Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I will be your host today Emily Simpson with my co host Shane Shane. First of all, so much has been going on with the Diddy trial, so we are going to try our best to get into a little bit of that. Also, so much going on in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, and I appreciate that so many of you have sent dms to me asking us to break
that down because it is very complex the judge's latest ruling. However, first let's get into just a little bit with Jared Letto. Do you know who Jared Letto is?
I don't know.
Yeah, you do thirty Seconds to Mars.
I know the name thirty Seconds to Mars. It's a band.
Yeah, so he's the lead. I know he's the lead singer, but he was also he's also an actor. He's been in things. I know him best because I'm jen X, but I know him best as Jordan Catalano from my so called life.
Oh I don't know that either.
Well, if you are my age and you are a big fan and you were in love with Jordan Catillano like I was in the nineties, then you'll know who he is. Okay, Apparently he has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women who have come forward. So nine women have accused Jared Letto.
You know how to pick them?
Yeah, you know. I was the big I was a big Sean Combs fan too. So nine women have accused Jared Letto of impropriety. This was an Aramelse story published. It was on Friday, June sixth. Some of the allegations include assaulting a seventeen year old, walking in front of another seventeen year old completely nude, and engaging in sexually explicit conversations with a sixteen year old. One woman, a former model named Laura LaRue, said she met Letto at
an animal rights benefit. I love that he loves animals.
Though, well does he Maybe this is where he picks up women.
I don't know, so I guess she met him out of animal rights benefit.
Which she was sixteen.
You go, I just said she met him out an animal rights benefit. This led to email correspondence between them that eventually resulted in her visiting him in April two thousand and nine. I remember him teasing me the whole time I was there, LaRue told airmail. He was flirting with me. Then when Laru was seventeen, Leto allegedly walked out of a room completely naked and the model's presence. He just walked out, dick out like it was normal. I thought, maybe this is just what adult men do
some in Hollywood. Yeah not you, though, a representative for Lettos stated their communications contained nothing sexual or inappropriate, and Miss LaRue later applied to work as a mister Letto's personal assistant, further underscoring the absence of anything inappropriate in any of their interactions. LaRue denies ever applying to work as Leto's personal assistant. You know, it's always the personal assistant defense.
But that's what we said last week, wasn't it when with the chryslies, it was like, oh, it wasn't me. It's the accountant. Oh yeah, well that's here. It's like, it's not me, it's the assistant.
Well no, he's claiming she wanted to be a personal assistant. So basically, if she was sexually harassed by him, why would she apply to work for him? As the argument, but.
Quick touching me, do you have a job application?
Stop walking around naked?
Can I can I come to your house.
Another woman named Ali Teals is a Los Angeles base DJ. She reposted a twenty twelve Facebook status to her Instagram story last month. You're not really in La until Jared Leto tries to force himself on you backstage in a kilt and a snow hat, she wrote. At the time, She also referred to him as Hollywood's most persistent predator and a kilt and a follow.
Up story like there's a cat. There's a bunch of men in kilts, yeah, in Hollywood that are sexually assaulting, and he's the worst of them all.
He is, He's the worst. He's the prolific kilt wearing sexual predator, a legend.
Yeah, my father always told me never trust a man in a kilt.
Oh yeah, that was one of his us. Yes, he was like, live and let live, don't let things bother you.
And never never trust a man in a kilt.
Got it? Oh you forgot the snow hat.
That's indifferent. Oh snowatter not.
Oh that doesn't make a difference. It's really it comes down to the kilt, all right. In a follow up story, Teals claimed she was assaulted and traumatized by this creep when I was seventeen, alleging that he knew my age and did not care. What he did was predatory, terrifying,
and unacceptable. There's other anonymous claims coming forward. Another woman, whose name Ahrmel did not publish, said she was an underage actress when she began texting with Letto, and alleged that the relationship took a sexual turn when she turned eighteen. The woman claimed that at one point, Leto began masturbating in her presence and asked her to quote spit on it. Wow, this podcast just took a completely different turn, didn't the Yeah,
we might have to call this explicitly legally Brunette. A fourth woman alleges that she began texting Leto after meeting him at a cafe when she was only sixteen, and that the conversation turned sexual. According to the outlet, he'd asked things like, have you ever had a boyfriend? Have you ever Alright, this is making me so uncomfortable. Have you ever had oral sex? A representative for Letto told
Airmail all of the allegations are expressly denied. Of course, other strange occurrences that are alleged in this article as well. Cosmopolitan reported on a now deleted twenty fifteen video posted by the director James Gun accusing Letto of sleeping with underage girls. The next morning, Gun posted, good morning and sorry to all of you around the world who saw my ambient fueled periscope session last night at three am.
