Victims of a 2018 robbery 6ix9ine was involved in have complained that the single was released to “antagonize” them, but the rapper’s attorney says otherwise.
An admission has been made by Tekashi 6ix9ine‘s attorney after the rapper’s recent release “GINÉ” got him into a bit of legal trouble. The track ushered in a new season for 6ix9ine after the rapper took a brief hiatus away from the spotlight, but in true fashion, he returned with a vengeance. Just ahead of the single’s arrival, the disgraced rapper took aim at foes like Lil Durk and Fivio Foreign, further intensifying the hype around the record’s release.
Once the song made the rounds, 6ix9ine’s robbery victims returned to court to argue that “GINÉ” was created to “antagonize” them. The rapper was previously sued by Seketha Wonzer and Kevin Dozier in connection to a 2018 robbery involving 6ix9ine and his former Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods associates that he testified against in federal court.
6ix9ine was reportedly ordered to pay the victims $1 million in restitution and they have now gone after the rapper for allegedly prodding them on his new track. However, 6ix9ine’s attorney has responded by saying the song has nothing to do with the victims and instead was a diss track targeted at Chicago chart-topper, Lil Durk.
“Specifically, Defendant recently released a song, entitled ‘Gine,’ which disparages Plaintiffs, brags about the crimes that he committed against them, tells Plaintiffs to ‘suck D!ck’ and ‘Eat My Sack,’ and repeatedly refers to them as the n-word,” the victims’ lawyer Matthew DeOreo reportedly wrote in court documents.
6ix9ine’s lawyer Robert Meloni responded, “Mr. Hernandez is attempting to dig his life out of the hole he has admittedly put himself into. In order to succeed in the rap music industry, artists have to present a persona that is decadent and offensive. Any attempts by Defendants and their Counsel to use this Court to dictate how Defendant pursues rehabilitating his career through the music that is the lifeblood of his profession not only infringes Defendant’s First Amendment rights, but quite possibly violated New York’s Anti-SLAPP law.”