Kaylah Walton
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs is accused of making alarming comments to a 13-year-old girl shortly before she alleges she was assaulted by both him and Jay-Z after the MTV VMA Music Awards in the 2000s.
A significant civil lawsuit filed by Tony Buzbee claims that the 55-year-old Combs and Shawn Carter both attacked the minor while a third unidentified woman observed the incident.
According to allegations, the girl—referred to as Jane Doe in the lawsuit—was ominously warned about her fate by Diddy after she signed a non-disclosure agreement and consumed a drink.
He supposedly told the victim, “You are ready to party,” describing a look of madness in his eyes before she was forcibly thrown against a wall, onto a bed, and subsequently raped by both men, starting with Jay-Z.
Diddy has been in custody since September, arrested by Homeland Security, facing charges in New York, and has been denied bail. He remains at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, with a trial set for May 2025.
This alleged incident reportedly occurred at a property in New York City and has been known since October; however, Jay-Z was only recently named in connection with the case after denying these accusations as “idiotic.”
Jay-Z has explicitly rejected these claims and urged Buzbee to pursue criminal charges instead of civil ones, while Combs continues to refute all accusations, which have now surpassed 100 from Buzbee alone.
Jay-Z’s legal team seeks to uncover Jane Doe’s identity
As Carter rebuts the allegations, he highlights the repercussions on his family, especially his children with Beyonce, who will now be compelled to defend themselves publicly and are deprived of their “innocence.”
Additionally, his lawyer insists that Jane Doe’s identity must be revealed, arguing that the approach taken is a “calculated and cynical” attempt to extract millions of dollars.
“Mr. Carter has the right to know the person accusing him—effectively in a sensationalist, publicity-driven manner—of criminal activity,” Spiro stated in a filing in federal court in New York City. He noted the demand for substantial financial damages and the potential damage to a reputation built over many years.
“This strategy was marked by cynicism, aiming to enforce payment of an exorbitant sum irrespective of the truth.
“When the Defendant chose to assert his innocence rather than comply with unwarranted financial demands, this unnamed Plaintiff and her self-promoting legal counsel attempted to undermine fair defense. However, these attempts failed.”
