A brand new lawsuit is placing Jada Pinkett Smith on the heart of great allegations from a person who says he spent a long time inside Will Smith’s inside circle. Bilaal Salaam, who describes himself as a longtime affiliate and buddy to Will, just lately filed a grievance detailing a number of incidents he claims happened starting in 2021. According to the submitting obtained by PEOPLE, Salaam says the state of affairs first escalated throughout a personal birthday gathering for Will on September 25, 2021, on the Regency Calabasas Commons.

In the grievance, Salaam states that Jada confronted him within the foyer whereas surrounded by members of her group. He alleges that she accused him of sharing non-public info and that the interplay shortly turned threatening. Salaam claims she informed him he may “end up missing or catch a bullet” if he didn’t comply. He says the strain didn’t finish there, asserting that the entourage adopted him outdoors and continued issuing verbal threats as he made his technique to his car.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that Jada demanded he signal an NDA “or else,” and later publicly framed him as somebody making an attempt to extort her and Will. Salaam is suing for intentional infliction of emotional misery and is searching for $3 million in damages.

According to the submitting, extra points developed months later, in March 2022. Salaam says he was approached by a mutual contact asking him to help with “crisis management” following the incident between Will Smith and Chris Rock on the Academy Awards. Salaam claims he declined the request as a result of he refused to take part in something “illegal, unethical, or deceptive.” He alleges that this determination led to additional stress, together with hostility from individuals linked to the couple.

The grievance additionally describes retaliation after Salaam started writing what he calls a “whistleblower memoir,” in addition to backlash when a video interview he appeared in went viral. In the swimsuit, he says Jada dismissed his statements as “ridiculous” and “nonsense,” and that as an alternative of pursuing authorized motion as publicly acknowledged in one other outlet, she launched a “smear campaign.” Salaam claims that efforts to “bribe, intimidate, or silence” him induced monetary loss, reputational injury, emotional misery, and private upheaval.

Online reactions erupted as soon as the lawsuit surfaced, and social media customers debated his intentions and credibility. Some questioned why he selected to talk on non-public issues, whereas others merely reacted to the spectacle unfolding across the new claims.