Joseline Hernandez Airs Out Zeus Network's Dirty Laundry, Makes “Trafficking” Claims Against Founder Lemuel Plummer

Self-anointed Puerto Rican princess Joseline Hernandez has sounded the alarm against her former employer Lemuel Plummer and his entire Zeus network.

The ‘Joseline’s Cabaret’ star took to social media and opted to go scorched earth on the Zeus Network founder, accusing him of cutting off her payments, sabotaging her business, and even making shocking allegations of “trafficking.”

The reality star, who recently revealed she has a bun in the oven, repeatedly claimed the network executive is trying to “destroy” her family amid what appears to be a bitter fallout over her contract and her new streaming app.

Taking to social media, here's what she had to say:

“Stopping my payments because I have my own streaming app and I wanted more for my life than just what I had… it’s illegal and it’s just plain evil.

Telling my husband you won’t fund our business is illegal. Telling us to take our content down… it’s illegal. While I’m pregnant it is evil.

I gave y’all 7 years of my life. My contract, my payments are in perpetuity… but they stop suddenly because I take a picture with someone you fear.”

Continuing, she added:

“I’m a 39-year-old woman that is with child and you are doing evil to me because you are not able to have me back and do what you want with me.

He immediately stopped my payments and trying to make me stop my content on Why Are You Here TV.

I will sell everything I own before I’m in the streets… this evil man is trying to destroy my family and trying to make something bad happen to me and my unborn kid.”

She also tweeted:

“Trafficking young ladies across country lines like Puffy… and the Feds are coming for you.”

She tagged the FBI and accused the Zeus boss of “human trafficking all the ladies from the network.”

While this sounds like some juicy grist for the mill, and her words are making Lemmy look like an evil streaming exec, Joseline not reading the fine print of her contract may be why she's in the mess that she's in.

Media personality Funky Dineva believes by her signing a non-compete clause, legally Lemmy may be in the right to do what he did.

Dineva took to social media to break down the contractual side of the dispute, suggesting that Joseline may have underestimated the legal power of a non compete.

The tension between the “Puerto Rican Princess” and the network head has sparked a massive debate online, but Dineva insists this isn’t about choosing sides. Instead, he points to the fine print that often governs high profile talent.

“Joseline Hernandez didn’t understand what a non-compete was…” Dineva wrote, highlighting what he believes is the root of the friction.

While Joseline has moved toward launching her own platform and maintaining ownership of her content, Dineva warns that timing is everything in the world of television contracts. In his post, he explained that even if a star owns their brand, they are often legally barred from starting a rival venture until a specific window of time has passed.

“There are no sides to take in this. Yes she owns her show and yes she has the right to start her own network, AFTER HER NON COMPETE EXPIRES!!!” Dineva clarified.

To provide context, he shared his own history with networks like Fox Soul and Sister Circle, noting that he was frequently restricted from working on competing talk shows for set periods. He explained that for major talent, these “blackout” periods can last up to two years after they leave a network. According to Dineva, if Joseline moved too early, Zeus has every right to stop her payments.

“If she breaches her contract, which it appears she may have, then Zeus reserves the right to discontinue paying her,” he added.

While the legal battle also involves serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, Dineva was careful to separate the business dispute from the more severe claims. He noted that while the contract issues are straightforward, the “alleged sex trafficking, abuse, etc.” is a “different conversation” entirely. As the case develops, it remains to be seen if the courts will agree with Dineva’s assessment of the contract breach.