So basically he accuses him of sleeping with underage girls, and then the next morning takes down his posts and says that it was the result of ambient.
These people he can't keep up with them.
In twenty sixteen, Leto made headlines again for reportedly sending used condoms, anal beads, and dead rats to a suicide squad co stars Margot Robbie will Smith and Iola Davis. I got so many weird things, Robbie later said in an interview with E I can't even begin to tell you.
And then in twenty eighteen, the British tabloid Metro reported on a Twitter post by the actor Dylan Sprouse that read, Yo, Jared Letto, now that you've slid into the dms of every female model age eighteen to twenty five, what would you say your success rate is so Apparently there are a lot of instances with Jared Letto of a leg You still like this, Jared Lettle guy, Well, I didn't know about any of this before.
I just remember, I bet you all the songs are all about sex and all this stuff.
And I don't know what his songs are about.
But you like him.
I specified this in the beginning. I liked him as Jordan Catalano in the nineties on MTV.
You don't listen to thirty seconds tomorrow now.
I couldn't name a single song, can you.
No, of course not, but I disagree. I bet you do listen the.
Let's give an update on Lively versus Baldoni. So on June ninth, twenty twenty five, Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively was dismissed by a federal judge. Okay, let's break it down.
This is big, right, this is very big.
First of all, the entire lawsuit wasn't dismissed, but the majority of it was. So I actually it is a one hundred and thirty two page decision by the judge, which I made Shane print out for me, which he loves to do, and I read through it twice to break it down and try to break it down into digestible chunks so that we could all understand what this decision actually is.
Okay, so what's the decision.
Well, the majority of this claims are dismissed.
All right, So then we have ones to talk about that are dismissed and then the ones that still are open for litigation.
Right, but I'll tell you the big ones. The main ones are dismissed.
Okay, Okay, So what are the big ones?
All right? Lit'sten to a little background. Just to give you guys a reminder if you haven't followed the case that closely, I just want to give you a little background. So back in December thirty, first, the twenty twenty four, Lively filed a complaint against the Wayfarer Parties, which is Baldoni and his production company, bringing claims for sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
And if you remember last week, Blake Lively's team actually dismissed from their lawsuit the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and we talked about that in our earlier podcast. Then Baldoni and Wayfarer, which again is his production company then filed their claim on January sixteenth, twenty twenty five, and then by January thirtieth, twenty twenty five, the judge had ordered that the two cases be consolidated into one.
Now he sued Blake Lively as well as The New York Times was added and then also her publicist, and also there's some claim against Ryan Reynolds. But it comes down to basically it was civil extortion, defamation and false light, breach of contract, tortuous interference with a contract or prospective economic advantage, promisory fraud, and breach of implied covenant. I know those all sound very legal in their they are. I mean I just met very legalies like they're all
very legal terms. So basically it boils down to two main broad themes that were dismissed from the case, which are the two big ones. That is the civil extortion and the defamation. All right, the elements of civil extortion under California law are not met. That is what the judge says. The wayfair parties have not adequately alleged that Lively's threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard
bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions. Additionally, the Wayfair parties have not shown that some of Lively's alleged extortionate acts damaged them. So basically they're saying, under California law, her act of trying to coerce some into giving her the cut of the movie, giving her a producer's credit, having her take over the movie using her cut of the movie do not constitute extortion under California law because the
elements were not met. And basically what they're saying is coercion. It has to be coercion, and then there has to be some threat.
Yeah, and threat is lacking. Yeah, right, it's mostly okay, she was a crappy person, right, Okay, so she was naggy, right, or she was kicking and screaming a little bit in the way she was behaving, right and not you know, being civil according to her contract terms contractual terms. But in this case it's like there was no threat, like they never Ryan Reynolds, never sent a text or.
Something basically, and then also the where they told Baldoni that he was the one that had to make Remember we talked about this in an earlier podcast, where they basically threatened that if he didn't take responsibility for the marketing of the movie, Like they wanted him to write that public statement that said that it was Wayfair and Baldoni that were the ones that chose to market the movie the way it was and they wanted him to take responsibility for it. They were also claiming that that
was a type of extortion. Basically, what the judge said was, none of that is extortion. It's really just her being able to hard bargain and real negotiating.
Negotiating tactics are like twisting their their arm behind their back and forcing them to sign something.
Right. And also, when it comes to extortion, under California law, there has to be a turning over of money or property. So basically it's you are coercing someone into giving you something.
So I was saying, like to a complete illegal transactions, right.
