Cops Sued Rapper for $4 Million and Got DESTROYED in Court

Añadido: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]Yeah, I didn't want to get beat up or Epstein at the sheriff station after I seen them running around my house with AR-15s. So, that's why I brought the news and my attorney just like she knew I was upset when she was standing in front of my kids with a AR-15 with her hand around the trigger ready to shoot me.

[00:00:15]>> Well, it's more entertaining if it's true and I can make some money. Remember that?

[00:00:22]When seven deputies raided the home of Joseph Foreman, better known as Afroman, the rapper behind the 300 million view hit because I Got High. They were looking for drugs and kidnapping victims. Instead, they caused $20,000 in property damage, found absolutely nothing, and walked away without filing a single charge. But the deputies didn't just walk away, they sued him. In March of 2023, those same seven deputies filed a civil lawsuit demanding nearly $4 million. their argument that Afroman took his own security footage of their raid and weaponized it against them, putting their faces in viral music videos, selling merchandise, and publicly humiliating them to an audience of millions.

[00:01:00]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:01:02][clears throat] >> For the record, would you give us your name, please?

[00:01:06]>> My name is Joseph Edgar Foreman.

[00:01:10]>> You are known under the stage name as Afroman. Is that correct?

[00:01:14]>> Yes, sir.

[00:01:17]And you create music videos and do performances. Is that right?

[00:01:23][clears throat] >> How many states of the United States have you performed in, do you think?

[00:01:28]>> Uh, all of them.

[00:01:29]>> All [clears throat] 50?

[00:01:30]>> Yes, sir.

[00:01:32]>> And how many countries have you performed in?

[00:01:35]>> I uh I don't remember, but uh not all of them, but I've been to a few.

[00:01:45]How many live performances do you did you do last year roughly?

[00:01:49]>> I I don't know. Um um possibly u 250. I don't know but I don't know. I you know that's a lot of days but um I don't know exactly.

[00:02:01]>> And you have a residence here in Adams County correct?

[00:02:05]>> Yes sir.

[00:02:12]You've been performing for 20 or 30 years. Is that right?

[00:02:18]>> All my life.

[00:02:19]>> All right.

[00:02:22]And is it fair to say that one of the first big hits you had was But Then I Got High.

[00:02:28]>> Because I Got High.

[00:02:29]>> Because I Got High.

[00:02:32]And do you think it's accurate to say that that song has had over 300 million views on YouTube?

[00:02:41]>> Uh, sounds right.

[00:02:45]>> You have a large presence on social media, obviously. Correct.

[00:02:51]>> Depends on your definition of large.

[00:02:53]There's bigger people than me, but I'm I'm all right.

[00:02:58]And on Instagram, um, is it fair to say that you have 247,000 followers?

[00:03:07]>> Yeah, I just got some of them the other day.

[00:03:11]>> You got new ones coming all the time?

[00:03:14]>> Yes. Not all the time. Just here lately >> because the trials coming up.

[00:03:20]>> Yeah. All the publicity from the officers lawsuiting me is running up my numbers.

[00:03:24]>> Yeah.

[00:03:24]>> Yeah.

[00:03:25]And on YouTube, you have almost a million followers. 983,000. Is that right?

[00:03:32]>> I haven't looked. It was 977 last time I looked.

[00:03:37]>> And on Tik Tok, you have about 392,000 followers.

[00:03:43]>> Uh, I haven't looked in it, but that sounds kind of right.

[00:03:49]>> You know when you post something that a lot of people are going to see it, don't you?

[00:03:53]>> Yes.

[00:04:02]When this search happened back in August of 2022, Mr. Foreman, you weren't at home.

[00:04:08]>> No.

[00:04:08]>> You were driving home from Chicago?

[00:04:10]>> Yes.

[00:04:12]>> And you got alert, an alert from a family member that the sheriffs were there searching your home. Is that right?

[00:04:19]>> Yes. and you were able to turn on your phone and and watch through your home security system um what the deputies were doing for a period of time, weren't you?

[00:04:31]>> Yes.

[00:04:39]>> And is it fair to say you were angry and upset about this search?

[00:04:46]>> I wasn't happy.

[00:04:54]And is that why you posted the things we've seen this week because you weren't happy?

