Your faithful reporter has filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Coleman v. Grand, about the right of a jazz protege and #MeToo survivor to speak out about her experiences.
Your amicus brief does not address the facts of this case. Here are the major underlying disputed material facts. Grand is accusing me of repeatedly forcing her to engage in unwanted sex for years, which are multiple criminal sexual acts.
Here is the first paragraph of my lawsuit, which summarizes why I am suing Grand (the lawsuit is still active):
1. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover, inter alia, damages caused by Defendant’s libelous communication of knowingly false statements in numerous emails to the parties’ professional colleagues, friends, and close associates. Upon information and belief, Defendant attached a defamatory letter (the “Letter”) to the aforementioned emails, which contained numerous false statements alleging criminal sexual acts and sexual harassment on the part of Plaintiff.
Case 1:18-cv-05663 Document 1 Filed 10/10/18
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 22 Filed 03/08/19
In short, I am suing Grand because she made multiple knowingly false criminal accusations against of rape me.
The district judge chose to ignore the actual words in Grand’s accusation Letter(s). Therefore my evidence that Grand is lying was also be ignored. The following statement alone, created by Grand and distributed to multiple 3rd parties in communications where Grand identified me by name, states exactly what I stated in the first paragraph of my lawsuit.
Maria Grand’s November 2017 accusation Letter(s): “However in the last three years of my interaction with him I have been sexually harassed and pushed into saying yes to sexual acts I did not want to do.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102-4 Filed 12/19/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 3182
This is a criminal accusation of forced unwanted sex.
Go listen to Grand's lawyers lie in front of 3 Federal Judges during the Oral Arguments to my appeal.
May 13, 2022 Oral Arguments: Judge Menashi 36:10 I mean wouldn't somebody reading the letter that she wrote think that he is being abusive towards her? I mean, you're now trying to characterize it as if it's like; well, I did some things, he did some things. But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will. (Source: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1031353b-514b-4018-a589-4ec4018349f2/353/doc/21-800.mp3 )
This is EXACTLY the point of Grand’s Letter. Obviously, extracting sex from anyone against their will is a criminal act. It is commonly called RAPE. Grand’s specific forced sex (rape) accusation falls under the following Federal code: The Federal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 2242 - Sexual Abuse (commonly referred to as Rape) “(3) engages in a sexual act with another person without that other person's consent, to include doing so through coercion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2242
Criminal accusations are not “opinions”, and have nothing to do with the 2020 New York Anti-SLAPP legislation, which was retroactively misapplied to my 2018 lawsuit in any case.
Grand’s lawyers are trying to find spurious legal arguments to avoid accountability, when the case is simple. Grand accused me of repeatedly forcing her to engage in unwanted sex, for years. These are first hand accusations which are statements of fact, based on what Grand claims she experienced. These are not “opinions”, and have nothing to do with Anti-SLAPP laws.
Either Grand is telling the truth and I forced her to engage in unwanted sex, or Grand is knowingly lying, as stated by an appellate judge in oral arguments to my appeal:
Judge Menashi 9:13
Well the district court thought that you couldn't prove that no reasonable jury could conclude that she acted with actual malice. Maybe the proper standard is grossly responsible. Maybe it's negligence if this isn't a matter of public concern. I take it. Well, I guess the district also said that it's a matter of opinions. Actually, maybe I want to ask about that first. So I read her. her statement, it says there were incidents where he wouldn't give her work unless she had sex with him. I also read, you know, his letter responded, which says that that didn't happen. So that's a factual dispute. Right.