And you're receiving a benefit. So basically what the judge is saying is there was no turning over of property or money that gave Blake Lively an advantage or a benefit. It's basically like she was just using her bargaining power as an a list actress to say I'm not going to do that unless this I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want him at the premiere. I
want this. And I guess technically what he's saying is if that's the way she wants to be and that's the way she wants to bargain her her role, and that's the way she wants to negotiate things, then that's her. That's on her. And the judge also explains that there were so many things that she requested of them or demanded or however you want to say it, that they didn't do that.
They don't be a statement, maybe a threat could have been more like had she or Ryan Reynolds said if you don't do this and that, then we will not show up at the premiere, or you don't do this and that, and then we will not go on a tour to promote the movie. And then then he's in a position where he's like okay, okay, okay, and he signs whatever document or he gives her some you know, something that she wants and then now she completes the
terms of the contract. That would have been more like civil a threat, right.
Maybe. Also the judge also says that there's just no evidence of actual monetary loss. Like, you can't prove there has to be damages, so there has to be duress, and then you have to prove that as the plane if you suffer damages, and there's just no proof that there was damages. This is according to the judge. I mean, you can argue both sides. I would say this guy's reputation has been damaged his Oh yeah, I mean his
I don't know if he can make movies anymore. He's clearly, in my opinion, probably lost projects because of all of this going on. I don't know, but obviously they aren't showing in their original pleading where they're suing her, they aren't showing enough damages. Right. But anyway, so the civil extortion part was dismissed by the judge. He just says that lively threats were not legally wrongful, that it was
just basically hard bargaining and negotiation. There was no threat of physical harm to person or property or threaten a false lawsuit.
Man, do you know how much of a bigger head those two have now? Oh?
I know, and I keep seeing it.
Yeah, they're like, see we were in the right. See we didn't do anything wrong.
Right, And I tell you, every time I get on Instagram and I flip through it, it's just ease posting Blake Lively out and about it some events on a red carpet, and I don't I personally, I don't want to see her. I would like to put the no Blake Lively filter on my phone so that every time I flip through Instagram, I don't have to see her on a red carpet. The judge goes on to say Wayfairer and Baldoni do not show facts that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film or to approve
marketing materials. That is a problem. And I knew this was going to be an issue when I read the original complaint by Justin Baldoni and Wayfairer. They do talk about how Blake Lively never actually signed her contract to appear in the movie, that there were emails going back and forth and she took whatever the chunk of money is to retain her, but that she actually never signed
her contract. So she went through and starred in this movie and did promotional things and marketing things, but never.
Had an action was intentional to never really lock herself into something.
I don't know, but it seems like it's working in her favor because it's saying, how can you claim that she has a contractual obligation to promote the movie and market the movie without for the movie, And then you're saying there's no contract in place for her to be in this movie.
So yeah, it's like, she didn't do what we agreed this she would do what'd she agreed to do? Nothing signed her contract.
Only bargaining and seeking improved working conditions is basically what the judge comes down to, saying that she was doing that she had every right to do what she did and to do it the way that she did.
Wow, Like, to the next producer that signs her on, right, yeah, I mean that he's got even a bigger head. She's like, I'm just negotiating. I mean, get out of here, I'm just negotiating, right, do it my way or the highway?
That was just like an all encompassing power trip for her. And basically like the way you've acted, the things that you've alleged, the way that you kept him from attending his own premiere, the way you undercut the movie, made your own edit took over coerce them into giving you a PGA.
Talking about this in the beginning, you said that she was surrounded by yes people. Yes, she surrounded yes judge.
Yeah, now she's a yes judge. Well, you know, here's the thing about the judge, and I don't know you can you can take away what you want from this, But his brother is a big director and producer in Hollywood. The judge's brother, the judge's brother, Doug Lyman. All right, So that's the civil extortion part of Baldoni's claim that the judge dismissed. There was also the defamation part of Baldoni's suit, which those are the two big ones. It
was extortion and the defamation. It was a and defamation is an injury to reputation by a false, oral or written communication. And obviously there was a different standard for public versus private person. We're talking about Blake Lively being a public person and Justin Valdona being public. So what's the standard do you know?
Well, a defamation doesn't include opinions, right, So it can't be like he's a jerk, Yeah, he's a creep, right, stuff like that.
It's more like a sexual predator. I think that's defamatory.
Right for private figure. Basically, it just needs to be a fact that can be disproven, right or something like that. Right, it has to be a false statement.
Yeah, but also you also have to it has to be negligent, like you were you didn't try to find the truth.
