The Mega Edition: Tony Buzbee's Memo In Opposition To The Diddy Proposed Sanctions (Part 3-4) (3/22/26)

Hi, my name is Mira Patasson. I'm an author and I'm an activist and GoFundMe is my go-to

platform for fundraising. The first GoFundMe I did was to raise money for a

chat book or a collection of poetry and essays and short stories. So we started

to GoFundMe and our goal was 7,000. What I've learned is so special about GoFundMe

is that it's a whole collection of people offering anything from like four

dollars to four hundred dollars and each time you get a ping that someone donated

even if it is just four dollars it's so exciting. So if you have a goal and you

get there you can keep making it bigger and bigger and bigger. We did go past our

goal. It was amazing. GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform

trusted by over 200 million people. Start your GoFundMe today at GoFundMe.com

that's GoFundMe.com. GoFundMe.com. What's up everyone and welcome to another

episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode we're getting back to the Tony

Busby response to the motion for sanctions that was filed by J.Z. One Carter's

lawyers do not and cannot show that Busby's investigation was inadequate. Busby's

investigation unquestionably passes mustard under rule 11 and is refusal to

withdraw plaintiff's claim against Carter unquestionably is justified and

indeed mandated by applicable professional ethics given that Carter's

lawyers challenge that investigation based principally on NBC news report

questioning certain details and plaintiff's allegations but NBC itself

acknowledged that it's a report did not establish that plaintiff's claim was

false. Moreover when Carter's lawyers relied on their own investigation

concerning ownership of the house where the rate may have taken place they

got the details wrong. See in for pages 17 and 18. See also Castlewood's

declaration example C showing that combs on the property in question beginning

in 1998 country to Carter's lawyers representation that he did not own it

until 2001. As discussed above both Busby firm and co-council who were

a third plaintiff the Busby Abba law group performed extensive diligence on

plaintiff and her claims including background checks intensive interviews and

research and verification of numerous details including by a retired police

detective Carter's lawyers misconduct also include shamefully attempting to

destroy Busby's fine reputation by baselessly arguing that Busby is a repeat

offender of rule 11 that allegation for which they cite no decision by any

court is provably false. Indeed the only reported basis for their argument is a

case in which they can see that Busby voluntarily amended the pleading at issue to

correct the two mistake in factual assertions. Carter's lawyers also disparage

Busby by baselessly arguing that he is attempting to avoid sanctions by

failing to apply for pro-hoc vice admission. That is blatantly false and any

event is Mr. Busby advised the court in a December 2020-24 letter. He is

admitted to practice in the Eastern District of New York and is applying for

reciprocal admission to the Southern District. Mr. Busby is aware of no

requirement that he apply for interim pro-hoc vice admission while his

application for reciprocal admission is pending. Of course if the court would

prefer Mr. Busby will apply for interim pro-hoc vice admission in short

see rules of professional conduct. 22 and YCRR 1200 rule 1 a lawyer shall not

intentionally prejudice or damage the client during the course of the

representation except is permitted or required by these rules. While Mr. Busby

conducted his own investigation into plaintiff's allegations, Carter's lawyers

suggestion that Mr. Busby was not permitted to rely on the work of other

attorneys is also baseless. This rule by its term does not require signing

counsel to have personally perform the inquiry. What is crucial under the

rule is not who makes the inquiry but whether as a result the attorney has

acquired knowledge of facts sufficient to enable him to certify the paper is

well grounded in fact. The duty of inquiry therefore should be regarded

as non-delegable but capable of being satisfied by the attorney's acquisition

of the product inquiry conducted by others. William W. Schwarzer sanctions under the new

federal rule 11 a closer look 104 f.r.d 181 187 1985. Busby has fully complied with rule 11

there is no truth to Carter's lawyer's contention that Busby conceded a failure

to that plaintiff allegations or that he sought to pass the blame to referring counsel.

Rather Busby told NBC that he is referring counsel that had already

thoroughly vetted plaintiff's claims and that he is continuing to do so

as any reasonable attorney would. Nor is there any truth to Carter's lawyer's argument

that Busby filed this action for the improper purpose of destroying Carter's reputation.