And Later…
Judge Menashi 11:56 answer I mean, usually when we apply grossly irresponsible or actual malice, we're talking about whether, you know, news organizations ... sufficiently investigated certain allegations. But here, she was there, right. So she knows what happened or didn't happen. [Stein: Yes.] So if Mr. Coleman could show that it's not true. Wouldn't that show that she was indifferent to the truth, that she said something that's not true? Because she would've had first hand knowledge about whether it's true? Stein 12:28 It absolutely would, Your Honor. And Judge Menashi 12:30 So like so, the district court seemed to think that he needed some evidence that, like, some separate evidence that showed that she knew what she was saying was not true. But if in fact, he could show that it's not true, then she would necessarily know, right, because she was there. And Later… Judge Menashi 33:36 Knowledge of falsity would meet any of those standards, right? [Bailen: Potentially] It seems like the way this case works, it sort of rises or falls on whether the statements are true or false, right? Because she made the statements, and she was there, and she bases, she bases them on firsthand knowledge. So either they're true, and she knows them to be true, or they're false, and she would know them to be false. It's not like she's advised, [and] she's writing something secondhand. — Judge Menashi 34:55 But that sounds like a merits determination doesn't it, so if there's some things that support what she says and some things that support his version of events, why isn't that a material issue of fact? Or an issue of material fact? Bailen 35:06 Because it's whether or not she knowingly published a false statement. And if there are grounds under St. Amant, as long as that she didn't completely fabricate... Judge Menashi 35:14 Are you saying that we have these text messages and so on that show him, her, pursuing him or behaving in a way that somebody wouldn't behave if the account that she gave was right. That is some evidence supporting his position. Maybe it could be argued the other way. But doesn't that mean, it's possible to, for a reasonable jury to reach the other conclusion? Bailen 35:32 not in this case, because in this case, what she let what she wrote in her piece was she acknowledged the fact that she was pursuing him at times she acknowledged the fact that she fell in love with him. So the fact that, Sullivan 35:43 She acknowledges the fact that she was manipulative, right? Bailen 35:46 And she, she acknowledges the fact that she too, was manipulative. He was manipulative on his side, and she was manipulative on her side, essentially, there was a quid pro quo going on here, where they both had different views of what the quid pro quo was. And so that's, and that's fine.That's, she's expressing her views of this. And then he expressed his views in his letter. And that's what, that's what the First Amendment is all about. Judge Menashi 36:10 I mean wouldn't somebody reading the letter that she wrote think that he is being abusive towards her? I mean, you're now trying to characterize it as if it's like; well, I did some things, he did some things. But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will. (Source: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1031353b-514b-4018-a589-4ec4018349f2/353/doc/21-800.mp3 )
As is clear in these arguments, either Grand is telling the truth, or she is knowingly lying. The case is this simple.
All attempts to divert attention from the major underlying disputed material facts are futile.
First hand accusations of forced unwanted sex are not "opinions". They are statements of fact that are actionable, meaning they must be proven true or false.
Furthermore, on June 13, 2023 the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in NY state) made a binding ruling that the 2020 New York Anti-SLAPP cannot be retroactively applied to an already pending lawsuit (as my 2018 lawsuit was).
This was the legal instrument used to dismiss my lawsuit. Therefore my case should be remanded back to the district court for a trial. This also makes the arguments in your brief moot.
Grand lawyers have twice contacted me since this ruling to request a settlement. I asked them has Grand’s position changed. The answer is clearly no.
Recently Grand herself contacted me and asked to talk to me. I texted Grand that I would only talk to her if I recorded the conversation. That appeared to be the end of that.
Grand’s lawyers KNOW that Grand is a liar, as Grand’s lawyers were present during Grand’s deposition when Grand repeatedly lied under oath, and got caught lying under oath. Grand and her unethical lawyers also got caught red-handed attempting to deceive the court and fabricate evidence.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2-4 of 12 PageID #: 3160-3162 (beginning with “Grand extends her lies to intentionally misleading the Court...”)
Grand accused me of the following knowingly false criminal accusations (forced non-consensual sex is rape):
1. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me of pressuring her into having unwanted sex with me in our very first sexual encounter on June 2, 2011. Confirming this in a signed sworn interrogatory, Grand made clear that she did not consider this first sexual encounter to be consensual on her part. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: In June 2011, during Parties’ first sexual encounter, Mr. Coleman put immense pressure on Defendant at every step, persuading and pushing her until she acquiesced. The moment Defendant did not comply, Mr. Coleman became enraged, retreated to his room, shut the door behind him, and refused to speak to Defendant until she did what he wished. Defendant did not feel that this encounter was in any way consensual.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2287 Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 90-1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2654 The district judge cited this, but left out the key words “pressure me enough”. Grand’s own sworn interrogatories were also ignored.
2. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me, in the years 2011 through 2013, of using my position as a mentor/teacher to pressure, coerce, blackmail, extort, and otherwise force Grand into paying for music lessons with unwanted quid pro quo sex. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory. The dates are confirmed by Grand in her April 17, 2019 deposition. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: When Mr. Coleman tied his mentorship and teaching to Defendant’s provision of sexual favors, refusing to mentor her or allow her to play unless she acquiesced; Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285
3. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me of forcing her to stay in my Chicago hotel room with me against her will, in July 2011, with the intention of me forcing Grand to have sex with me. This is a kidnapping accusation with the intent to rape. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory and in her deposition. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: When in July 2011, Mr. Coleman forced Defendant to share a hotel room with him after playing a show in Chicago, told her she could not sleep without having sex with him, and forced her to leave the room at 3am when she repeatedly refused; Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285
4. In this major underlying disputed material fact (the most heinous of Grand’s criminal forced sex accusations), Grand clearly states in multiple documents distributed to 3rd parties, including in different versions of her Letter(s), that in the 3 years following September 2013 (October 2013 through September 2016), Grand did not love me, and did not desire ANY sexual acts with me. Grand goes on to state that for the entire 3 years following September 2013, I used my position as a bandleader/employer to force Grand into engaging in unwanted sexual acts with me. Grand stated that she did not desire sex with me in this time period even once. Grand follows this up in her Letter(s) and in 3rd party communications with descriptions of sexual encounters that, according to Grand, were ALL unwanted by her. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory. Maria Grand’s November 2017 accusation Letter(s): “However in the last three years of my interaction with him I have been sexually harassed and pushed into saying yes to sexual acts I did not want to do.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102-4 Filed 12/19/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 3182 (our sexual relationship occurred from June 2011 through September 2016. Therefore the last 3 years is October 2013 through September 2016). “From 2013 onward, when Mr. Coleman would refuse to book or solidify gigs or tours unless Defendant had sex with him;” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285 Grand’s November 16, 2017 email to journalist/documentary maker Steve Rowland: “I hope my letter makes that clear... I never wanted to be in a relationship with someone that much older than me. It wasn't something I was craving. But once I became intimate with him all the lines blurred and I felt that I needed him, and I fell for him. I wish I hadn't, I wish I had more courage, more support, more options, and didn't go through that. Anyways, after I started resisting his advances, it was only harassment and coercion. I want to stress that again. After September 2013, all I was is harassed. It's a long time to be harassed. I made it clear many times that I wanted him to stop propositioning me, and he didn't care. I'm highly annoyed that this was not more clear in my letter and that you felt the need to stress that relationships should be kept out of work. This isn't about relationships. It's about abuse and harassment…” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 92-4 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 81 PageID #: 2738
5. Grand’s Letter(s) accuse me of sexually assaulting her in my hotel room in Big Indian, NY. Grand’s description is one of sexual assault, which Grand states in her deposition was non-consensual. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory calling this incident an “assault”, and Grand’s description of this event is clearly sexual in nature. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: “When Mr. Coleman assaulted Defendant in her sleep, kissing her on the lips while half- clothed;” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2287 The district judge cited this, but stated that it was not a sexual assault because I stopped. This is faulty logic. If I assaulted Grand - i.e., and if I got on top of her half-naked while she was sleep, kissed her in the mouth, and then groped her body - then whether I stopped or not is immaterial.
