So, I am reading the transcripts from Tory Lanez's April 5th hearing, where he was found guilty of violating two protective orders. On page 8, Lanez's attorney, Shawn Holley, used an unexpected example to further push home the point that DJ Akademiks is a liar:
MS. HOLLEY: WELL, ONLY IN THAT WHAT AKADEMIKS IS SAYING IS UNTRUE, AND IT'S SILLY GOSSIP, AND POSTURING. I MEAN, IT'S NOT SPEAKING TO THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. SO, WHAT IF MR. PETERSON TWEETED THAT WE JUST RECEIVED EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S A VIDEO THAT SOMEONE ELSE DID THIS. I MEAN, THAT WOULD NOT BE TRUE, SO WHAT IS BEING SET FORTH INITIALLY BY AKADEMIKS IS UNTRUE. AND A RESPONSE TO THAT -- EMBRACING IT, ADOPTING IT, SUGGESTING THAT IT MIGHT BE TRUE -- IS ALSO UNTRUE.
Did Holley just debunk the rumor that there is a video showing that Tory Lanez did not shoot Megan Thee Stallion? I read this over and over just to make sure I was not having a Geto Boyz moment of my mind playing tricks on me. I even questioned if it was a typo, but considering what was said before and after that quote, it only makes sense as it is written. Plus, court reporters must have a way to make sure they are accurate.
So, Holley not only called DJ Akademiks and her client Tory Lanez a liar for the false reporting on the DNA, but lowkey also Joe Budden and others pushing this narrative about a video clearing Tory Lanez.
I am stupefied why Holley would even use that example since it had nothing to do with what the court was addressing, and the rumor helped her client? But, considering Holley is an experienced defense attorney, I do not believe this was an error; it had to be strategic.
Holley is the queen of leaking discovery in her arguments to the courts. She knows the documents will be given to the Tory blogs so they can spin her words into a narrative that is not backed up by any evidence.
So, I would understand if she had said, "SO, WHAT IF MR. PETERSON TWEETED THAT WE JUST RECEIVED EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S A VIDEO THAT SOMEONE ELSE DID THIS" and stopped right there. But she didn't. She made sure to add, "THAT WOULD NOT BE TRUE."
Holley may have spoken to the DA before the hearing and was aware they were not playing with Tory anymore. This was made very clear when the DA told the judge that she believed Tory Lanez was attempting to "spin the discovery" and "impact the impartiality of a fair jury trial." So, maybe Holley is trying to gain favor with the judge by debunking one of the many false rumors she knows is swirling on "Black Twitter" due to her client before it possibly becomes an issue for the defense.
There is a difference between raising reasonable doubt and flat-out lying about the evidence that is or is not related to this case. Once the trial starts and the jurors/spectators realize Holley's defense is not as robust as it appears on Stationhead, Clubhouse, and Youtube; people will take it out on Tory. Hell, maybe this was Holley sending a message to Tory that she will not risk her career for him and to STFU.
Y'all out here reading all these transcripts, and no one thought this was compelling but me?
Updated: 5/8 at 1:05 AM PST
Below are the full transcripts from the April hearing.
* Holley makes it very clear that DJ Akademiks lied
*Page 16-17 - D.A. does mention Tory Lanez's music video and makes great points by using a previous case.
* Page 18 - It is noted by Holley that Tory Lanez is allowed to speak on this case. The protective orders does not prohibit him from proclaiming his innocence. He just can't speak towards or about Megan or speak on discovery evidence. This is what my understanding has been this whole time. So, all this BS about him not being able to talk is just that. He can do interviews telling his side, but he does not want to do that.
*Page 20 - Holley calls Lanez's album a "love letter" to Megan🤮
Overall, I feel much more confident in the D.A. They are peeping what Tory Lanez/Holley are trying to do with their social media campaign.
Say Sumthin, Tap The ♥️ , Share...Thanks!