Diddy Trial: The Assistant, the Allegations, and the Anatomy of Control (5/30/25)

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In June 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs sold his stake in Revolt, the media company he founded in 2013. Revolt announced that Combs' shares were fully redeemed and retired, and the company implemented a new ownership structure granting employees an equity stake, making them the largest shareholder group.This transition occurred amid multiple sexual assault allegations against Combs, including a lawsuit filed by singer Cassie Ventura in November 2023, which was settled shortly after. Following these developments, Combs stepped down as Revolt's chairman in November 2023,  Revolt CEO Detavio Samuels emphasized that the company's mission transcends any individual, underscoring the decision to move forward under employee ownership.In May 2024, America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses halted sales of Sean "Diddy" Combs' Sean John eyewear line amid mounting legal issues and public backlash against the artist. The company instructed stores to remove Sean John frames from displays and replace them with alternatives at similar price points. This decision followed the emergence of a 2016 video showing Combs assaulting his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, which led to increased scrutiny and criticism.(commercial at 7:15)source:Sean 'Diddy' Combs sells stake in Revolt amid alleged sexual assaults (nypost.com)source:Diddy's Sean John Frames Pulled From America's Best Contacts and EyeglassesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a declaration dated April 17, 2025, Dr. Alexander Sasha Bardey, a forensic psychiatrist, provided expert testimony in the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Dr. Bardey's extensive credentials include board certifications in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, and he has been recognized as an expert in various courts across New York and other states. His professional experience encompasses roles such as Director of Forensic Psychiatry for Nassau County and clinical leadership positions in multiple mental health courts and alternative to incarceration programs. In his declaration, Dr. Bardey outlined his qualifications and the scope of his forensic practice, which includes conducting psychiatric evaluations, risk assessments, and providing expert reports for legal proceedings. His involvement in the Combs case suggests that his expertise may be utilized to assess psychological factors pertinent to the defense.Dr. Bardey's declaration serves to establish his authority and the relevance of his forensic psychiatric expertise in the context of the trial. While the specific details of his anticipated testimony are not delineated in the declaration, his background indicates a focus on evaluating mental health aspects that could influence the case's outcome. Such evaluations may pertain to the psychological profiles of individuals involved, assessments of behavior, or considerations of mental state relevant to the charges faced by Combs. The inclusion of Dr. Bardey's declaration underscores the defense's intent to incorporate forensic psychiatric perspectives into their legal strategy.to contact me:[email protected]:Sbizhub 45825032114550Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Kenyatta v. Combs et al., No. 1:2024cv06923, the plaintiff, Charles Kenyatta Jr., filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment (BBE). Kenyatta alleged that BBE was served on October 4, 2024, and subsequently obtained a Certificate of Default when BBE did not respond. BBE moved to vacate this default, contending that service was deficient and that the court lacked personal jurisdictionUpon review, the court found that the summons served lacked the Clerk's signature and seal, rendering the service improper and depriving the court of personal jurisdiction over BBE. Additionally, the court determined that BBE's default was not willful, that vacating the default would not prejudice the plaintiff, and that BBE had presented potentially meritorious defenses. Consequently, the court granted BBE's motion to vacate the Certificate of Default.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628369.42.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:[email protected]:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says noBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This filing, submitted on behalf of Sean Combs and his co-defendants in the case English v. Combs et al., opposes the plaintiff’s renewed request for a 60-day extension to secure a third set of legal counsel. The defense argues that the plaintiff has already cycled through two legal teams—both of whom withdrew due to serious breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship, including what they described as “self-destructive conduct,” refusal to follow legal advice, and irreconcilable differences. The filing outlines a timeline of delays and extensions already granted, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s behavior has repeatedly stalled progress and wasted the court’s and defendants’ time and resources.The defendants urge the court to deny any further delay, asserting that the plaintiff’s complaint is fatally flawed and that she is unlikely to retain new counsel willing to continue litigating what they call “baseless claims.” They argue that granting another extension would prolong an already mismanaged case that has made little progress nearly a year after being filed. Moreover, the defense indicates it is prepared to file a motion to dismiss all eight of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and warns that continued adjournments serve only to avoid scrutiny of the case’s legal shortcomings. Ultimately, the defense calls for the case to move forward without further delay, with or without new representation for the plaintiff.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.624352.74.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government strongly opposes Sean Combs’s motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist who previously took the stand. The government argues that the defense’s request is both untimely and baseless, noting it was filed three days after Dr. Hughes had already testified. The prosecution contends that Dr. Hughes's testimony was properly admitted after thorough litigation and judicial review, and that the court had already placed clear boundaries on what her expert analysis could include.The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government strongly opposes Sean Combs’s motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist who previously took the stand. The government argues that the defense’s request is both untimely and baseless, noting it was filed three days after Dr. Hughes had already testified. The prosecution contends that Dr. Hughes's testimony was properly admitted after thorough litigation and judicial review, and that the court had already placed clear boundaries on what her expert analysis could include.The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.