These are ALL knowingly false criminal accusations. But the fact that the district judge ignored the major underlying disputed material facts of this lawsuit is quite alarming. To call these first hand criminal accusations “opinions”
Now HERE is what you, Grand, her lawyers, the district judge and Grand’s other supporters have not addressed:
How is it that Grand can distribute accusation Letter(s), 3rd party communications, and file court documents under oath - where Grand is accusing me of forcing her to engage in unwanted sex for 3 consecutive years (these are criminal accusations), with Grand stating that she did not desire ANY sexual interactions with me in ALL of the 3 years after September 2013 (i.e., October 2013 through September 2016), and with Grand stating that ALL sexual interactions that occurred with me after September 2013 were unwanted by Grand and forced by me - when in this exact same 3 year time period, Grand was, unsolicited, continually propositioning me for sex and frequently telling me exactly which sexual acts she wanted me to perform on her? Not because Grand was being coerced or extorted, but because Grand was horny, in love, etc?
These are the facts that remain unanswered. And no amount of deflecting will change these major underlying disputed facts.
Grand is not a #MeToo survivor. She is a woman who attempted to ruin my career by making knowingly false accusations of forced sex. And she deceived and conspired with many individuals on our creative music scene. Grand has never presented any evidence other than fabricated evidence. And both Grand's forced sex accusations and my evidence that Grand is lying were ignored.
The appellate judge summed it up in oral arguments.
"But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will."
This is obviously a crime, unless you believe that extracting unwanted sex from someone is OK.
So the real question should be, is Grand telling the truth, or is she knowingly lying. Obviously, since Grand neglected to include her accusation Letter(s) her constant sexual pursuit of me - in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 - then obviously Grand is knowingly lying.
Here is a small sample, which have been shared with Grand’s lawyers:
2/24/2014 [2/24/14, 2:00 AM] Maria Grand : Good night. I still care about you.
[2/24/14, 3:05 PM] Maria Grand : My phone is dying and it won't charge, so I have no way of getting in touch with you. Have a safe trip back.
[2/24/14, 6:22 PM] Steve Coleman : Just landed, just turn on ur Skype and keep it on. Can't talk until I get through customs.
[2/25/14, 11:23 PM] Steve Coleman : R I close?
[2/27/14, 3:32 PM] Maria Grand : Can u come here so I can smother you? I'm all oiled up.
[2/27/14, 3:36 PM] Steve Coleman : Oil up
[2/27/14, 3:36 PM] Maria Grand : I'm too horny. I'm going to cum before you get here.
[2/27/14, 3:37 PM] Maria Grand : Then you can come in and sink inside me
[2/27/14, 7:19 PM] Steve Coleman : I'll call after grocery shopping, going to get tofu, saitan and fish.
(“smother” is a reference to cunnilingus, Grand’s favorite sexual act)
[3/29/14 3:46 PM] Maria Grand (phone number redacted): I'm still into u.
[3/29/14 3:48 PM] Maria Grand (phone number redacted): I want u to go down on me.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-6 Filed 10/24/19 Page 30 of 43 PageID #: 2142
9/11/2014
Coleman: “I'll be 60 in two years, so you made the right choice! Got out before it was too sof... errr, I mean late.”,
Grand: “Hahahahahahahaha! Your tongue still works. That's all I need anyways"
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 35-1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 107-108 of 152 PageID #: 494-495
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 82-8 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1682
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 83 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12-13 of 22 PageID #: 2006-2007
9/3/2015
Grand: What are you going to do tomorrow night? I'm horny.
Coleman: What are u talking about, tomorrow night?
..
Grand: No... I really am just horny. Not expecting anything. But I could use a licking
Coleman: Hahahaha!!!! YOU can use a licking???? …
Grand: If you promise to treat me really nicely and that I'll only do what I want to do, I'll come to your room now. So we can get some stress relief.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-3 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6-7 of 9 PageID #: 2096-2097
This is all within the exact same time period that Grand claims that she did not desire ANY sexual acts with me.
Another important development in your ongoing, wide-ranging campaign against sexual harassment and abuse.