[00:04:59]>> No, I posted it because uh the sheriff's never supposed to raided my house in the first place. The whole raid was a mistake. All of this is their fault. If they hadn't have wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit. I would not know their names. They wouldn't be on my body. they wouldn't be on my home surveillance system and um there would be no songs, nothing. My money would still be intact, nothing.

[00:05:24]So, all of this is their fault.

[00:05:29]>> And because they executed a search warrant on your home that gave you the right to post the things that we've seen this week on the internet >> because >> Is that right? Is that right, Mr. Foreman?

[00:05:42]>> Yes. for >> tearing down my door, not paying for it, not being apologetic, me being a sport, >> doing something peaceful to raise the money to pay for their damages, me having the right of the the freedom of speech as an American to talk to my family, friends, and fans about what the sheriffs did to my home. Before we go further, there is something you need to know about this examination because it changes everything about how to read what is about to happen. The attorney questioning Afroman is Robert Clinger, who represents the seven plaintiff deputies. He's calling Foreman, the opposing party, as his own witness.

[00:06:19]Under rule 611 C, of the Ohio rules of evidence, a party may call an adverse party to the stand and examine them as if on cross-examination. That means leading questions, questions that suggest their own answer, yes or no questions that cut off explanation. It is a procedural tool specifically designed to control a hostile witness and clinger is using it at maximum effect. Every time you see foremen trying to redirect, trying to explain, being interrupted. That is what rule 611 AC looks like in practice. Now the deeper legal question. The seven deputies are suing Afroan for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

[00:06:56]Both claims require proof that he made false statements, but what standard of proof? That depends entirely on who the plaintiffs are. Under Ohio law, as established by the 8th District Court of Appeals in Miller versus Stora Communications in 1988, police officers acting within the scope of their official capacity are public officials, not private individuals, public officials. That classification matters enormously because under the 1964 United States Supreme Court decision in New York Times company versus Sullivan, a public official cannot recover for defamation without proving actual malice. Knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not, and that burden must be met by clear and convincing evidence, the highest civil standard.

[00:07:39]Afroman's defense had a powerful additional argument. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in this case calling the lawsuit a slaps suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The argument is that powerful institutions sometimes weaponize defamation law not to vindicate genuine harm but to silence critics through the expense and burden of litigation. Seven law enforcement officers backed by institutional weight pursuing a rapper for nearly $4 million for content made with his own security footage of a failed government action.

[00:08:08]The jury ultimately had to decide which framework fit what actually happened in Adams County.

[00:08:14]>> Correct.

[00:08:15]>> I know I got paid $5,000 for the show that suit was in. I forgot that that money was in that suit.

[00:08:23]But um you know I heard you know I I don't know what piece of paper I heard.

[00:08:27]I knew they took some money.

[00:08:29]I just knew they took some money. I knew it was 4,000ish. I knew they took some money and they see some money and some some weed and some uh I don't know what else. Just minor stuff.

[00:08:42]>> You knew how much money was in that pocket when you came home and saw the warrant returned, didn't you?

[00:08:53]>> It was $5,000 from back when I did that show. I remember it was five. But anyway, >> so is it your testimony that they actually took $5,000 instead of 4,000? I know. I know. When I did that show, it was with Snoop Dogg and Whiz Khalifa at Red Rocks in Denver.

[00:09:10]The balance of that show for me, they sent in a deposit, but the balance was $5,000. I put the $5,000 in my co- pocket. I got drunk. I got high and I forgot to get that money and I hung that suit back up and that's where they got that money from.

[00:09:26]>> So, it was $5,000 they got?

[00:09:28]>> Yes, it it was $5,000 that was in my suit when I got paid in Red Rocks. Now, after all of this stuff, it you know, whatever. It's it's I don't really know the complete number. It's 46. It's 430.

[00:09:40]It's the number bounces up and down, but all I know is I I got paid $5,000 at the Red Rocks with Snoop Dogg and Whis Khalifa when I played when I played the Red Rocks in Denver.

[00:09:54]>> And you got $4,000 returned, right?

[00:09:57]>> I don't know the exact amount.

[00:09:59]>> Well, you were there with the news when you got it. You >> right. And the lady at the sheriff's station admitted that the sheriff's was short.

[00:10:10]You can go watch the 19 news.

[00:10:12]>> You knew when you you knew when you saw the warrant returned, didn't you? That the amount that they were saying was taken was actually more money than was in that suit pocket.

