Friday, July 31, 2015

If a First Year Law Student Wrote Up Meek v. Drake for Homework

CASE: Meek v. Drake, 123 A.2d 456 (The Internet, 2015)1

FACTS: On June 29, 2015, plaintiff and Nicki Minaj paramour rapper Meek Mill (a.k.a. Robert Rahmeek Williams, hereinafter "Meek") released the album "Dreams Worth More Than Money," containing a track called "R.I.C.O." That track featured a guest appearance by defendant and Canadian teen TV star turned platinum MC., Drake (a.k.a. Aubrey Drake Graham, hereinafter "Drake").

On July 22, 2015, during an extended Twitter battle and later that night in concert, Meek accused Drake of failure to write his own rhymes--a grave breach of the Hip-Hop Code of Ethics and a serious allegation. Specifically, Meek claimed that Drake's one-verse contribution to "R.I.C.O." was penned not by Drake himself, but by an MC from Atlanta named Quentin Miller. 

Two days later, on July 24, 2015, Mr. Miller denied "ghost-writing" Drake's verse. But that evening, esteemed NYC radio DJ Funkmaster Flex declared on Twitter that, in fact, Meek's allegations were true, and that he had in his possession sufficient evidence to prove them. 

The following day, Drake released a track called "Charged Up" in response to Meek's allegations, to which Meek claimed he had a sur-reply prepared in the form of a track called "Beautiful Nightmare." However, when the time came for Meek to unveil the highly-anticipated sur-reply/track, it turned out to be 15 seconds of Meek screaming. Accordingly, Meek was roundly heckled a day later during the Nicki Minaj Pinkprint tour stop in Drake's hometown of Toronto.

On July 29, 2015, Drake dropped "Back to Back Freestyle," another diss track that the Internet ruled on a motion for preliminary injunction was an "absolute monster." The Internet's judgment found Meek had insufficiently responded to Drake's initial diss, and in dicta ruled against Meek's relationship with Minaj on additional claims made regarding Meek's hometown Philadelphia Phillies against Drake's hometown Toronto Blue Jays, who were intervening parties on the motion.

On July 30, 2015, Meek filed another untimely response in the form of a diss track titled "Wanna Know." The Internet was not impressed. In a per curiam order issued by Twitter, the Internet ruled Meek's track a "tree full of lemons". The following day, Drake de facto dropped the mic with an Instagram image of himself laughing hysterically.

ISSUE: Whether Meek or Drake is the lamest person in this beef.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: This case comes before the Internet on Drake's Motion for Summary Judgment.

HELD: Drake prevailed on summary judgment before a three judge panel of the Internet composed of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. 

REASONING: The Internet held that Drake was the prevailing party, and that Meek was the lamest person in this beef. The primary reason for the Internet's holding was that Meek's tracks and responses were inferior to Drake's as a matter of law.

1  Source: See http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/31/drake-vs-meek-mill-feud (last visited July 31, 2015).

Plaintiff Meek Mill


Defendant Drake

1 comment:

  1. At least teach that first year the proper use of lame, lamer, and most fucking lamest.

    ReplyDelete