Your amicus brief does not address the facts of this case. Here are the major underlying disputed material facts. Grand is accusing me of repeatedly forcing her to engage in unwanted sex for years, which are multiple criminal sexual acts.
Here is the first paragraph of my lawsuit, which summarizes why I am suing Grand (the lawsuit is still active):
1. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover, inter alia, damages caused by Defendant’s libelous communication of knowingly false statements in numerous emails to the parties’ professional colleagues, friends, and close associates. Upon information and belief, Defendant attached a defamatory letter (the “Letter”) to the aforementioned emails, which contained numerous false statements alleging criminal sexual acts and sexual harassment on the part of Plaintiff.
Case 1:18-cv-05663 Document 1 Filed 10/10/18
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 22 Filed 03/08/19
In short, I am suing Grand because she made multiple knowingly false criminal accusations against of rape me.
The district judge chose to ignore the actual words in Grand’s accusation Letter(s). Therefore my evidence that Grand is lying was also be ignored. The following statement alone, created by Grand and distributed to multiple 3rd parties in communications where Grand identified me by name, states exactly what I stated in the first paragraph of my lawsuit.
Maria Grand’s November 2017 accusation Letter(s): “However in the last three years of my interaction with him I have been sexually harassed and pushed into saying yes to sexual acts I did not want to do.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102-4 Filed 12/19/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 3182
This is a criminal accusation of forced unwanted sex.
Go listen to Grand's lawyers lie in front of 3 Federal Judges during the Oral Arguments to my appeal.
May 13, 2022 Oral Arguments: Judge Menashi 36:10 I mean wouldn't somebody reading the letter that she wrote think that he is being abusive towards her? I mean, you're now trying to characterize it as if it's like; well, I did some things, he did some things. But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will. (Source: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1031353b-514b-4018-a589-4ec4018349f2/353/doc/21-800.mp3 )
This is EXACTLY the point of Grand’s Letter. Obviously, extracting sex from anyone against their will is a criminal act. It is commonly called RAPE. Grand’s specific forced sex (rape) accusation falls under the following Federal code: The Federal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 2242 - Sexual Abuse (commonly referred to as Rape) “(3) engages in a sexual act with another person without that other person's consent, to include doing so through coercion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2242
Criminal accusations are not “opinions”, and have nothing to do with the 2020 New York Anti-SLAPP legislation, which was retroactively misapplied to my 2018 lawsuit in any case.
Grand’s lawyers are trying to find spurious legal arguments to avoid accountability, when the case is simple. Grand accused me of repeatedly forcing her to engage in unwanted sex, for years. These are first hand accusations which are statements of fact, based on what Grand claims she experienced. These are not “opinions”, and have nothing to do with Anti-SLAPP laws.
Either Grand is telling the truth and I forced her to engage in unwanted sex, or Grand is knowingly lying, as stated by an appellate judge in oral arguments to my appeal:
Judge Menashi 9:13
Well the district court thought that you couldn't prove that no reasonable jury could conclude that she acted with actual malice. Maybe the proper standard is grossly responsible. Maybe it's negligence if this isn't a matter of public concern. I take it. Well, I guess the district also said that it's a matter of opinions. Actually, maybe I want to ask about that first. So I read her. her statement, it says there were incidents where he wouldn't give her work unless she had sex with him. I also read, you know, his letter responded, which says that that didn't happen. So that's a factual dispute. Right.