[00:10:24]>> I I didn't warrant. That's why you brought the news to the sheriff's to the evidence to the sheriff's office when you got the money back because you knew that they had miscounted the money and the number on the evidence bag was actually >> I didn't know nothing. The lady at the sheriff department just volunteered the information. I was sitting there, you know, if she had been I might not even known I got ripped off. She admitted it live on channel 19 news that the money wasn't right. You remember in your deposition when I asked you why did you bring the news when you picked up the money?

[00:10:58]>> Yeah. I didn't want to get beat up or Epstein at the sheriff station after I seen him running around my house with AR-15s. So that's why I brought the news and my attorney so to make sure I got out of that place with my money.

[00:11:10]>> You brought the news to protect you physically.

[00:11:12]>> Yeah.

[00:11:13]>> Yeah. You didn't bring the news because you already knew there was a miscount and you were going to make >> I didn't know nothing about the discount. I didn't know. I figured they stole my money. They turned my cameras off. Why? So if you turn my cameras off, you must got something bad in mind. So yeah, I'm accusing them of, you know, they turn my cameras off. I can't see what they're doing.

[00:11:30]>> So your So your testimony under oath here today to these 10 jurors is that you brought the news when you picked up your money to protect you physically from being beat up or shot by the sheriffs, right?

[00:11:43]>> Yes.

[00:11:44]>> All right.

[00:11:47]>> And they volunteered the information that they that the money wasn't right.

[00:11:51]That's just an extra something we found out. But I I came with my attorney and the news to make sure the people running around my house with guns didn't take me into jail and do something.

[00:12:09]You had a safe in your home, correct?

[00:12:11]>> Two of them.

[00:12:12]>> Two safes.

[00:12:14]Did the sheriffs look into those safes to your knowledge?

[00:12:18]>> Yes, they did.

[00:12:19]>> Deputies?

[00:12:19]>> Yes. And how did they get the combination?

[00:12:24]>> I gave it to my ex-wife so the sheriff wouldn't pull my safe off the floor, take it to the station, and put something in it and try to say that whatever they put in my safe was mine.

[00:12:33]So, I went ahead and gave my ex-wife, who I didn't want to give my combination to, it was just safer. I went ahead and gave her my combination so they could open up the safe and realize that they just vandalized somebody that don't even have nothing in the safe.

[00:12:47]>> And do you know what was in those safes?

[00:12:49]It was absolutely nothing in the safes.

[00:12:51]>> Don't you keep jewelry in those safe?

[00:12:53]Safes?

[00:12:54]>> No.

[00:12:54]>> Can you tell me that in your deposition that you keep jewelry in those safes?

[00:12:58]>> I do.

[00:12:58]>> Was anything missing from the safes when you got home after the search?

[00:13:02]>> I didn't put nothing in the safes.

[00:13:04]>> Was anything missing from the safes when you got home?

[00:13:08]>> Nothing was in them. So, nothing was missing from the safe.

[00:13:18]You talked to Randy Walters on the phone before you got home that evening during the search or right afterwards, didn't you?

[00:13:24]>> Yes, sir.

[00:13:25]>> He told you that they were taking some money and some vape pens and a small amount of marijuana. He told you that.

[00:13:32]>> Yes, sir.

[00:13:43]>> You knew, didn't you, Mr. inform that there had been an investigation by the Claremont County Sheriff's Office into the miss into the discrepancy about the cash that was missing from your home.

[00:14:00]Correct. You knew there was an investigation?

[00:14:02]>> Yeah, I knew the sheriff was investigating themselves.

[00:14:06]>> Oh, that's how you saw it?

[00:14:08]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:08]>> Okay. And did you ever ask for a report so you could see how bad this investigation of themselves really was?

[00:14:15]>> Yes, I was trying to I was trying to get involved any way I can. The investigation was going on without any of my participation.

[00:14:22]>> Did you ask for a copy of the report?

[00:14:24]>> I did. I asked for everything. I was trying to be involved. I didn't.

[00:14:27]>> So, you've seen the report?

[00:14:28]>> No, I have not.

[00:14:29]>> Okay.

[00:14:30]>> I just saw it a few minutes ago.

[00:14:32]>> Well, you had an attorney when you got the cash returned, correct?

[00:14:39]at the station.

[00:14:41]>> Yes, >> I had attorney. Yeah, my attorney was present.

