Diddy Trial: Jonathan Perez Continues His Testimony After Lunch On Day 23 (Part 2) (6/14/25)

Sean “Diddy” Combs now faces heightened jeopardy in his federal criminal trial after prosecutors introduced evidence that he possessed an AR‑15-style firearm with an obliterated serial number. Under federal law, merely possessing a firearm with a defaced serial qualifies as a serious gun offense, and is often seen as nearly indisputable, since the prosecution must only show that the weapon exists and the serial was removed.   This piece of evidence not only adds a standalone weapons charge but also bolsters the government’s RICO (racketeering) case, as it ties directly to allegations that Combs’ so-called “enterprise” used threats, weapons, and violence (including firearms) to facilitate sex trafficking and intimidate witnesses.Moreover, introducing this gun serves to strengthen the prosecution's narrative that Combs ran a criminal enterprise. The indictment alleges that he wielded multiple weapons with obliterated serial numbers and orchestrated “freak‑offs”—sex trafficking events fueled by coercion, drugs, and violence, sometimes under armed threats.   The gun evidence directly supports those claims, potentially making it easier for the jury to see a pattern of illegal behavior rather than isolated incidents. In short, this firearm not only risks an additional conviction but dramatically increases Diddy’s legal exposure by reinforcing the racketeering, coercion, and intimidation elements of the government’s case—all of which carry significant sentencing consequences if he’s found guilty.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs now faces heightened jeopardy in his federal criminal trial after prosecutors introduced evidence that he possessed an AR‑15-style firearm with an obliterated serial number. Under federal law, merely possessing a firearm with a defaced serial qualifies as a serious gun offense, and is often seen as nearly indisputable, since the prosecution must only show that the weapon exists and the serial was removed.   This piece of evidence not only adds a standalone weapons charge but also bolsters the government’s RICO (racketeering) case, as it ties directly to allegations that Combs’ so-called “enterprise” used threats, weapons, and violence (including firearms) to facilitate sex trafficking and intimidate witnesses.Moreover, introducing this gun serves to strengthen the prosecution's narrative that Combs ran a criminal enterprise. The indictment alleges that he wielded multiple weapons with obliterated serial numbers and orchestrated “freak‑offs”—sex trafficking events fueled by coercion, drugs, and violence, sometimes under armed threats.   The gun evidence directly supports those claims, potentially making it easier for the jury to see a pattern of illegal behavior rather than isolated incidents. In short, this firearm not only risks an additional conviction but dramatically increases Diddy’s legal exposure by reinforcing the racketeering, coercion, and intimidation elements of the government’s case—all of which carry significant sentencing consequences if he’s found guilty.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs now faces heightened jeopardy in his federal criminal trial after prosecutors introduced evidence that he possessed an AR‑15-style firearm with an obliterated serial number. Under federal law, merely possessing a firearm with a defaced serial qualifies as a serious gun offense, and is often seen as nearly indisputable, since the prosecution must only show that the weapon exists and the serial was removed.   This piece of evidence not only adds a standalone weapons charge but also bolsters the government’s RICO (racketeering) case, as it ties directly to allegations that Combs’ so-called “enterprise” used threats, weapons, and violence (including firearms) to facilitate sex trafficking and intimidate witnesses.Moreover, introducing this gun serves to strengthen the prosecution's narrative that Combs ran a criminal enterprise. The indictment alleges that he wielded multiple weapons with obliterated serial numbers and orchestrated “freak‑offs”—sex trafficking events fueled by coercion, drugs, and violence, sometimes under armed threats.   The gun evidence directly supports those claims, potentially making it easier for the jury to see a pattern of illegal behavior rather than isolated incidents. In short, this firearm not only risks an additional conviction but dramatically increases Diddy’s legal exposure by reinforcing the racketeering, coercion, and intimidation elements of the government’s case—all of which carry significant sentencing consequences if he’s found guilty.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs now faces heightened jeopardy in his federal criminal trial after prosecutors introduced evidence that he possessed an AR‑15-style firearm with an obliterated serial number. Under federal law, merely possessing a firearm with a defaced serial qualifies as a serious gun offense, and is often seen as nearly indisputable, since the prosecution must only show that the weapon exists and the serial was removed.   