To the contrary the FAC was filed to vindicate plaintiff's rights and recover the damages for

the trauma that she has suffered. Only after all of this was done and after Mr. Busby

and the firm determined that plaintiff's allegations were credible was the FAC filed alleging

among other things that on September 7 2000 Carter and Combs drugged and raped her at an

after-party following the VMAs. It's well established that attorneys are entitled to rely

on the representations of their client without having to assess his credibility because credibility

is solely within the Providence of the Finder Effect. G1 Holdings incorporated versus Barron

and Bud 2002 WL1934004 at 13. SDNY August 21 2002. Rule 11 sanctions should only adhere if the party

was satisfied with the statements of a confidential witness and other evidence were not competent

or otherwise untrustworthy. As there was nothing unreasonable about plaintiff's account

of the night in question and there is nothing unreasonable about counsel believing

or allegations, furthermore establishing the reasonableness of counsel's investigation,

is the fact that in each of the pre-filing interviews plaintiff appeared consistent and credible

in our account of what occurred in the night in question. See Busby Declaration 679 C. Jeffries 275F.SUPP2D

at 481. Finding that plaintiff's counsel undertook reasonable pre-filing inquiry where before

proposing the third amended complaint, plaintiff's counsel conducted numerous interviews with their

client and found them to be consistent and credible in his account. Thus, because counsel's

pre-filing investigation was thorough and reasonable, Carter's motion should be denied. Moreover, NBC News

owned acknowledgment that its report on which Carter's lawyers principally rely

did not establish the falsity of plaintiff's claim and Carter's lawyers on mistakes concerning

details on which they saw rely, a mistake not made by a sexual assault victim,

unequivocally confirmed that Busby correctly has refused to knuckle under to their wrongful

demand that he withdraw his claim. None of the factual issues raised by Carter's lawyers

justify sanctions. In any event, Carter's lawyers purported certainty about what happened to

plaintiff is utterly unjustified. When stripped of their salacious rhetoric, Carter's lawyers

challenged only plaintiff's allegations and recollections regarding watching the MTV VMA award

show on a jumbo tron, speaking to limousine driver during the show, the location of the after-party,

at which she was raped, speaking to a celebrity at the party, and plaintiff's father picking her up

after she was raped. As shown below, none of those purported challenges are emeritus,

and none of them come close to proving, as they must justify any rule 11 sanction,

let alone the most drastic sanction of all, dismissal. That Carter did not rate plaintiff or that

as Carter's lawyers also falsely say Busby did not sufficiently investigate and was not permitted

to rely on plaintiffs on equivocal recollection that Carter raped her. Certainly, on this pre-discovery

record, this is no basis for assuming the truth of Carter's lawyer's assertions. To the

contrary, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff's allegations must be assumed to be true,

and Carter's lawyer's assertions, if they raise anything at all, at most, raise only factual

disputes that may not be resolved on the pre-discovery record.

First, Carter's lawyers contest plaintiff's allegation that she watched the VMAs on a jumbo

tron because they claim there was no jumbo tron at Radio City that night, but even assuming

our window that this is a material fact, which it's not. C. Sanderson, 2024 at 3, declining to award

sanctions because factual assertion at issue was not a material misrepresentation. Carter's lawyers

fell to consider that plaintiff could have watched on a jumbo tron somewhere else, such as mere

blocks away in the Times Square area. Second, Carter's lawyers claimed to have debunked plaintiff's

allegation that she approached limousine drivers in hopes of gaining entry to the VMAs or after parties,

because they assert the limousines were cordoned off by police barricades and accessible defense.

But, as is plainly clear from the video and photos on which Carter's lawyers rely,

the small limousine area at the entrance to Radio City is not where limousines parked during the show,

but rather is merely where they dropped off and picked up guests. Thus, nothing about the photos

and video proves that plaintiff did not approach several limousine drivers parked nearby,

and the limousine area is thus irrelevant. Third, with respect to plaintiff,

third with respect to plaintiff's allegation that at the party at which she was raped took place,

at what she believed to be a large white residence with a gated U-shape driveway.

Carter's lawyers make the relevant argument that photographs show that he attended a party

at a nightclub in New York, and that Holmes was photographed at the Lotus Club,

as well as another establishment in New York City. Defense memorandum 9, ECF 621-622-623.

