50 Cent and his ex-husband are locked in a $1 million legal battle over their right to life, with both parties claiming they were coerced and violated.
50 Cent and Shaniqua Tompkins are back in court, this time with a $1 million lawsuit over their right to life and more salacious details about their relationship continue to leak into the public eye.
The latest documents show that Tompkins strongly refuted claims in the 1950s that she violated the right-to-life agreement, and her response was also detailed.
She argued the contract was illegal from the start, while 50’s side said it was a direct breach related to her public comments.
But at the heart of Tompkins’ defense is an incident in 2005 involving the 1950s movie “Get Rich or Die Rich.” She claims 50 people forced her to sign documents after a confrontation at the New York office of Violator Management, which was responsible for the rap star’s career at the time.
“When he saw that I signed ‘Jane Doe,’ he grabbed me by my hair, dragged me to the other end of the office, pushed me to the floor, started choking me, and told me that if I didn’t sign, he would hurt and embarrass me in the Violator Records offices,” Tompkins wrote in her affidavit.
She said the incident ended with a forced signature, which she claims was not her signature at all, and that she never saw the full agreement and was not paid for the film.
EXCLUSIVE: 50 Cent’s ex claims she was forced to give up her right to life: ‘I was going to suffer’
Tompkins’ lawyers now argue that subsequent agreements, including the 2007 book deal, were struck by pressure and fear rather than actual negotiations.
They claim to have used threats and financial controls more than 50 times to ensure compliance, describing the entire thing as a gag order rather than a real contract.
They pointed to language allegedly used during the dispute, including warnings that she would “suffer”, and argued that these words carried a lot of weight given what happened in 2005.
50 Cent’s attorney denies all of this and believes the court should focus on the agreement itself rather than individual accusations made over the years.
They characterized the lawsuit as a direct enforcement action, accusing Tompkins of trying to evade the obligations she accepted.
“While Tompkins’ complaint contains the (false) allegation that Jackson threatened force to compel her to sign a prior agreement, the issue in this lawsuit is not the agreement. Tompkins alleges (falsely) that a different agreement was signed in 2005 as a result of the alleged threat of violence. No such allegation regarding the execution of the agreement is contained.” [book] agree. “Responded Lisa Coyle, a lawyer in the 1950s.
The 50s team believes the case should focus on whether her public comments violated the agreement, rather than past personal accusations.
They also pointed to her interest in television opportunities in recent interviews and reports as evidence she was trying to cash in while ignoring her contract.
They say her claims are being made now to avoid liability rather than as a legal defense.
50 also relied on his public statements to bolster his position that the agreement limited her ability to tell the story of his life. His team argued the statements reflected the execution of a valid contract and were not evidence of wrongdoing.
“G-Unit is suing Tompkins not because she engaged in protected speech, but because she violated a contract that prohibited her from engaging in certain speech-related conduct,” Lisa Coyle added.
The case is currently before a New York court, where a judge will weigh whether this was a simple breach of contract or a deeper dispute about how the agreement came into existence. The judge’s ruling could reshape how life rights agreements are enforced in the entertainment industry.