I was talking about private person. Yeah, the private person just needs to be a false statement. Is it a negligent standard, yes, okay, so then a public figure would probably be more of a malicious Yeah, it's actual malice, actual malice.
Which actual malice means knowingly you know something is false or you have a complete disregard to reckless disregard for the truth. So that's the standard, and there has to be special damages. That's the legal term of it. So I always like to give you guys a little legal background. So if you're having a conversation with your friends, you can just pull out, you know, your defamation. You can tell them that it's a public figure.
So which is because the actually don't journalists do a lot of times they'll be like, oh, well I had an anonymous source that told me this, so therefore, like that was my research. Yeah, yeah, didn't Tom Cruise used to go around Sue and everybody. I don't know Tom Cruise and Nichols you do.
Other than movies. I don't know about him suing people looking.
I don't know anything about him.
And he's short.
I know that's short tempered. No, he's short. Yeah, yes, I think.
He's maybe shorter than you.
Maybe.
I think he's like five six. I think you have an inch on him.
He's got nothing on me. No, but it's Tom cruisey Nicole Kidman needs to go around Sue and all the tabloids and stuff.
Oh yeah, all right. Well, basically, the judge denies the defamation suit against Blake Lively, saying that the litigation privilege applies. Basically that everything she wrote in her original CRD complaint, which was a civil rights and that she filed, and then that New York Times used that complaint to then write their article is basically called a litigation privilege, which
means that you can feel safe writing space. It's a safe space, this piece of papers a safe space, a safe space for you to write whatever you want.
Anyone, no standards here, just write whatever you want.
Anything you want. You can accuse anyone of anything. You can call them anything you want. You can say whatever, you can collude with the New York Times, and then they can write an article accompanying it and taking all the information that you put in your complaint, and then you are covered on litigation.
So someone photo copies it and shares it, which is essentially what the New York Times did. That's okay because where it came from, it was allowed to be written as it was.
Right, and the New York Times also falls under the fair reporting privilege, which basically is very broad. You know that under the Constitution, the First Amendment, there's the free press, and they have a very broad range of being able.
To So is that more like you can report this what is it called a CRD.
Well, the original complaint before she.
Filed a federal civil rights it's.
The Civil Rights Department.
Okay, So she files something with the Civil Rights Department, and then they're saying it's fair for the press to review it and report on it.
Right, Yeah, So that's and they're saying she also due to privileged communications, everything within her CRD complaint is privileged. Therefore everything that she alleges about him or says about him is privileged. So it's not defamation. So basically what we have all learned from you can say whatever you want about someone else as long as you put it on pleating paper, file it, and then you're protected under
the litigation privilege. So and basically, also because Jessin Baldoni alleged that even the things that she put in her original CRD complaint where it was like she was manipulating texts, not showing full contexts, you know, leaving emojis out, that had that set a tone to what she was, you know, implying in her and her complaints. And the judge goes on to say she's permitted to martial the facts to
tell her side of a contested story. She doesn't have to provide a balanced account of what happened, and the litigation privilege still applies. It's so basically, you can just marshal the facts, man.
She really, yeah, I'd be careful if I was producing her next movie that there might be some colliints with the CRD department, because now she knows like, well she does want to be complaining about I'll just make I'll just put in it with the CRD.
Well, basically, what she's done is laid out the exact steps that you need to do to take to a store campaign someone's livelihood and reputation with zero consequences on your part. Also, there was the false light, which is also a form of invasion of privacy under California law, the invasion of privacy by placing a planet and a false light in the public eye. False light must be
highly offensive to a reasonable person. So this was a claim that Justin Baldoni made in his claim against Blake Lively that she placed him in a false light by her litigation. The judge dismisses the slight claim because of the same reasons as the defamation.
Anytime you get sued, it's a negative look on your image.
Right all right. So basically, just to break it down, just to give a simple summary of what happened, the judge throughout the extortion claim, which was the big one, which was the way she went about trying to coerce herself into taking over the movie, taking over the editing, producing the movie, getting producer credits, and the judge basically said, you know what, that's just her being an A list actress and negotiating her way through the system.
And just it's more like an a whole actress.
Then the second big one that got thrown out, which we just talked about, was the defamation suits. And that's because the judge is stating that everything she put in her filings was privileged. And also the New York Times has no culpability because of the fairer reporting.
Those are all legal standards. It's not like she did anything. More like, it's not like, oh, she's a great person. Calm down. No, it's like, no, legally, legally, you have no recourse.
Legally, you have no recourse. However, I do feel, and I'm sure people would agree with me, that she definitely lost in the court of public opinion and she has.
