EXCLUSIVE: Milagro Gramz Says Roc Nation Compromised Judge In Megan Thee Stallion Battle Over Verdict

Milagro Gramz already told a federal judge she’s broke and can’t pay Megan Thee Stallion. The judge rejected that excuse last month and ordered her to pay the full $75,000 anyway.

Now, Gramz is trying a completely different argument to escape the bill altogether.

Megan first sued Cooper, Gramz’s legal name, in October 2024, accusing her of acting as a paid mouthpiece for Tory Lanez.

Lanez is serving a 10-year sentence for shooting Megan in 2020, and Gramz covered his criminal trial from his side for years. A Miami jury found Gramz liable that December on three counts, including defamation and a deepfake video, and set damages at $75,000.

Gramz asked the court in June to pause that payment while she appeals to the Eleventh Circuit. She told the judge she’s self-employed with no steady income and cannot post a bond to freeze collection.

Judge Cecilia Altonaga denied the request, ruling that Gramz had never proved she would actually win her appeal.

With that broken defense shut down, Gramz is trying a totally different argument. She’s now asking the court to throw out the $75,000 judgment completely, not just delay it.

The new filing claims Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez and a law firm’s ties to the judge create a hidden conflict, according to the filing itself.

That firm, Holland & Knight, has repped Megan in past Texas suits and recently defended Roc Nation in a case tied to Megan’s own lawyers. Gramz claims Perez, a close friend of Megan’s, compiled research on her long before the lawsuit was even filed.

She also points out a Holland & Knight lawyer once sat on a committee the same judge appointed to review jury pools.

Arguments like this rarely work, since a shared law firm alone rarely proves real bias. It’s an unusual move for someone who told the court weeks ago she has no money for a bond. Gramz still owes the full $75,000, and nothing about this new filing pauses that debt.

Megan’s team has stayed quiet on the new filing so far. Her attorney previously said the verdict proves spreading harmful lies has real legal consequences, according to ABC News.

Gramz’s new filing leans on a 1988 Supreme Court case, Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., to argue the judgment should be wiped out entirely.

Grouchy Greg Watkins (@GrouchyGreg)

Source link