And Later…
Judge Menashi 11:56 answer I mean, usually when we apply grossly irresponsible or actual malice, we're talking about whether, you know, news organizations ... sufficiently investigated certain allegations. But here, she was there, right. So she knows what happened or didn't happen. [Stein: Yes.] So if Mr. Coleman could show that it's not true. Wouldn't that show that she was indifferent to the truth, that she said something that's not true? Because she would've had first hand knowledge about whether it's true? Stein 12:28 It absolutely would, Your Honor. And Judge Menashi 12:30 So like so, the district court seemed to think that he needed some evidence that, like, some separate evidence that showed that she knew what she was saying was not true. But if in fact, he could show that it's not true, then she would necessarily know, right, because she was there. And Later… Judge Menashi 33:36 Knowledge of falsity would meet any of those standards, right? [Bailen: Potentially] It seems like the way this case works, it sort of rises or falls on whether the statements are true or false, right? Because she made the statements, and she was there, and she bases, she bases them on firsthand knowledge. So either they're true, and she knows them to be true, or they're false, and she would know them to be false. It's not like she's advised, [and] she's writing something secondhand. — Judge Menashi 34:55 But that sounds like a merits determination doesn't it, so if there's some things that support what she says and some things that support his version of events, why isn't that a material issue of fact? Or an issue of material fact? Bailen 35:06 Because it's whether or not she knowingly published a false statement. And if there are grounds under St. Amant, as long as that she didn't completely fabricate... Judge Menashi 35:14 Are you saying that we have these text messages and so on that show him, her, pursuing him or behaving in a way that somebody wouldn't behave if the account that she gave was right. That is some evidence supporting his position. Maybe it could be argued the other way. But doesn't that mean, it's possible to, for a reasonable jury to reach the other conclusion? Bailen 35:32 not in this case, because in this case, what she let what she wrote in her piece was she acknowledged the fact that she was pursuing him at times she acknowledged the fact that she fell in love with him. So the fact that, Sullivan 35:43 She acknowledges the fact that she was manipulative, right? Bailen 35:46 And she, she acknowledges the fact that she too, was manipulative. He was manipulative on his side, and she was manipulative on her side, essentially, there was a quid pro quo going on here, where they both had different views of what the quid pro quo was. And so that's, and that's fine.That's, she's expressing her views of this. And then he expressed his views in his letter. And that's what, that's what the First Amendment is all about. Judge Menashi 36:10 I mean wouldn't somebody reading the letter that she wrote think that he is being abusive towards her? I mean, you're now trying to characterize it as if it's like; well, I did some things, he did some things. But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will. (Source: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1031353b-514b-4018-a589-4ec4018349f2/353/doc/21-800.mp3 )
As is clear in these arguments, either Grand is telling the truth, or she is knowingly lying. The case is this simple.
All attempts to divert attention from the major underlying disputed material facts are futile.
First hand accusations of forced unwanted sex are not "opinions". They are statements of fact that are actionable, meaning they must be proven true or false.
Furthermore, on June 13, 2023 the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in NY state) made a binding ruling that the 2020 New York Anti-SLAPP cannot be retroactively applied to an already pending lawsuit (as my 2018 lawsuit was).
This was the legal instrument used to dismiss my lawsuit. Therefore my case should be remanded back to the district court for a trial. This also makes the arguments in your brief moot.
Grand lawyers have twice contacted me since this ruling to request a settlement. I asked them has Grand’s position changed. The answer is clearly no.
Recently Grand herself contacted me and asked to talk to me. I texted Grand that I would only talk to her if I recorded the conversation. That appeared to be the end of that.
Grand’s lawyers KNOW that Grand is a liar, as Grand’s lawyers were present during Grand’s deposition when Grand repeatedly lied under oath, and got caught lying under oath. Grand and her unethical lawyers also got caught red-handed attempting to deceive the court and fabricate evidence.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2-4 of 12 PageID #: 3160-3162 (beginning with “Grand extends her lies to intentionally misleading the Court...”)
Grand accused me of the following knowingly false criminal accusations (forced non-consensual sex is rape):
1. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me of pressuring her into having unwanted sex with me in our very first sexual encounter on June 2, 2011. Confirming this in a signed sworn interrogatory, Grand made clear that she did not consider this first sexual encounter to be consensual on her part. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: In June 2011, during Parties’ first sexual encounter, Mr. Coleman put immense pressure on Defendant at every step, persuading and pushing her until she acquiesced. The moment Defendant did not comply, Mr. Coleman became enraged, retreated to his room, shut the door behind him, and refused to speak to Defendant until she did what he wished. Defendant did not feel that this encounter was in any way consensual.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2287 Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 90-1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2654 The district judge cited this, but left out the key words “pressure me enough”. Grand’s own sworn interrogatories were also ignored.
2. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me, in the years 2011 through 2013, of using my position as a mentor/teacher to pressure, coerce, blackmail, extort, and otherwise force Grand into paying for music lessons with unwanted quid pro quo sex. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory. The dates are confirmed by Grand in her April 17, 2019 deposition. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: When Mr. Coleman tied his mentorship and teaching to Defendant’s provision of sexual favors, refusing to mentor her or allow her to play unless she acquiesced; Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285
3. Grand’s Letter(s) accuses me of forcing her to stay in my Chicago hotel room with me against her will, in July 2011, with the intention of me forcing Grand to have sex with me. This is a kidnapping accusation with the intent to rape. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory and in her deposition. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: When in July 2011, Mr. Coleman forced Defendant to share a hotel room with him after playing a show in Chicago, told her she could not sleep without having sex with him, and forced her to leave the room at 3am when she repeatedly refused; Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285
4. In this major underlying disputed material fact (the most heinous of Grand’s criminal forced sex accusations), Grand clearly states in multiple documents distributed to 3rd parties, including in different versions of her Letter(s), that in the 3 years following September 2013 (October 2013 through September 2016), Grand did not love me, and did not desire ANY sexual acts with me. Grand goes on to state that for the entire 3 years following September 2013, I used my position as a bandleader/employer to force Grand into engaging in unwanted sexual acts with me. Grand stated that she did not desire sex with me in this time period even once. Grand follows this up in her Letter(s) and in 3rd party communications with descriptions of sexual encounters that, according to Grand, were ALL unwanted by her. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory. Maria Grand’s November 2017 accusation Letter(s): “However in the last three years of my interaction with him I have been sexually harassed and pushed into saying yes to sexual acts I did not want to do.” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 102-4 Filed 12/19/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 3182 (our sexual relationship occurred from June 2011 through September 2016. Therefore the last 3 years is October 2013 through September 2016). “From 2013 onward, when Mr. Coleman would refuse to book or solidify gigs or tours unless Defendant had sex with him;” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2285 Grand’s November 16, 2017 email to journalist/documentary maker Steve Rowland: “I hope my letter makes that clear... I never wanted to be in a relationship with someone that much older than me. It wasn't something I was craving. But once I became intimate with him all the lines blurred and I felt that I needed him, and I fell for him. I wish I hadn't, I wish I had more courage, more support, more options, and didn't go through that. Anyways, after I started resisting his advances, it was only harassment and coercion. I want to stress that again. After September 2013, all I was is harassed. It's a long time to be harassed. I made it clear many times that I wanted him to stop propositioning me, and he didn't care. I'm highly annoyed that this was not more clear in my letter and that you felt the need to stress that relationships should be kept out of work. This isn't about relationships. It's about abuse and harassment…” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 92-4 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 81 PageID #: 2738
5. Grand’s Letter(s) accuse me of sexually assaulting her in my hotel room in Big Indian, NY. Grand’s description is one of sexual assault, which Grand states in her deposition was non-consensual. Grand confirmed this in a signed sworn interrogatory calling this incident an “assault”, and Grand’s description of this event is clearly sexual in nature. Interrogatories response of April 22, 2019, a sworn statement researched and prepared by Grand and her lawyers, and signed by Grand: “When Mr. Coleman assaulted Defendant in her sleep, kissing her on the lips while half- clothed;” Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2287 The district judge cited this, but stated that it was not a sexual assault because I stopped. This is faulty logic. If I assaulted Grand - i.e., and if I got on top of her half-naked while she was sleep, kissed her in the mouth, and then groped her body - then whether I stopped or not is immaterial.