However, even the NBC report on which Carter heavily relies conceded that,

it's not clear what time those images were taken or if Holmes and Carter attended any other

after parties. In short, that Carter and Holmes attended one or more after parties does not mean

that they did not attend the party at which they raped plaintiff. Carter's lawyers also argue that

public property records confirm that Holmes did not own a residence at the time that matches plaintiff's

description. Pointing to property records for 40 hedges bank drive in East Hampton, New York,

which purportedly reflect that Holmes did not own this residence until 2001.

However, this argument fails for at least two reasons. First, plaintiff does not allege that the

home she was taken to was owned by Holmes, but in any event Carter's lawyers representation

to the court that Holmes did not own 40 hedges bank drive in 2000 is plainly false. Property

records reveal that Holmes was first listed on a deed for 40 hedges bank drive on March 13, 1998,

and that he or a company owned by him owned the property until selling it on July 23, 2020,

C. Castlewood's Declaration exhibit C. In fact, Holmes notorious white parties which Carter

often attended were held at this residence beginning in 1998, including in July 2000, just two months

before the rape and in the following years. All right, we're going to wrap up right here,

and in the next episode we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of the information that goes

with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another

episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode we're going to pick up right where we left off

with the Tony Busby response to the sanctions motion filed against him by J. Z and his lawyers.

Fourth. With respect to Carter's lawyer's argument that musician Benji Madden was not New York,

on the night in question, the FAC does not identify any of the celebrities plaintiff spoke to at the

party, rather the FAC merely alleges that plaintiff recognized many celebrities and talked to several

of the celebrities that she recognized. Carter's argument stems not from what is alleged in the FAC,

but from what the post-filing interview plaintiff gave to an NBC News reporter. It is utterly irrelevant

that plaintiff may have subsequently misremembered that Madden was one of the celebrities that she

interacted with, especially given that the FAC did not identify any of the celebrity plaintiff spoke to

and are misremembering if that is what it was in no way renders a recollection of the traumatic

night not credible. Fifth, Carter's lawyers take issue with plaintiff's allegation that her father

picked her up from a gas station shortly before dawn, the morning after she was raped.

On the grounds that NBC reported that her father does not recall doing so. Given that this occurred

24 years ago, it's not surprising that her father may not recall specific drives to pick up his

daughter. Moreover, his plaintiff stated in her interview with NBC and reflecting a reticence,

not on common, in sexual assault victims, she never told her father or anyone else about what

happened to her at the party. We wrote home in silence. He didn't ask me what happened. He didn't

ask me what I did or where I was. She told NBC News. She never told anyone about the alleged assault

or wrote it down in a diary. Indeed, given the passage of time, it's entirely possible that her

father is simply mistaken in recalling the time he once picked her up in the middle of the night

as having been a local drive. None of the five actual disputes raised in the motion

come remotely close to satisfying the high bar for imposing sanctions under Rule 11.

And none of the challenged allegations could possibly render a plaintiff's claim utterly lacking

in factual support, as is required for sanctions, particularly in light of the court's duty

to resolve any and all doubts in Busby's favor. C-E-G Lopordo,

County, Rensselier, 2018, N-D-N-Y, September 24, 2018. Denying motion for sanctions,

where resolving all doubts in favor or party opposing sanctions, there was some

arguable basis for commencing the action, quoting Perez vs. Posse Comatotis, 373F.3D321, 326,

Second Circuit, 2004. Two, Carter's motion should be denied because it seeks to evade Rule 12's

requirement and impermissibly avoid discovery. This motion should be denied for an additional

reason that Carter's lawyers filed it plainly in an effort to avoid discovery and evade the

clearly satisfied requirement under Rule 12 that to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, except it is true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face, Ashcroff vs. Ikbal 556, 2009. It is only where no reasonable evidentiary

basis for a factual claim was disclosed in pre-trial proceedings or at trial that the district court

must then scrutinize the objective reasonableness of the attorney's prefiling inquiry and the

basis for the claim developed by the inquiry. Calloway vs. Marvel Entertainment Group, 854F.2D1452,

14701988. Reverse on the grounds of Subnom, Pavlich vs. LaFloor,

vs. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493US, 1201989. Accordingly, the issue of sanctions including

with respect to pleadings normally will be determined at the end of litigation,

see Jawbone LLC vs. Nanyu. SDNY June 28, 2002, refusing to find at an early stage of the

litigation without the benefit of discovery and the thorough analysis of the merits of the case

that plaintiff's factual allegations are completely without support, safe strap, company incorporated,

vs. Koala Corporation to 70F, SUPP, SDNY2003. Addressing issues of sanctions at end of litigation

is a sensible practice where, as here, the thrust of the sanctions motion is that institution of

the case itself wasn't proper. Archie Comic publishers incorporated vs. Dakarlo,

2000 SDNY November 21, 2000. The preference for the determination of sanctions for allegedly

frivolous pleadings at the end of the case makes a good deal of sense. Here, Carter is seeking a rule