No But I mean, is this not Is this going to change people's opinions. Are they going to be like, oh, so it wasn't that bad.
I don't know. I feel like if you look at social media and anytime there's anything of her, if you read the comments, it is just NonStop like she's a horrible person. Get her off my page. I don't want to see her. Why are you posting her? Why are you giving her? It's it's bad. It looks like the backlash is pretty bad.
But and here we are talking about her.
Yeah, all right. The judge did allow for two causes of action to be amended and refiled, but these have to do with contractual issues, not the bigger, overlying things like defamation and extortion, which have been thrown out.
It's not the juicy stuff.
It's not the juicy stuff. It's boring contracting, contractual stuff.
They're going to amend and refile because they can't just walk away.
Oh no, They'll definitely amend and refile it. I don't know if it will be successful, but they will. One is breach of implied covenant of good faith. The judge said that they're able to amend this and refile it. It means that there's the existence of some specific contractual obligations and that she interfered with plainous performance of the contract or failure to cooperate with the plaintiff. So basically,
there's no relevant contract in place. That's what we talked about, and the judge talks about this, how there isn't a contract because Baldoni claimed several times that Lively did not sign her employment contract. But he's giving them the opportunity to prove that there is some type of contract and
that she didn't fulfill her duties under that contract. And then also they're allowing Baldoni's team to refile, to re amend, refile the tortous interference with contractual relations or perspective or perspective economic advantage. This I had to read this a couple times to understand this because this gets down into just like logistics and legalies, and it was difficult. But this has to do with the accusation that Ryan Reynolds
interfered with Justin Baldoni's talent management team. You know how he was dropped from WME, which is the talent company after all these allegations came out, and Justin Baldoni claims that they dropped him because Ryan Reynolds was like, that guy's a sexual predator. I don't want him, you know, I don't want to be in the same talent agency as him, and they dropped him. So basically they're saying, if you can, if you can prove that you know
you're a part of this talent agency. He's a part of this talent agency, he forced them to drop you, which interfered with your contract with them, and that you suffer damages from that. Then Okay, re amend, refile, and we'll hear that. But again, like Shane said, which makes sense. All the juicy, all the juicy stuff is gone. And this was a huge way. I hate to say this because I don't even want to say it, but this was a huge win.
In the public courts.
Yes, no, and yes, not in the public eye, but in the public courts, in the court.
System, civil court system.
This was a no. It's a federal court.
In the federal civil court system.
What do you say.
I'm just ready to move on. These people are annoying me.
All right, let me just I just want to do one more thing. I just on this. I like to give Brian Friedman's response to all of this.
Oh yeah, what is it?
So? Brian Friedman said, while the court dismissed the defamation related claims, the court has invited us to amend four out of seven claims against Miss Lively. I don't understand the math there because I read the judges ruling twice and I only see two claims that he allows them to amend. But maybe there's some smaller claims underneath those big broad claims. I don't know.
I'm going to go off of what Freeman said versus what you said.
I know whatever. He has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against miss Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations. Most importantly, miss Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday. And with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when miss Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle. And I look forward
to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking. He loves to remind her that he's taking her deposition because you know, if you remember when we did earlier podcasts, she was trying to do everything possible to get it and to not have Brian Friedman be the one that deposes her.
So if anything that we're going to get it, hopefully a video depots.
Hopefully we just hopefully will get a comeback. It will be Brian Friedman deposing Blake Lively, and that will feed our souls.
Yeah, and that you want to see on Instagram that I want to see.
We are grateful for the organic show of support from the public and for the dedication of the Internet sleuth community who continues to cover this case with discernment and integrity. All right, So there we are on Lively and Baldoni. That was a big one for Blake Lively. Boo hoo, womp womp. And Reynolds and Ryan Reynolds. If you did not think that their heads could be any bigger, I feel like they have.
They're going to have to inflated. They're going to have to move into a new place, a bigger place. Yeah, fit their heads.
All right, all right, let's move on to the Diddy trial. Have you been following Diddy? Do you know anything?
Yeah, he's still in jail.
He's still in chail, Yes he is. He's still in jail. I did think I just want to talk about this. It's on the run, Dawn, but we'll just talk about it first because I want to know your reaction to this. But he did get admonished, I think it was yesterday by the judge because he continues to make faces at the jurors.
Yeah, what kind of faces?
Well, I don't know because there's no cameras in the courthouse, so it's not like I've seen the pains.
There's paintings.
There are paintings, but they're not. I haven't seen any artwork that shows me the faces that he's making.
But he's doing that.