[00:14:44]>> Did your attorney ask for a copy of this report?

[00:14:47]>> It it wasn't an when I got my cash back from the station. It wasn't an investigation until we realized money was missing.

[00:14:55]>> Well, did you contact your attorney and say, "Hey, get me a copy of that report."

[00:14:59]>> Your honor, I'm going to object. Well, Mr. Klingler wants to talk about his client's attorney client privilege and maybe way Mr. The foreman does have attorney client privilege with his attorney at that time and we are going to assert that privilege because there's a privilege he has of right and so far he hasn't asked anything privilege. So I appreciate the sensitivity.

[00:15:24]>> Afroan just told 10 jurors under oath that he brought a television news crew to a sheriff's station because he feared being physically harmed or killed by law enforcement. That is an extraordinary statement to make in a civil trial where you are the defendant and the plaintiff's attorney made sure the jury heard it twice. Here is why that testimony cut in two directions at once.

[00:15:43]The plaintiffs needed to show that Afroman's posts were motivated by something beyond legitimate outrage.

[00:15:48]That they were calculated, malicious, designed to cause harm rather than to speak truth. But Foreman's testimony complicated that narrative. The actual malice standard under New York Times versus Sullivan, the standard that applies here because these deputies are public officials, requires proof that he published statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false. A man who genuinely believed he was in physical danger from specific officers who watched them search his home without finding anything, who says his cash came back short. That man has a credible claim to legitimate grievance, not calculated malice. One more thing happened in this segment that matters procedurally. When Clinger asked whether Foreman had directed his attorney to obtain the Claremont County investigation report, Foreman's defense council objected on attorney client privilege grounds. Judge Hine overruled the objection and for a precise legal reason. Under Ohio common law as articulated by the 8th District Court of Appeals and Perfection Corporation versus Traveler's Casualty in 2003.

[00:16:46]Attorney client privilege protects the substance of confidential communications, not the mere fact that a communication occurred. Clinger's question asked whether a communication happened. Did you ask your attorney to get that report? Not what was said. That falls outside the privilege. Foreman had to answer. And his answer that he hadn't seen the report he claimed to want for three and a half years was left sitting with the jury.

[00:17:07]>> Doing hard drugs and snitching on his friend. And you posted those based on rumors, didn't you? We can look at your deposition, but before you argue with me, but isn't that a fact that you made those allegations based on rumors you said you heard?

[00:17:27]>> It's a fact William Nulan is a convicted pedophile and Brian Nulan is his brother. After I zeroed in on Brian, I asked about him. Come to find out, he's a large statutory rapist that has sex with all kind of underage girls. He buys them beers and gets them drunk and all kind. That's probably the reason he had to leave the Adams County Sheriff Department cuz he beats up his wife and he messed with underage girls and he had to get out of town and go get a job in Northwood.

[00:17:53]>> All right. You don't want to answer my question?

[00:17:55]>> I do. Please ask another one.

[00:17:57]>> Well, let me ask this one again so I can get an answer.

[00:18:01]Do you remember in your deposition when I asked you, you have no reason to think these rumors about Brian Nulan are true, do you? And you said, well, it's more entertaining if it's true and I can make some money. Do you remember that?

[00:18:18]>> No, I don't. That's a three whatever however long that deposition was. You can read the deposition and it tells you what I said.

[00:18:24]>> Do we have a copy? Another copy of that cuz I'll show it to you. I can show you my copy. refresh your recollection.

[00:18:36]>> It's a >> Thank you, judge.

[00:18:43]If I can get it working here, >> your honor, I using the screen to refresh his recollection. That's publishing it to the jury. If he wants to refresh his recollection, he can show him it and then ask him a question. Much how we would do in criminal law with a police report. An officer didn't Remember, we wouldn't show the report.

[00:19:00]We would show it to the officer. He would refresh his memory by reading it and then we'd reask the question.

[00:19:07]>> Do it that way. Just make sure you think he reads it right. I'm just trying to get through the verbage.

[00:19:13]>> If Mr. Just make sure you think he reads it right, otherwise I have to wrestle with you about whether he read it right.

[00:19:22]So, just read it and then if we want to move it as an exhibit, you can do that. Remember your deposition being taken, Mr. Foreman, in your attorney's office on September 3rd, 2024.

[00:19:44]>> I remember the deposition >> and that deposition was taken in DJ Osborne's office.