11 determination before any discovery has been undertaken. At a minimum until discovery has been

completed, the court simply cannot find that no reasonable evidentiary basis for a factual claim

was disclosed, in pretrial proceedings or at trial, the prerequisite for any examination by

this court, and Council rule 11 responsibilities, see Calaway 854F.2D at 1470. As the case is,

Carter's lawyers himself cite may clear, there's no basis for dismissal. Three, Carter's lawyer

should be ordered to pay plaintiff's attorneys fees for opposing this frivolous motion.

Rule 11C2 expressly provides the court the authority to award to the prevailing party,

the reasonable expenses including attorney fees incurred for the motion fed RSVP11C2.

Courts in this circuit have exercised as authority where, as here, a rule 11 motion

was filed for in proper purposes. See Lee vs. Grant Sishon, New York, 2014 SDNY January 17, 2014.

Awarding the non-move in attorney fees where the motion was filed for in proper purpose,

Caribbean wholesales and service corporation vs. USJVC court, 101SDNY2000. See also fed RSVP11

advisory committee notes rule 11 motions should not be prepared to intimidate an adversary into

withdrawing contentions that are fairly debatable. As demonstrated above, the motion is factually

and legally, merit lists and was filed for an improper purpose. See fed RSVP11B1,

describing improper purpose as including to harass, cause unnecessary delay,

or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. None of plaintiff's allegations in this action

are demonstrably false, and the motion is preferred no evidence that would warrant their withdrawal,

much less than award of sanctions against plaintiff's counsel. Carter's merit list motion

crosses the line between zealous advocacy and sanctionable conduct under federal rules of

civil procedure 11. See sheet metal workers, national pension fund vs. sheet metal workers

incorporated 2012 SDNY January 5, 2012. Accordingly, Carter should be required to reimburs plaintiff

and her counsel for their legal fees in opposing this motion. Carter's lawyers reliance on Levine vs. FDIC

to F.3D476 is utterly misplaced. That case bears no resemblance to this case.

In Levine, two years after commencing the action, after deposition testimony,

established that a particular witness had never conducted business in Connecticut,

plaintiff's lawyer filed an amended complaint, adding that a witness as a defendant falsely

asserting that personal jurisdiction existed on the grounds that the witness regularly did

and solicited business in Hartford, Connecticut. The lawyer also contradicted in many material

respects the client sworn deposition testimony, ID at 478. Thus, it was the lawyer's blatant disregard

of the facts and is concocting facts that is entirely in opposite. There, the plaintiff's lawyer,

for more than a year after being retained, to a when he filed a complaint did not attempt to

investigate plaintiff's claims, ID at 646. Furthermore, plaintiff's attorney persisted

in pursuing the case even after discovery failed to elicit any evidence corroborating his allegations.

See Martha Management Service Incorporated vs. Vessel, My Girls, 202F.3D, 315-325-326,

DC Circuit 2000. Court did not abuse discretion when an unduly prolonged litigation,

in which counsel engaged in a name-calling, personal attacks and petty arguments,

and burdened the court with repetitions of arguments already rejected.

Court Suisponti dismissed counterclaims upon finding that they were frivolous and designed

primarily to harass and delay a final resolution of the case.

Perry vs. Gore 2009-WL

258-03-24 at 3 and 5-10-11 dismissing plaintiffs

inmate civil rights action as a sanction, where plaintiff filed 29 civil right cases,

alleging similar fact patterns, and had admitted that he had filed fraudulent claims and allegations,

and at least two of those actions. Noting that plaintiff cannot play one district against another

and assert as valid allegations from the same fact pattern in one court that he calls fraud in another.

Conclusion

For the reason set forth above, the court should deny the motion in its entirety,

and plaintiff and her counsel should be awarded fees and costs incurred in opposing it.

This document was dated January 22nd, 2025, and it was signed by Mark E. Castlewitz.

All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.