He he became like when someone's testifying, he shakes his head or he nods his head or and he looks at the jury and I think he's I mean really, the interpretation is that he's trying to influence them. I agreeing disagreeing with testimony, which you you cannot do. So he got in trouble for that.
What kind of trouble.
Well, I don't know that. Just like spoken to judge said that she was gonna kick him out of the courtroom if he continued to do it. So we'll see what happens with that. Hopefully he keeps his.
He would probably be a video presence. He could, like video be able to see her accusers.
Right, But I guess the problem is is that the jury's over here to the side, and he just completely turns to the side address.
He slit his throat. He's like scratching his throat. I know where you live. Yeah, well anyway, yeah, but you were pointing like like in the manner of a gun fingers and you pulled a trigger. What does that mean?
Okay, so we have Jane, who's been testifying for the last couple of days. It is a former girlfriend and she's using the pseudonym Jane. We know that there was an earlier a woman who testified under the pseudonym Mia, So now we're to Jane, Jane.
To take that name. Who gets to pick your pseudonym? I don't know.
I wonder the same thing, And why Mia? And why what would your pseudonym be?
I don't know, Frank, I don't know what it would be John Jansen and everyone would just flood over to him.
Yeah. So Jane dated Sean Combs from early twenty twenty one until his arrest in September of twenty twenty four. So this is a recent girlfriend, which is interesting. She met Combs in twenty twenty. She's a single mother and an OnlyFans model. Jane began testifying on June fifth, and her cross examination begins on June tenth. What is today? Oh, that's today, So she's getting cross examined today, all right, So let's just go through some key points from her testimony.
She talks about the emotional impact. So from around May of twenty twenty one, Combs introduced her to voyeuristic group sex events. He called hotel nights parallel to the freak offs that Cassie Ventura described. So here's what I'm thinking. Every time he has a new girlfriend, he.
Has to change the name, change the name of his because.
With Cassie Ventura he called him freak offs, but with this girl he calls him hotel nights.
It's like a new chapter in my life. I need to rebrand my freak offs.
Yeah, so what with the next the next? Wait, so this one is called hotel hotel nights, Hotel nights, the hotel hotel. The first encounter involved a male escort and a hotel room.
Set up by the next next one will be called in my cell alone, sad with gray hair. That's what it will be.
Nights. Yes, the first encounter involved a male escort and a hotel room set up by Combe's assistance. Jane testified that she was super nervous and found herself participating in
a multi man event that opened up Pandora's box. First of all, you do understand, and let's just talk about this briefly, that the fact that she's testifying that the assistance set it up is very important because that is going to proving rico, which is that this is a criminal enterprise and that he has employees who are working underneath them who are setting up these freak golfs, hotel nights and criminal activity, criminal activity, and that these sex
workers are being paid and are traveling from state to state, which then goes to the sex trafficking. Though initially exhilarated, she regretted it, and the events became the centerpiece of their relationship. Okay, so we have to get down to coercion control and the abuse part of it. She repeatedly told Comb she did not want to participate, texting to him, I'm not a porn star. I'm not an animal.
I'm an only fans star.
I'm an only fan.
What is your problem?
It's loveless for me. I mean, I feel like when there's lights and people setting it up, it's IMPI apply that is loveless, but there's like stage and baby oil and ring lights. Combs responded dismissively, calling her crazy and urging her to continue on. Starting in March of twenty twenty three, Combs paid her ten thousand month rent, a benefit she feared losing if she refused to comply. Basically,
this is how he leverages these women. He coerces them by taking financial control, and then they get their self in a position where they have to go along with what he wants because he's controlling their finances.
Oh it sound about right.
He also controlled her appearance, requiring veneers and regular grooming.
Then okay, can I say something? Yes?
No, you can't?
Yeah, go I can or cannot? You can go ahead, thank you. If he has all this money, they uses right to control people and have these large party and all that. So money's not an issue for him. He's got plenty of it. Why doesn't he just find the women that fit his criteria instead of finding someone that needs veneers? Now I think about it, Maybe it's because he wants someone that he can he can say, I'll give you this, I'll do this, and you need this. You you look ugly, you're.
So you're saying. He targets like a six, seven or eight, so that he can make them a ten and then they or he.
Could just make them feel inferior by saying, your teeth are nasty. You need me to help you. You need me to make you look good. You're you're nothing without me.
Yeah, you're saying that's a way of controlling and breaking them.
Down's funny because when we got married, you got veneers.
I was just gonna say, well we got married. You were like, I think you.
And then you were like, he come, you didn't just marry a ten Wow, I'm just kidding. And I said, I did marry it. Oh yeah, I like you.
