Diddy Fires Back At The Government Over 'Mia' And Her Testimony (6/9/25)

In a gripping morning session, Jane Doe, the second alleged victim to testify, told jurors she was coerced into years of humiliating sexual acts orchestrated by Combs under a veil of manipulation and control. Fighting back tears, she read text messages in which she pleaded for the abuse to stop, including one that said, “It’s been three years of me trying to f--- strangers. I’m tired.” The witness described a relationship that began romantically in 2021 but swiftly turned into a cycle of coercion, where Combs allegedly paid her rent and held financial sway over her. He allegedly forced her into drug-fueled “hotel nights” — exploitative sex parties involving third parties — despite her repeated objections. “I told him, ‘I’m not a porn star,’” she testified. “I didn’t want to do it.”Jane further detailed how Combs used ecstasy to maintain control over her during extended sex sessions with male escorts and strangers, which he directed for his own gratification. She described the physical toll of these encounters — exhaustion, recurrent urinary tract infections, and ongoing trauma. According to Jane, the coercion was relentless, her financial dependence leveraged against her resistance. The morning’s testimony reinforced the prosecution’s portrayal of Combs as a manipulative abuser operating behind a facade of glamour and wealth, while also underscoring the emotional and physical damage allegedly suffered by his accusers.to contact me:[email protected]:(1) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing titled “Defendant Sean Combs’s Additional Requests to Charge,” Combs’s legal team submitted supplemental proposed jury instructions for Judge Subramanian to consider as the case approaches deliberations. The defense emphasized that these additional instructions were necessary to ensure the jury fully understood the legal standards governing the charges, particularly with respect to the government’s burden of proof, the definitions of key terms under RICO and sex trafficking statutes, and the presumption of innocence afforded to the defendant. They argued that without these clarifying instructions, the jury risked being misled by the government’s broad and potentially prejudicial narrative framing.Furthermore, the defense stressed that the proposed instructions were rooted in well-established case law and were essential to safeguarding Combs’s constitutional rights during deliberations. The filing highlighted concerns that certain elements of the government’s case—such as its reliance on character evidence and speculative inferences—could improperly sway the jury unless properly neutralized by clear guidance from the Court. The defense urged Judge Subramanian to adopt these additional charges in full to preserve the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.388.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In its May 28, 2025 letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the defense responded to the government’s objections regarding several exhibits the defense intended to introduce during its cross-examination of the witness "Mia." The defense argued that the government’s objections lacked merit and that the exhibits in question were both relevant and admissible. The letter emphasized that these materials were critical for challenging Mia’s credibility, highlighting inconsistencies in her prior statements and demonstrating potential bias or motive, particularly in relation to her pending civil litigation and prior public statements.Additionally, the defense contended that excluding these exhibits would unfairly limit its ability to mount an effective cross-examination, violating Combs’ constitutional right to confront his accuser. The letter urged the court to overrule the government’s objections, stressing that the contested exhibits were essential to providing the jury with a full and accurate understanding of Mia’s testimony and credibility. The defense maintained that these materials were not prejudicial or misleading, but rather necessary for the jury to evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution’s key witness.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.383.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Reply Memorandum of Law supporting Sean Combs’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Thalia Graves v. Sean Combs and Joseph Sherman, Combs’ legal team reiterates that the plaintiff’s claims are both legally and factually insufficient. They argue that the amended complaint relies on conclusory allegations without concrete evidence of Combs’ direct involvement in the alleged misconduct. The reply further contends that the complaint improperly attempts to attribute liability to Combs through speculative inferences about his association with co-defendant Joseph Sherman, rather than demonstrating specific acts or intent required under the applicable legal standards.Additionally, Combs’ attorneys assert that many of the claims are time-barred and fall outside the statute of limitations. The reply memorandum emphasizes that the plaintiff’s attempt to revive these claims through generalized references to a purported ongoing pattern of misconduct is legally untenable. They also argue that the complaint fails to meet the heightened pleading standards required for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other tort-based allegations. On these grounds, the defense urges the court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.87.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs’s iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government’s warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government’s affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Attorney Tony Buzbee has announced plans to file approximately 120 individual lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging sexual assault, exploitation, and abuse. These cases involve both male and female plaintiffs, with incidents reportedly spanning from 1991 to 2024. Notably, 25 of the alleged victims were minors at the time of the purported offenses, with the youngest being nine years old.Buzbee's firm has received over 3,000 inquiries related to these allegations, leading to the representation of 120 individuals. The lawsuits are expected to be filed individually across various courts in the United States. The claims include violent sexual assault, facilitated sex with controlled substances, false imprisonment, and sexual abuse of minors.In response, Combs' legal team has denied all allegations, labeling them as false and defamatory. Combs is currently facing federal charges, including racketeering and sex trafficking, and is detained awaiting trial.Additionally, Buzbee has faced accusations of unethical conduct. A recent court filing alleges that he encouraged a woman to fabricate claims against Combs. Buzbee has denied these accusations, maintaining his commitment to ethical legal practices.The situation continues to develop, with potential for more lawsuits and revelations involving other high-profile individuals. Buzbee has indicated that additional defendants may be named as more evidence emerges.(commercial at 11:09)to contact me:[email protected]:Number of civil cases against Sean 'Diddy' Combs 'is probably in the 300 range', claims lawyer acting for alleged victims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.