This piece of evidence not only adds a standalone weapons charge but also bolsters the government’s RICO (racketeering) case, as it ties directly to allegations that Combs’ so-called “enterprise” used threats, weapons, and violence (including firearms) to facilitate sex trafficking and intimidate witnesses.Moreover, introducing this gun serves to strengthen the prosecution's narrative that Combs ran a criminal enterprise. The indictment alleges that he wielded multiple weapons with obliterated serial numbers and orchestrated “freak‑offs”—sex trafficking events fueled by coercion, drugs, and violence, sometimes under armed threats.   The gun evidence directly supports those claims, potentially making it easier for the jury to see a pattern of illegal behavior rather than isolated incidents. In short, this firearm not only risks an additional conviction but dramatically increases Diddy’s legal exposure by reinforcing the racketeering, coercion, and intimidation elements of the government’s case—all of which carry significant sentencing consequences if he’s found guilty.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV’s Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs’s legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Jane Doe, the woman who accused Jay-Z of raping her in 2000 when she was 13 years old, has filed a motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit that the rapper filed against her. Jay-Z's lawsuit, filed in March 2025, alleges that Doe and her attorneys knowingly made false and malicious claims in an attempt to extort him, resulting in reputational harm and financial losses exceeding $20 million. In her motion, filed on April 22, Doe argues that her allegations, made in court documents and media interviews, are protected under California law and cannot form the basis for a defamation claim. She also contends that Jay-Z's claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy lack legal merit and factual support.to contact me:[email protected]:Jay-Z’s Rape Accuser Files Motion to Dismiss His Defamation Lawsuit Against HerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a legal contract used to protect sensitive and confidential information shared between parties. It creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of confidential and proprietary information or trade secrets.In the context of relationships, particularly those involving rich and famous individuals, NDAs are often used to maintain privacy and confidentiality. When celebrities or wealthy individuals engage in personal relationships, they may use NDAs to prevent their partners from disclosing any details of the relationship, including intimate details, personal conversations, financial information, or other sensitive matters.The NDA typically outlines what information is considered confidential, the obligations of both parties to maintain confidentiality, the duration of the agreement, and the consequences of breaching the agreement, which may include legal action and financial penalties.Rich and famous individuals may utilize NDAs in their personal relationships for several reasons:Privacy Protection: Celebrities and wealthy individuals often value their privacy and may want to prevent any details of their personal lives from becoming public knowledge.Protecting Reputation: NDAs can help protect the reputation of both parties involved by preventing potentially damaging information from being disclosed.Preserving Business Interests: In some cases, personal relationships may involve discussions about business ventures or proprietary information. NDAs can ensure that such information remains confidential.However, it's important to note that NDAs have limitations, especially when it comes to legal investigations by law enforcement:Limited Scope: NDAs cannot be used to prevent someone from reporting illegal activity to law enforcement. If the information covered by the NDA is related to criminal activity, the NDA may not hold up in court.Public Interest Exception: In cases where public safety or the public interest is at stake, courts may invalidate NDAs or allow individuals to disclose information protected by the agreement.Evidence in Legal Proceedings: NDAs may not prevent someone from disclosing information if subpoenaed by a court or required to testify in a legal proceeding.In this episode, we learn why NDA's are worth less than the paper they are printed on when it comes to law enforcement, and how previously signed NDA's might come back to haunt Diddy.to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy accusers can't be silenced by NDAs in trafficking probe: experts | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (1:24-cr-00542-AS), Judge Arun Subramanian issued an opinion and order denying the defendant's motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Sean Combs had alleged that the government improperly leaked information about the case and sought further investigation into these claims. Specifically, the motion (Dkt. 30) called for disclosure of relevant materials and a formal hearing to address the purported leaks.Judge Subramanian, however, found no sufficient evidence to warrant granting the motion. The ruling emphasized that the defendant failed to meet the legal threshold required to demonstrate a credible basis for the allegations or to justify the requested relief. Consequently, the court declined to authorize further discovery or proceedings on the matter, leaving the case to proceed without additional inquiry into the alleged leaks.(commercial at 8:47_to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.113.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.