You just got yourself out of trouble. Even after an FBI rate on his homes in March of twenty twenty four, the sexual encounters continued in cities like Miami and la I did not know that though, but that's very interesting. So even after his homes got raided, he's still continued with his hotel night So he's like, not even the FBI is going to stop this.
Wow. That means he really thought he wasn't doing anything wrong or he had some Indea.
I don't know if he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, or he just thought he was above the law and that he.
I guess that's what I meant, Like he thought he was untouchable.
Yeah.
Yeah.
During her twenty twenty third birthday, and this is we're talking about, Jane Combs orchestrated me who went.
To the freak offs after he was raided. That's interesting. Oh yeah, I also thought they could go like why people kept showing up?
I don't know, that's an interesting question. Okay. So during Jane, we're still talking about Jane. This is her testimony. During her twenty twenty third birthday, Combs orchestrated a multi escort event at a hotel, which she said her feeling invaded. Can you imagine, though, it's her birthday and he's like, for your birthday, You're going to have sex with a bunch of escorts for your birthday, and I'm going to watch for your birthday.
Right, Well, it didn't matter even if it was Combe's birthday. That's still wrong. You act like she got you know, screwed out of a birthday presenter. No, I'm just saying it didn't matter if it was a birthday or Memorial day.
I was saying the whole point of it being like her birthday.
That's how disgusting.
Yeah. So, apparently in a recorded phone call that she had, Combs is asking her is this coercion? They played this in court, and this is after he hit her and forced her to take ecstasy at a June twenty twenty four dinner. He would threaten to expose sex tapes or
stop paying rent if she pushed back. You know, he did the same thing with Cassie, And this is her corroborating a lot of Cassie's testimony because if you remember when Cassie testified that she also remember her momfied that he said he would release sex tapes of Cassie venturay twenty grand and then she had to take a mortgage out on her house and pay him the twenty grand and then like two days later he gave her the twenty grand back. It was basically just like just to
mess with her. That's like a cat messing with a mouse. You know, they're just playing with them.
Yeah, they grab it, they go chase it again and.
Grab it exactly Like that's the kind of sick and twisted behavior. You know that he has a lot of her testimony had a lot of parallels with Cassie Ventura, which is good because the prosecution has her testifying, which helps to corroborate everything that Cassie had testified about earlier. Jane noticed striking similarities between her experiences with Cassie Ventura's lawsuit, so much so that she almost fainted when she was
reading it. During a recorded call, Comb's dismissed both experiences as some kinky shit that we both enjoyed, which she firmly rejected. It's interesting that when she read Cassie's lawsuit and all of the facts and in all the details she puts in there about her time with Sean comes and then this this girlfriend, Jane reads it and says that she like, she almost fainted because it was basically the same thing. It just goes to show you that
it's just repeated behavior of control over these women. And I think that he would He probably is so advanced in how he does it and how he goes about it. It's almost systematic, like I'm sure he looks for a certain type of girl and then he makes them better. He gives them money, he pays their rent. Then he slowly introduces them into this voyeuristic lifestyle with the assigns.
And I'm sure some of the things he's exposing into him is you know, glamorous, right, big parties. You know, he might shower them with you know, I don't know, they go clothes shopping or whatever it is to make them feel like this is like an upscale lifestyle and I'm living it, and then you know, bam, he hits them with a bunch of other crap.
Right. There was evidence presented which for text messages Jane stating doescome like I'm not a sex robot, and Comb's dismissing her objections. Recordings, there were dialogues where Combs exhibits physical force and defensiveness, and photos. There were fifteen images showing encounters with escorts that were displayed for the jury. The prosecution stance is that Jane's testimony aligns closely with venturas showing coercion via violence, drugs, threat of eviction, and blackmail,
fitting federal definitions of sex trafficking. So we know what the prosecution is doing. They're just laying out this criminal enterprise by having all of these people testify over and over again, corroborating the way he systematically goes about setting it up, about how the employees worked for him, about how they set things up about the sex workers. And the defense's argument is obviously that they assert that all
acts were consensual and part of a swinger lifestyle. They also claim Comb's aggression was isolated domestic abuse, not trafficking, all right, So another thing that happened was Ditty. His defense team seeks a mistrial over alleged false testimony. This is actually very interesting. So there was a woman named Brianna Bongolan who testified. She's a fashion designer and a friend of Cassie Ventura. She testified about a confrontation with
Sean Dittycomb's at Cassie's apartment. Bongolan stated that while she was on the balcony, she said she was either out there smoking or about to smoke. Diddy allegedly ran out onto the balcony, grabbed her and held her over the balcony railing. She said that he shouted, quote, you know what the f you did, before pulling her back inside
and forcefully pushing her into furniture. Bongolan testified that she sustained injuries to her leg and neck as a result, and the prosecution presented photos showing large bruises on her leg, along with marks on her neck and back.
