The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 1) (6/16/25)

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs’s defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution’s efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    The second witness to take the stand before lunch on June 16, 2025, was Special Agent DeLeassa Penland from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. She served as another "summary witness," dispatched to help organize and present the vast trove of digital evidence to the jury. Penland walked jurors through charts and data, including additional phone and text message logs—this time highlighting communications between Combs, his bodyguard “D‑Roc,” and former assistant “Mia.”to contact me:[email protected]:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs’s defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution’s efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    The second witness to take the stand before lunch on June 16, 2025, was Special Agent DeLeassa Penland from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. She served as another "summary witness," dispatched to help organize and present the vast trove of digital evidence to the jury. Penland walked jurors through charts and data, including additional phone and text message logs—this time highlighting communications between Combs, his bodyguard “D‑Roc,” and former assistant “Mia.”to contact me:[email protected]:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Subramanian regarding United States v. Combs, the defense addressed the government’s intent to introduce out-of-court statements during Casandra Ventura’s (Cassie’s) testimony under Rule 801. Following the Court’s directive from the April 25, 2025 pre-trial conference, both sides met and conferred on the matter. The government provided the defense with a chart outlining the statements it wishes to admit along with its proposed legal justifications. In turn, the defense submitted detailed objections to certain statements, which they attached as Exhibit A for the Court’s review.Additionally, the defense used the letter to elaborate on its opposition to the government’s attempt to introduce prior consistent statements through Ms. Ventura’s testimony, arguing that their admission would be improper. The defense also objected to new exhibits the government has indicated it intends to present during Ventura’s testimony, raising concerns about their admissibility and relevance. The letter signals an effort by the defense to limit what it views as prejudicial or legally unsupported material from being placed before the jury through Ms. Ventura’s account.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.397.0.pdfBecome 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.

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.

An NDA, or Non-Disclosure Agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third parties.NDAs are used for various reasons:Protecting Intellectual Property: Businesses often use NDAs to safeguard their trade secrets, proprietary information, or other sensitive data from being disclosed to competitors or the public.Maintaining Confidentiality: In certain business dealings, such as partnerships, mergers, or acquisitions, sensitive information may be shared between parties. NDAs ensure that this information remains confidential and is not used for purposes other than what is agreed upon.Facilitating Collaboration: When multiple parties collaborate on a project, they may need to share sensitive information to achieve their goals. NDAs help establish trust among collaborators by legally binding them to maintain confidentiality.Preventing Information Leakage: Employees, contractors, or consultants often have access to sensitive information about a company's operations, products, or plans. NDAs help prevent them from disclosing this information to unauthorized individuals or entities.In this episode, we get a look at what a standard NPA in the world of Diddy consists of.(commercial at 10:00)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.16.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean "Diddy" Combs has collaborated with many influential figures in the music industry over the years. Here’s an update on some of his closest music industry associates:L.A. Reid: The music executive and co-founder of LaFace Records has been accused of sexual assault by former music executive Drew Dixon. Despite denying the allegations, Reid's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied in 2024, allowing the case to move forward.Russell Simmons: The Def Jam co-founder has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including a lawsuit filed in late 2022. Simmons has denied these claims and has been living in Bali, Indonesia, amid ongoing legal battles.Suge Knight: Co-founder of Death Row Records, Knight has been imprisoned since 2018 after a fatal hit-and-run. While serving his sentence, he continues to speak out about the music industry, often criticizing other executives and artists.Jay-Z: A prominent figure in the music and business worlds, Jay-Z has faced criticism for remaining silent about Combs’ legal troubles. He has not commented publicly on the allegations.In this episode, we take a look at what some of the other moguls in the music indsutry who acted as mentors to Diddy are up to these days and how they are all facing their own legal issues.(commercial at 12:52)to contact me:[email protected]:Powerful pals – where is Sean 'Diddy' Combs' music industry inner circle now? | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.