NY - Sean "Diddy" Combs charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution, Sept. 17, 2024

[clearskies1]

The first paragraph of the three-count federal indictment against the music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs lays out in an overarching summary the serious and sprawling allegations against him.

“For decades, Sean Combs, aka ‘Puff Daddy,’ aka ‘P. Diddy,’ aka ‘Diddy,’ aka ‘PD,’ aka ‘Love,’ the defendant, abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct,” the indictment states. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources, and influence of the multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled – creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in, and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.”

The indictment from the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York charges Combs with three counts: racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he faces a sentence of up to life in prison.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/us/takeaways-indictment-sean-diddy-combs/index.html

 

[Herat]

Why does he get another bail hearing tomorrow?

What if he doesn’t like the outcome of that one - does he get a third one?

 

[clearskies1]

Why does he get another bail hearing tomorrow?

What if he doesn’t like the outcome of that one - does he get a third one?

I think it's because a magistrate judge handled the first appearance/bail decision -- it wasn't the judge who will actually handle the case/trial. See section (b) of 18 U.S. Code § 3145. As to whether he can appeal if he doesn't like the judge's decison, I'm not sure. It looks like section (c) may be relevant, but I really don't know. JMO.

18 U.S. Code § 3145 - Review and appeal of a release or detention order

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[Izzylizzy]

Follow up on what Peter @ LYK said about the NDA's women signed and received money for.

"One way around them is for the party to be compelled to testify under oath in a criminal or civil case. A private confidentiality agreement does not prevent being compelled by law to give testimony as part of a legal proceeding. In a criminal case or before a grand jury, the government can compel the testimony through the use of a subpoena. In a civil case, a person with relevant knowledge can be forced to testify by subpoena. A private NDA is not a defense to giving testimony compelled by law. I suspect most NDAs say that the party will not disclose absent legal compulsion. But without a legal obligation to disclose, the party would be violating the agreement by talking,” says Germain.'

Understanding Non-Disclosure Agreements​

Non-disclosure agreements have been in the news recently with the ongoing stories about Harvey Weinstein and allegations of harassment and sexual assault. S ...

news.syr.edu

 

[CSI1005]

Let me show everyone my Surprised Pikachu face over this revelation./S

 

[JDG]