These are ALL knowingly false criminal accusations. But the fact that the district judge ignored the major underlying disputed material facts of this lawsuit is quite alarming. To call these first hand criminal accusations “opinions”
Now HERE is what you, Grand, her lawyers, the district judge and Grand’s other supporters have not addressed:
How is it that Grand can distribute accusation Letter(s), 3rd party communications, and file court documents under oath - where Grand is accusing me of forcing her to engage in unwanted sex for 3 consecutive years (these are criminal accusations), with Grand stating that she did not desire ANY sexual interactions with me in ALL of the 3 years after September 2013 (i.e., October 2013 through September 2016), and with Grand stating that ALL sexual interactions that occurred with me after September 2013 were unwanted by Grand and forced by me - when in this exact same 3 year time period, Grand was, unsolicited, continually propositioning me for sex and frequently telling me exactly which sexual acts she wanted me to perform on her? Not because Grand was being coerced or extorted, but because Grand was horny, in love, etc?
These are the facts that remain unanswered. And no amount of deflecting will change these major underlying disputed facts.
Grand is not a #MeToo survivor. She is a woman who attempted to ruin my career by making knowingly false accusations of forced sex. And she deceived and conspired with many individuals on our creative music scene. Grand has never presented any evidence other than fabricated evidence. And both Grand's forced sex accusations and my evidence that Grand is lying were ignored.
The appellate judge summed it up in oral arguments.
"But I mean, the point of her letter was to say, he was harassing me and extracting sex from me against my will."
This is obviously a crime, unless you believe that extracting unwanted sex from someone is OK.
So the real question should be, is Grand telling the truth, or is she knowingly lying. Obviously, since Grand neglected to include her accusation Letter(s) her constant sexual pursuit of me - in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 - then obviously Grand is knowingly lying.
Here is a small sample, which have been shared with Grand’s lawyers:
2/24/2014 [2/24/14, 2:00 AM] Maria Grand : Good night. I still care about you.
[2/24/14, 3:05 PM] Maria Grand : My phone is dying and it won't charge, so I have no way of getting in touch with you. Have a safe trip back.
[2/24/14, 6:22 PM] Steve Coleman : Just landed, just turn on ur Skype and keep it on. Can't talk until I get through customs.
[2/25/14, 11:23 PM] Steve Coleman : R I close?
[2/27/14, 3:32 PM] Maria Grand : Can u come here so I can smother you? I'm all oiled up.
[2/27/14, 3:36 PM] Steve Coleman : Oil up
[2/27/14, 3:36 PM] Maria Grand : I'm too horny. I'm going to cum before you get here.
[2/27/14, 3:37 PM] Maria Grand : Then you can come in and sink inside me
[2/27/14, 7:19 PM] Steve Coleman : I'll call after grocery shopping, going to get tofu, saitan and fish.
(“smother” is a reference to cunnilingus, Grand’s favorite sexual act)
[3/29/14 3:46 PM] Maria Grand (phone number redacted): I'm still into u.
[3/29/14 3:48 PM] Maria Grand (phone number redacted): I want u to go down on me.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-6 Filed 10/24/19 Page 30 of 43 PageID #: 2142
9/11/2014
Coleman: “I'll be 60 in two years, so you made the right choice! Got out before it was too sof... errr, I mean late.”,
Grand: “Hahahahahahahaha! Your tongue still works. That's all I need anyways"
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 35-1 Filed 04/05/19 Page 107-108 of 152 PageID #: 494-495
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 82-8 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1682
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 83 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12-13 of 22 PageID #: 2006-2007
9/3/2015
Grand: What are you going to do tomorrow night? I'm horny.
Coleman: What are u talking about, tomorrow night?
..
Grand: No... I really am just horny. Not expecting anything. But I could use a licking
Coleman: Hahahaha!!!! YOU can use a licking???? …
Grand: If you promise to treat me really nicely and that I'll only do what I want to do, I'll come to your room now. So we can get some stress relief.
Case 1:18-cv-05663-JBW-RLM Document 87-3 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6-7 of 9 PageID #: 2096-2097
This is all within the exact same time period that Grand claims that she did not desire ANY sexual acts with me.