Russell Simmons is accusing HBO and its companions of ignoring civil rights leaders, burying proof, and turning his identify into a world spectacle, and he’s placing it earlier than a Manhattan courtroom.
In a sweeping amended lawsuit obtained completely by The Informer and filed in Manhattan, Simmons alleges that Warner Bros. Discovery, HBO, HBO Max, Max, filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, and Jane Doe Movies knowingly pushed the 2019 documentary, “On the File” (OTR), regardless of repeated warnings that the movie was one-sided and unreliable.
The Queens-born architect behind a few of rap’s largest stars, together with Run-DMC, LL Cool J, and Jay-Z has lived in close to exile in Bali, Indonesia, because the allegations erupted, and he’s now accusing HBO and others of ignoring clear warnings and urgent ahead anyway with the explosive movie.
“This lawsuit is concerning the reckless and/or malicious defamation of Simmons,” the grievance states, describing the movie as “a defamatory movie that was mislabeled as a factual documentary” and a “tabloid hit piece” that “blurred the strains between documentary and drama to use [the] #MeToo motion for media revenue.”
Warnings Ignored, ‘In It for the Cash and Consideration’
In line with the lawsuit, which incorporates a number of Washington Informer information articles concerning the movie, these warnings got here from the very best ranges.
“Earlier than OTR was broadcast, the Defendants ignored the requests of many extremely revered and notable civil rights leaders, together with however not restricted to, [the] Rev. Al Sharpton and [the] Rev. Jesse Jackson… who requested the Defendants to confirm the Accusers’ tales and to not launch a one-sided story,” the grievance states.
The submitting provides that even inside company management, there have been requires steadiness.
“A minimum of one Time Warner Board Member…requested the Defendants to incorporate either side of the story…which the Defendants once more refused to do,” the submitting states.
Simmons says this was not an oversight. He says it was a choice.
The lawsuit additionally challenges the inspiration of the movie itself.
Simmons alleges the central accuser was not merely a participant however somebody with a monetary stake and affect over the manufacturing.
In line with the grievance, she “performed an energetic, instrumental, behind-the-scenes function” and “positively had a non-public deal” with the filmmakers, including that she was “in it for the cash and a spotlight causes interval.”
That association, Simmons says, was by no means disclosed to viewers.
As a substitute, audiences have been introduced with what gave the impression to be unbiased testimony.
The submitting provides that she described herself as “the principle one most related to the movie” and had “deliberate this for years” as half of a bigger effort that included a e book constructed on the identical allegations.
Oprah Winfrey and the Insider Who By no means Made the Minimize
One of the crucial placing moments within the grievance facilities on Oprah Winfrey.
In line with the submitting, Winfrey initially backed the undertaking however stepped away after reviewing the fabric and elevating issues about inconsistencies.
“There’s some inconsistencies within the tales we have to take a look at,” she mentioned, based on the grievance, which additionally states she discovered “too many inconsistencies” within the lead accuser’s account.
Simmons says she urged the filmmakers to incorporate opposing views.
They refused.
Winfrey has publicly defended her determination to withdraw, saying it was based mostly on issues concerning the movie itself and never as a result of she didn’t consider the alleged victims.
The lawsuit additionally highlights voices Simmons says may have modified the whole narrative.
Nana Carmen Ashhurst, a former president of Def Jam Recordings, is described as a key witness contradicting one of many central allegations.
“At no level did [she] use the time period rape,” Ashhurst mentioned, recalling a cellphone name the day after the alleged incident, based on the grievance.
Simmons says the filmmakers knew about her account and excluded it.
Thomasina Perkins-Washington, a longtime publicist, additionally warned executives earlier than the movie aired.
“It is a one-sided narrative with no credibility or integrity,” her 2019 letter to HBO states, based on the grievance, which says she supplied documentation and witness statements that challenged the allegations.
‘Intentionally, Recklessly, and Maliciously,’ Proof Left Out
The grievance repeats that phrase time and again.
“The Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and maliciously continued in publicly releasing…OTR,” it states, even after being introduced with “extremely related and credible proof favorable to Simmons.”
Simmons alleges the filmmakers refused to incorporate his facet of the story and ignored proof that challenged the allegations.
Earlier than the movie was broadcast, Simmons mentioned he spoke to Casey Bloys, chairman of HBO and Max Content material. Simmons instructed Bloys he had witness testimony and a brief film rebuttal and he requested Bloys to assessment it for the inclusion within the movie.
“Bloys thought that was humorous, laughed, and replied, ‘Provided that the ladies comply with be in it,’” Simmons mentioned.
Among the many claims, Simmons says he voluntarily took 9 lie detector checks and handed them.
“I consider he was truthful in all of those,” a polygraph examiner is quoted as saying within the submitting.
He additionally alleges the filmmakers didn’t correctly vet the accusers.
“It’s unclear what the Defendants did, if something, to personally vet the credibility of the Accusers,” the grievance states.
The Choice to Transfer Ahead
Simmons argues for HBO and Warner Bros. Discovery have been totally conscious of the controversy earlier than distributing the movie.
“Regardless of the plain and unmissable critical crimson flags,” the grievance states, the corporate moved ahead anyway.
He says executives have been contacted repeatedly with proof and requests for assessment.
As a substitute, they relied on the filmmakers.
“The filmmakers…stand behind the content material,” an HBO legal professional said.
