INSIDE THIS REPORT
- He didn’t retract.
- He didn’t clarify.
- He didn’t walk it back.
Instead, early this morning on February 17, 2026, DJ Vlad posted a short but pointed message from his verified X account:
“For everyone checking on me, I’m OK. For now.”
Two words — “For now” — were enough to reignite a controversy that has already placed the integrity of a high-profile California criminal trial under a harsh spotlight.
Just three days earlier, on Valentine’s Day, Vlad publicly alleged systemic corruption tied to the criminal case that resulted in the conviction of Tory Lanez in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case stemmed from the 2020 shooting involving Megan Thee Stallion. Lanez was convicted in December 2022 and later sentenced to 10 years in state prison.
Vlad’s February 14 posts did not merely question the verdict. They alleged bribery. They alleged jury tampering. They alleged corruption reaching into the courtroom itself and extending into the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Most notably, Vlad asserted that the judge who presided over the Lanez trial had a grandson for whom Jay-Z allegedly recorded a verse. The implication was unmistakable: a potential undisclosed conflict of interest tied to one of the most powerful figures in the music industry.
Those are not vague accusations. They are specific. And specificity is what makes them verifiable.
If such a collaboration exists, it would not be difficult to trace. Music credits are publicly catalogued. Publishing databases such as ASCAP and BMI maintain songwriter and contributor records. Streaming platforms list production and feature credits. Copyright filings are searchable.
If Jay-Z performed on a judge’s grandson’s released track, the metadata trail should exist. If compensation was involved, financial disclosure questions would follow. Judges are bound by ethical reporting standards, and undisclosed conflicts — if proven — can trigger appellate review or disciplinary investigation.