[00:19:49]>> Yes, sir.

[00:19:52]That's the same office that you used to film that video that we saw last night with the actor playing Lieutenant Lisa Phillips. And he was that actor was sitting in the same chair that Lisa Phillips sat in during her deposition, wasn't she?

[00:20:15]>> Yeah. the actor played uh played uh Lisa uh because like I I wouldn't have known her if she hadn't came to my house and cut off my camera.

[00:20:23]>> Yeah. Right.

[00:20:24]>> Right.

[00:20:24]>> That's the office we're talking about and that's the office where I took your deposition. Right.

[00:20:28]>> Yes, sir.

[00:20:29]>> And in that deposition, I'm referring to page 84 of the deposition.

[00:20:38]I had asked you about >> he's testifying the deposition to refresh his memory.

[00:20:44]He's doing it right. So, sit down, please. Go ahead.

[00:20:47]>> Did I ask you this question and did you give me these answers, Mr. Foreman?

[00:20:51]Question. Would it be fair to say these are rumors? Answer.

[00:20:56]You know, Stephanie said it and you know some other people that don't remember.

[00:21:01]You know, I'd be in a hurry in Walmart or something. They shake my hand. Yeah, Brian used to do this, used to do that.

[00:21:08]Then something I didn't know him, but this is what I've heard. question.

[00:21:14]You don't have any particular reason to think that it's true or not true, right?

[00:21:22]Answer. Well, it's more entertaining if it is true. And I could probably make some money and capitalize on it if it's true.

[00:21:31]>> What are the line numbers?

[00:21:33]>> Starting with line seven and ending with line 21.

[00:21:39]>> Did Did I ask you those questions and you give me those answers? I don't I don't remember. That was a long time ago. But uh >> but that's my that's my question.

[00:21:47]>> I've always put Brian Nulan next to his brother. So that's my basis and I've >> we we noticed that. Yeah. And your attorney is going to be able to ask you whatever questions he wants. Right now I'd like you to focus on my questions.

[00:22:00]Mr. form.

[00:22:10]>> You have no evidence that Brian Nulan ever molested little boys, do you?

[00:22:17]>> If you look at the picture, he's holding the little boy butt. It's too too much for me. So, if you just use your eyeballs and then his brother's a convicted pedophile.

[00:22:27]>> That's that's your evidence for posting that. Well, >> pedophile stuff.

[00:22:31]>> Hey, you know, I'm just trying to figure out I'm trying to figure out what kind of guy is kicking on my door. What kind of guy is walking around my house reading my bank statements? It's a it's it's a dude. It's a dude that's possibly a pedophile. Got a convicted pedophile, brother. Uh deputized by the sheriff walking around possibly stealing my money. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on as I zoom in with my cameras. That's not the type of guy I don't think should be on the police force. I'm going to refer you again to your deposition. If you don't trust my reading of it, I'm happy to give it to you, Mr. Foreman. But, uh, on page 98 of your deposition on that same day, [clears throat] beginning at 911, [clears throat] did I ask you this question and did you give me this answer? And again, the only evidence, you don't have any evidence that Brian Nulan is a pedophile or plays with little boys. Answer, no, sir. Did I ask you that question? Did you give me that answer?

[00:23:35]>> I don't remember.

[00:23:37]>> What are the line numbers?

[00:23:39]>> Uh, beginning with line 11, ending with line 14 on page 98.

[00:23:51]>> [snorts] >> You have no evidence that Lisa Phillips stole your money, do you?

[00:23:56]>> I know if she hadn't araided my house, we wouldn't be having this conversation, nor nor a lawsuit or nothing. They never should have been at my house.

[00:24:04]>> Since you're not going to answer my question, I'm going to go back to your deposition again, Mr. Foreman. Page 102.

[00:24:11]Your honor, if I may, can I just enter a continuing objection so I don't have to object every time he uh does the deposition?

[00:24:17]>> Well, it's too important. So, please be specific.

[00:24:20]>> Thank you.

[00:24:21]>> So, I would enter a notation objection at this point. He is now testifying to the witness. He is not no longer refreshing his recollection.

[00:24:31]>> I'll be sensitive to that. So, you can rephrase also statement.

[00:24:37]>> You made the conclusion, but it's memory. So, You got to go back and fix that.

[00:24:42]>> All right, judge. I will. Thank you.