It's a very hip hop artist thing.
Yeah, it really is. The isn't that Suge Knight? Didn't he hang Vanilla Ice over a balcony too?
Yeah?
There must be like a like a wrap handbooks.
Too, how to deal I don't know, negotiate effectively the opposing party over a balcony by their ankles, yes, while screaming at this.
However, the defense challenged the prosecution's evidence, which was bongole and testifying to this alleged balcony incident, pointing out that the metadata on the photos shows that they were taken on September twenty six, twenty sixteen, when Diddy was reportedly on the East Coast for the Bad Boy Family Reunion tour, making it highly unlikely that he was in Los Angeles at the time. I do know that they had They had hotel receipts from him staying in the in the
hotel in New York City. So the point is clearly he cannot be physically in New York City a concert, yeah, and in La hanging someone over a balcony. If she claims that those bruce, this is where the result of an incident that happened hours before or the day before or whatever. But he's in New York City.
I don't know. Again, that's for the jury to decide, right.
Cassie Ventura recounted the violence during her own testimony at Comb's trials, So Cassie when she was testifying, talked about this incident on the balcony. However, Ditty's defense argued that a series of texts from Cassie to Christina Korum, who if you remember we talked about her before, was one of Ditty's employees, indicated she hadn't witnessed the incident herself.
TMZ reported this. The text, which said I just found out some crazy shit indicated to the defense that she had heard of the alleged incident through another source and had not seen it firsthand like she claimed. So just to break that down to make that make sense, Cassie testified on the stand that she witnessed the balcony incident happen first person. She was there, she saw it. That's
what she testified to. The defense offers texts that she has with Ditty's assistant, sating oh I heard about that.
So basically like she did you see it or did you hear about it?
Right, So basically her text message is saying, oh, yeah, I heard about that crazy Yeah.
That's there's gonna be questioning around that, and then the jury's you have to decide which version of the story is the truth exactly, or at least they see is the truth.
All right, So that's where we're at, Diddy, Do you have any final thoughts on this criminal enterprise and the sex trafficking charges.
I don't. At the end of the day, it's as long as he's in jail for the rest of his life.
You don't care what he's doing. As long as he just never gets out of.
Project Cares, tax fraud, whatever, it doesn't matter.
No, No, you just want him.
Yeah, he should never be with public again, with like people again. Yeah, because he's terrible. I mean, look what he did. I mean, assuming all this is true. Obviously we weren't there, but look at how he reacted to the jury, you know, giving him you know, threatening, you know, facial expressions or intimidating facial expressions.
Well, I don't know if his facial expressions or whatever we intimidating or.
It was enough for the judge to slap them and tell him to stop doing that.
Well, it's I think his expressions and his nodding or to influence them as to what he when he agrees with something that's being testified to or when he disagreed.
Okay, so you're saying, not intimidate, influence, that's the same thing.
Well no, yeah, exactly, But in this.
I'm saying dangling them over the balcony by their ankles is just influencing tactics. No, it's intimidation.
No, I'm saying that there were there was alleged incidents of actual intimidation in the beginning. That's why he wasn't allowed to be on house arrest, right, and jury tampering, and that's why they were worried about being able to get a jury of twelve people of his peers because there was rumblings or I don't know if there was actual evidence, but I think there was.
Well, there was a lot of concerns.
Concern, right, that's the word I was looking for, concern with jury intimidation and people not wanting to sit on his jury. So here he is in court actually addressing the jury, looking at them and giving them nods or whatever. So you're right, I mean, you can call it whatever you want, influence, intimidation, whatever. What he's doing is wrong.
And so anyway, all right, Well, so we went through a lot today, Yeah, and we tried to break it down into digestible chunks because it was a lot of information.
Yeah, especially the Baldoni stuff that was that could be very complicated and it is complicated, kind of boring depending on how you go over it, or you can just pull up the basics and yeah, you know, know the status of the case as it is today.
All right, Well, thank you guys for listening. We appreciate it, and as always, I appreciate all the feedback. A lot of you send me so many dms telling me that you enjoy the podcast or asking about other cases that you would like us to talk about and touch on. So I appreciate that, so continue to do that, and if you have any questions or comments, feel free to
DM me as well. And also we do have an Instagram legally Brune Podcast, so you could follow that and you can always comment on the cases that we discuss and talk about. So thank you for listening.
Thank you,