. I agree with this if it is true. I don't think Drake actually knew if what's being alleged is indeed true.
This I agree with. Mostly. I'd say it's a MORE likely scenario than he took a settlement for sure. Not necessarily the MOST likley scenario overall.
I still doubt Drake and his team are stupid enough to just literally rip buddy's shit wholesale, refuse to credit him, and just hope he wasn't gonna do shit despite it being SUPER easy to prove he wrote the shit.
That still doesn't track for me. Not bc I believe Drake & his team are incapable of stealing and lying. But bc like I've said repeatedly, Drake would have to be one of the dumbest niggas in music history to do this on an album as important as Iceman when it was totally unnecessary.
If it turns out I'm wrong, then I will concede that Drake is indeed a full on retard, Challz was right, I was wrong af, and eat my crow like a man.
The extent of the scrutiny based on evidence that emerged contradicting the claim was not predictable. Ofc they knew there would be push back. That's a bit different than the strength of your receipts being questioned and other receipts emerging that cast doubt on the initial claim's validity.
Look, I'm not saying a settlement isn't possible. It is.
But to say it's the logical conclusion from a guy holding what amounts to a winning lottery ticket based on all the evidence Challz is claiming exists is real and verifiable? That's not "most logical". It's not impossible, but it's also not "most logical"? No way.
A NDA and release of claim where bro's reputation is tarnished forever and his claim is never substantiated strictly for money when he's holding multiple smoking guns seems a lot less likely than his case wasn't airtight bc the evidence wasn't as strong as stated (based again off posts he ended up deleting) & it was determined the juice wasn't actually gonna be worth the squeeze.