An admission has been made by Tekashi 6ix9ine‘s lawyer after the rapper’s latest launch “GINÉ” received him right into a little bit of authorized bother. The monitor ushered in a brand new season for 6ix9ine after the rapper took a quick hiatus away from the highlight, however in true trend, he returned with a vengeance. Simply forward of the one’s arrival, the disgraced rapper took purpose at foes like Lil Durk and Fivio International, additional intensifying the hype across the file’s launch. 

As soon as the track made the rounds, 6ix9ine’s theft victims returned to courtroom to argue that “GINÉ” was created to “antagonize” them. The rapper was beforehand sued by Seketha Wonzer and Kevin Dozier in connection to a 2018 theft involving 6ix9ine and his former 9 Trey Gangsta Bloods associates that he testified in opposition to in federal courtroom.

6ix9ine was reportedly ordered to pay the victims $1 million in restitution and they’ve now gone after the rapper for allegedly prodding them on his new monitor. Nonetheless, 6ix9ine’s lawyer has responded by saying the track has nothing to do with the victims and as an alternative was a diss monitor focused at Chicago chart-topper, Lil Durk.

“Particularly, Defendant lately launched a track, entitled ‘Gine,’ which disparages Plaintiffs, brags in regards to the crimes that he dedicated in opposition to them, tells Plaintiffs to ‘suck D!ck’ and ‘Eat My Sack,’ and repeatedly refers to them because the n-word,” the victims’ lawyer Matthew DeOreo reportedly wrote in courtroom paperwork.

6ix9ine’s lawyer Robert Meloni responded, “Mr. Hernandez is trying to dig his life out of the opening he has admittedly put himself into. So as to succeed within the rap music business, artists need to current a persona that’s decadent and offensive. Any makes an attempt by Defendants and their Counsel to make use of this Courtroom to dictate how Defendant pursues rehabilitating his profession by means of the music that’s the lifeblood of his career not solely infringes Defendant’s First Modification rights, however fairly presumably violated New York’s Anti-SLAPP regulation.”