The Diddy Trial: Judge Subramaniam Denies Diddy's Request For A New Trial (Part 3) (10/5/25)

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s final appeal, effectively ending her legal battle to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking minors alongside Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell’s attorneys had argued that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from prosecution in New York, claiming she was unfairly targeted after Epstein’s death. The justices, however, refused to take up the case, leaving intact the lower court rulings that upheld her 20-year sentence and dismissed her arguments as meritless.Following the rejection, Maxwell remains imprisoned at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, a low-security facility where she was transferred after previously being housed at FCI Tallahassee. Her only remaining avenue of relief now lies outside the judicial system—through executive clemency, such as a presidential pardon—though such outcomes are exceedingly rare.to contact me:[email protected]

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team has filed notice of appeal following his conviction on two federal counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. His attorneys argue that the verdict was inconsistent with the sentencing, claiming the judge improperly considered conduct the jury had rejected — particularly allegations of coercion — to impose a harsher penalty. The defense contends this violated Diddy’s constitutional right to a fair trial and effectively turned the judge into a “13th juror,” overriding the jury’s findings. They are seeking either a full reversal of the conviction or a new trial.The appeal will also challenge several procedural rulings from the eight-week trial, including evidentiary decisions and jury instructions the defense claims were prejudicial. Diddy was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison and fined $500,000 — far less than the 11 years prosecutors had sought, but still viewed by his team as excessive given the acquittals on other charges. The appellate process will now move to the Second Circuit, where his attorneys plan to argue that the sentencing exceeded the lawful scope of the jury’s verdict and that key testimony was improperly admitted.to contact me:[email protected]

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren’t told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn’t apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren’t “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn’t blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:[email protected]

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren’t told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn’t apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren’t “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn’t blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:[email protected]

Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was found dead in his La Santé prison cell in Paris on February 19, 2022, in what authorities immediately labeled a suicide by hanging. Brunel had been under investigation for rape, sexual harassment, and the trafficking of minors, accused by several women—including Virginia Giuffre—of grooming and supplying underage models to Epstein and other powerful men. His death occurred before his case could reach trial, instantly reigniting suspicions about how another key figure in the Epstein network could die under eerily similar circumstances to Epstein himself. Victims expressed outrage, saying Brunel’s death robbed them of justice and silenced a potential witness who might have revealed more about the structure and reach of Epstein’s global operation.The official narrative—that Brunel’s death was a suicide—sparked widespread skepticism and frustration across France and beyond. Reports emerged that Brunel had been on suicide watch previously, prompting questions about prison oversight, security lapses, and whether his death was preventable—or possibly convenient. Critics drew parallels to Epstein’s own jailhouse death in 2019, arguing that both men’s sudden “suicides” effectively closed critical avenues of investigation into elite sex-trafficking networks. French prosecutors confirmed no foul play was “immediately suspected,” but they acknowledged the timing and circumstances raised understandable public concern. To this day, Brunel’s death remains shrouded in doubt, a haunting echo of a global scandal that continues to expose the failures of institutions to deliver full accountability.to contact me:[email protected]

In recent court filings, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has argued that videos of his so-called "Freak Off" parties demonstrate consensual sexual activities among adults, countering allegations of coercion and misconduct. The defense contends that the footage shows participants engaging willingly, without evidence of force or manipulation, challenging the prosecution's portrayal of these events as exploitative.Combs faces serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, with prosecutors alleging that he orchestrated drug-fueled sex parties involving non-consenting individuals. His attorneys have requested fewer restrictions on viewing the videos to prepare their defense, asserting that the government's case is unjustly criminalizing consensual adult behavior. Combs, who has pleaded not guilty, remains detained without bail, with a trial scheduled for May 2025.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government’s restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense’s filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense’s incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs’ legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government’s witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes’s testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs’ attorneys argue that Hughes’s proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes’s testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

Jay-Z has been named in a civil lawsuit alleging that he and Sean "Diddy" Combs raped a 13-year-old girl in 2000 after an MTV Video Music Awards after-party. The accuser, identified as Jane Doe, claims she was given a drink that made her feel disoriented before being assaulted by both men. Jay-Z has vehemently denied the allegations, describing them as a "blackmail attempt" and expressing concern over the impact on his family.In response to the lawsuit, Jay-Z's legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims are baseless and part of a calculated extortion campaign. They have also requested that the accuser be publicly identified, citing the harm to Jay-Z's reputation. Additionally, Jay-Z's lawyers have sought to distance him from Combs, emphasizing that there is no close association between the two artists.(commercial at  13:08)to contact me:[email protected]:

Following Sean "Diddy" Combs' arrest on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, Sienna Grace, a former associate, publicly shared her experiences. She recounted attending Combs' lavish parties, describing them as extravagant events with a glamorous facade. Grace alleged that these gatherings often involved excessive drinking and drug use, with Combs at the center of the activities.Grace further claimed that Combs leveraged his power and influence to manipulate and exploit young women, including herself. She detailed instances where she felt pressured to engage in sexual activities and suggested that Combs used his status to silence those who might speak out. Her revelations add to the mounting allegations against Combs, painting a picture of systemic abuse and misconduct.(commercial at 8:06)to contact me:[email protected]:OnlyFans model who partied with Diddy reveals the secret signals rappers use to pick women to sleep with | Daily Mail Online

Rachel Kennedy, a former dancer, shared a disturbing account of her experience with Sean "Diddy" Combs while in Japan. She claims that during the early 2000s, she was invited by Diddy to what she believed would be a party, but upon arrival, realized it was just a small, intimate gathering with him at his hotel. Kennedy detailed that after some partying, including drug use (although Diddy himself allegedly did not partake), things took an uncomfortable turn.Diddy, wearing a robe and drinking champagne, allegedly showed Kennedy and her friends multiple Jennifer Lopez music videos, which felt awkward given that Diddy was dating Lopez at the time. Eventually, Kennedy and her friend were invited into his bedroom, where they engaged in sexual acts. The situation escalated when Diddy's bodyguard entered the room aggressively, scaring the women. Kennedy described the interaction as unsettling, feeling that the bodyguard was there to intimidate and forcibly remove them, leaving her with the impression that this behavior was calculated and routine in Diddy’s circle.This experience, part of Diddy's broader pattern of alleged "Freak Offs"—intimate, drug-fueled gatherings where guests were coerced into sexual acts—highlighted how he allegedly used his power and influence to manipulate those around him, creating a dangerous atmosphere where victims felt they had little recourse​.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:[email protected]:Exclusive | Sean 'Diddy' Combs tricked me into a 'Freak Off,' then cruelly kicked me to the curb: ex-dancer (nypost.com)