[00:24:46]>> Do you remember telling me in your deposition, Mr. Foreman, that you don't have any evidence that Lisa Phillips stole your money?

[00:24:59]>> Yeah, I I you know, she cut off the cameras, but I you know, I didn't know who took them. I didn't know who took them. So for all the officers was a suspect in the first at at first because I didn't know where after the deposition I realized that Brian Nulan was in charge of the money and I knew where to focus everything but at first all the cops was a suspect especially after they cut off my cameras and I couldn't see what they were doing.

[00:25:23]>> All right. Well, let me So you don't remember? Is that what you're telling me?

[00:25:27]>> I you know I I I remember telling you that Lisa, you know, probably didn't take my money, but I just didn't know. I just knew it was missing and some they cut off my cameras. So every all of them were suspects until I figured it out.

[00:25:40]>> So until you figured it out?

[00:25:42]>> Until everybody figured it out. Until it was solved of where the missing money was.

[00:25:49]>> All right. So just to clear this up and move on, you admit that you don't have any evidence that Lisa Phillips stole your money.

[00:25:56]>> No.

[00:25:57]>> That deposition admission, it's more entertaining if it's true and I could probably make some money. is the kind of statement that doesn't require a law degree to understand. 10 jurors just heard it and then 10 jurors acquitted Afroman on every count anyway. That result is worth sitting with because it tells us something important about how these cases actually work. For both remaining claims, defamation and false light, the deputies were required to prove not only that Foreman's statements were false, but that he made them with actual malice, knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for truth. The Ohio Supreme Court established the elements of false light in Welling versus Weinfeld in 2007 and the Ninth District Court of Appeals set out the defamation elements in Logreso versus Fry in 2014.

[00:26:40]Both claims required the deputies to clear the same high bar. Actual malice proved by clear and convincing evidence.

[00:26:46]In the 1967 case of Curtis Publishing Company versus Butts, the Supreme Court held that reckless disregard for the truth, proceeding despite serious doubts about accuracy satisfies that standard.

[00:26:57]On the surface, Foreman's deposition looks like a road map to that standard.

[00:27:01]He admitted he had no evidence. He admitted the allegations were rumors. He admitted he found them more valuable if people believed they were true. That should be devastating. But Afroman's defense had a rebuttal, the ACU, reinforced in their Amicus brief context. The posts at issue were part of an album, a music video series, and a documented artistic response to a government action that produced zero criminal charges. Ohio courts have consistently held that satire, parody, and artistic commentary on government conduct occupy a protected zone, even when exaggerated, hurtful, and commercially motivated. The question for the jury was not whether Afroman was tactful or fair. It was whether a reasonable person viewing the content would understand it as factual assertion or as the angry hyperbolic expression of a man who had deputies tear through his house and walk away clean. The jury answered that question. They answered it 13 times.

[00:27:52]>> Money >> to pay for the damage that they brought to my house under the circumstance that they shouldn't have even been there in the first place.

[00:28:00]>> Okay.

[00:28:02]So, the answer to my question is yes.

[00:28:04]Your motivation was to make money >> to pay for the damages that they brought to my house under the circumstances that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[00:28:11]>> Have you made enough yet to make up for it?

[00:28:17]>> Not really. You You know >> how much have you made on it?

[00:28:20]>> I don't know exactly, but it you know it it was it wasn't hardly $24,000.

[00:28:26]>> $24,000.

[00:28:27]>> It wasn't that. It wasn't that.

[00:28:29]>> You're still making money on today, right? With the new posts and advertisements and things. publicity.

[00:28:34]>> You're still selling merchandise, aren't you?

[00:28:37]>> No publicity. Just just mute. Just just everybody, you know, thanks to them bringing publicity to this. It's uh it's just a you know, an opportunity to run numbers up and be an entertainer.

[00:28:52]>> And the more lies, outrageous lies you tell about them, the more money you can make. Right.

[00:28:58]>> Fact. They never should have came to my house in the first place. Fact. If they hadn't came to my house, they wouldn't have put themselves on the video camera and in my music career.

[00:29:08]>> All of this is their fact. All of this is their fault and they have the audacity to sue me. These people and you are the predators and the victim at the same time.

[00:29:20]>> So what they did searching your house gave you the right to do everything you >> under the circumstance that I got freedom of speech after they run around my house with guns and kick down my door. I got the right to kick a can in my backyard, use my freedom of speech, turn my bad times into a good time. Yes, I do. And I think I'm a sport for doing so, cuz I don't go to their house, kick down their doors, flip them off on their surveillance cameras, then try to play the victim, and sue them.

[00:29:51]>> You were at Lisa Phillips's deposition, correct?

[00:29:53]>> Yes, sir.

[00:29:54]>> In your lawyer's office?

[00:29:55]>> Yes, sir.

[00:29:56]>> Same office where you filmed part of that video last Friday. Yes, sir.

[00:30:02]>> And you saw how upset she was when she was answering your lawyer's questions about how this had affected her, right?

[00:30:10]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:30:11]>> And you saw your attorney say, "Should we do we need to take a break?"

[00:30:16]>> Yes.

[00:30:16]>> And you saw her say, "No, let's get let's go on and get this over with."

[00:30:20]>> Yes, sir.

[00:30:21]>> You saw all that.

[00:30:22]>> Yes.

[00:30:23]>> You knew she was upset. Just like she knew I was upset when she was standing in front of my kids with a AR-15 with her hand around the trigger ready to shoot me. Uh just like she knew I was upset when she cut my cameras. But I'm not a person. She is. So I'm sorry for being a victim. Let's talk about the predators.

[00:30:39]>> Okay. So you saw all that. You saw how upset she was. You heard the testimony about her children. You heard the testimony at the depositions about Randy Nuland's daughter who came home upset.

[00:30:51]You heard all that. But you're still posting stuff about >> Yeah. because I understand it was Ry's fault and all of their fault for coming to my house in the first place. So, if they hadn't came to my house, their children wouldn't be saying nothing.

[00:31:03]None of this would be going home if they had a did their research and did things right. So, all of this is their fault.

[00:31:11]And now they want to sue me for their mistake.

[00:31:20]Is there anything that could change your mind about what you're doing to these deputies?

[00:31:26]>> Is there anything that can change my mind about the fact that they shouldn't have been at my house in the first place? Is there anything that can change my mind about how my money shouldn't have been touched in the first place?

[00:31:36]No.

[00:31:40]>> That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

[00:31:42]>> You're welcome. On March 18th, 2026, after approximately 6 and a half hours of deliberations, the jury in Adams County returned his verdict. Seven deputies, 13 claims, nearly $4 million in requested damages. The jury found for Afroman on every single count. Zero liability, zero damages. The deputies walked out of that courthouse with nothing. What happened next matters, too. The lawsuit itself had become part of the story. The ACLU, in a formal amicus brief filed in support of Afroman, had labeled this case a slap suit. a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Slaps suits are a documented legal tactic in which powerful parties use civil litigation, not primarily to recover genuine damages, but to impose costs on critics, suppress speech, and make the process itself the punishment. The ACLU's position was that seven law enforcement officers, backed by a department's institutional weight, had used a nearly $4 million damages demand to silence a private citizen who had used publicly available footage of a failed government action to make art. The jury's verdict, read through that lens, is not just a win for one rapper in one Ohio county.

[00:32:47]It is a statement about the limits of using civil courts to punish people for criticizing the people who hold power over them. What this case does not resolve and what courts are still sorting out is the exact boundary between protected artistic commentary and actionable false statements of fact.

[00:33:02]Afroman walked the line aggressively. He posted things he admitted under oath he couldn't verify. He made money doing it.

[00:33:08]And yet a jury decided that everything he posted, taken in its full context as the work of an entertainer responding to a government overreach, fell on the protected side of that line. The deputies were public officials. The standard they had to meet was actual malice, knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for truth proved by clear and convincing evidence. On every single count, on every single claim, they could not clear that bar. That outcome was not inevitable. It required 10 people to look at the full picture, not just the deposition and mission, not just the AR-15, not just the album cover, and decide what it all added up to. They decided it added up to the First Amendment doing exactly what it was designed to do, protecting the right of a private citizen to criticize, mock, and publicly challenge the conduct of the government, even when that criticism is crude, even when it is commercially motivated, and even when it causes real pain to real people. Here at the Court Code, we believe that an informed citizenry is the foundation of a free society. By examining real courtroom proceedings, we aim to demystify the legal system and empower viewers with knowledge of their constitutional rights. Whether you're a legal professional, a student, or simply someone who values transparency and accountability, our content is designed to educate and engage