Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Fearlessly Hosted 'Freak Offs' Despite Sex Trafficking Investigation: Feds

Episode Date: October 1, 2024

Sean “Diddy” Combs allegedly continued to hold “Freak Off” sex sessions involving sex workers despite likely knowing he was under investigation by federal prosecutors. The hours-long sexual performances reportedly involved trafficked sex workers, drugs, and lots of baby oil. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses the latest with trial attorney Jennifer El-Kadi.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wonderly Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wonderly Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. As Sean Combs fights once again for pre-trial release from a New York Detention Center pending trial on racketeering and sex trafficking charges, we're examining a key issue in this case, the allegation that Combs was engaging in illegal freak-off sessions even this year. We bring on trial attorney Jennifer Alcotti to discuss this major claim and whether Combs could in fact be released. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. There's something about Sean Combs' current case that we need to explore a little bit more,

especially considering he is trying to fight to get bail once again. Now, as we know, Sean Diddy Combs is currently locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center, the MDC out in Brooklyn, New York. This, as he awaits trial on federal charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by forced fraud to coercion and transportation to engage in prostitution. That essentially he agreed to form and continue a criminal enterprise that was engaged in a campaign of illegal activity from kidnapping to, forced labor, to arson, to sex trafficking, as well as the abuse of women for years. More specifically, that he would drug and force people to partake in so-called freak-offs,

these elaborate sexual performances with commercial sex workers that were brought in for these events. Now, we did a full-depth analysis already of freak-offs and a prior episode of Sidebar. I encourage everybody to check it out if you want to learn a little bit more. But here is the issue I want to focus on. So prosecutors have alleged that their case dates back from 2008. The question, though, is how long this alleged criminal activity goes until that is the question, because here's the thing to remember.

Combs was first sued by Cassandra Ventura in November of 2023 for sexual assault, battery, sex trafficking. This began the ball rolling with the filing of many more lawsuits to come. A lot more alleged victims came out and sued Sean Combs. then in March of 2024, federal agents raided Combs properties in Los Angeles and Miami. And then he was arrested pursuant to a grand jury indictment on September 16th. That timeline is very, very important. Why? Well, prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, they submitted a letter to the court.

This was after Combs was arrested and this was after Combs was denied bail by a previous judge. And then he tried to appeal that to a district court judge. Well, in their letter, they wrote as follows, quote, both at argument yesterday and in the press, the defendant has emphasized his supposed cooperation with the government, including his willingness to surrender, meaning how he came to New York to ultimately surrender to the charges. The court should take that argument for what it truly is.

Attorney-crafted theater designed to convince this court that the defendant can be trusted and is not a risk of flight. Make no mistake. The defendant's recent behavior shows that he, cannot be trusted or controlled, particularly now that he is facing serious charges that carry significant penalties. As Judge Ternofsky observed, and this was the judge who originally denied bail, your lawyer asked me to trust you and to trust him, and I don't know that I think you can trust

yourself and I don't believe that counsel has the ability to control you. And then the government says in their letter, quote, indeed, since at least in or about January 2024, when the defendant was unquestionably aware of the court, the defendant was unquestionably aware of the criminal investigation, the evidence shows that he is engaged in multiple freak-offs. Some involving the interstate transportation of individuals to participate, has continued to use narcotics, and has contacted multiple witnesses. Some of this conduct has even taken place since the defendant arrived in New York City, allegedly to sit it out and wait to be arrested. The defendant's conduct is demonstrably not cooperative and indeed highlights his inability to abide

by the law or counsel's directives. And we know that district court judge Andrew L. Carter ultimately agreed with prosecutors denied Combs bail for a second time and also highlighting how prosecutors alleged that Combs had improperly reached out to witnesses and purported victims to silence them from cooperating with authorities. That's a big no-no. Now, the idea here, and again, this is what I want to focus on, that these freak-offs were happening despite all the lawsuits, despite the fact that he had to seemingly know investigators

were looking into him, that's a big issue. That's a big allegation. We're not talking about conduct just from the early 2000s, but essentially what prosecutors are alleging today, this year, the freakoff's allegedly happening this late. That's what I want to talk about. How could that factor into his criminal case? Actually, here's a thought. Could Combs use that as a defense? I'm going to explain what I mean in a minute. And also talking big picture, talking about what's happening right now, I wonder how much that allegation will come into play as Combs tries once again to get pretrial release.

Because Combs' legal team filed a notice of appeal yesterday. They seem to be taking this bail fight to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They want to overturn Judge Carter's decision. will it work? Will he get pretrial release? Will he be let out on bail? And again, will this allegation of freakoffs happening this year come into play? You know what's difficult? You know what's tough? Reading through legal briefs and filings to prepare for sidebar. It's like I'm back in law school. Being told, I look like Dennis Reynolds every single time I check the comments. That wears on you. At this point, I think people think he hosts the show. Again, it's tough.

But you know what's not difficult? Starting a claim with Morgan and Morgan. How about that transition, by the way? Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm, they make the process as easy as possible for their clients because from starting your claim to uploading documents to talk to your legal team, it can all be done from your smartphone. There's no upfront fee. You only pay them if you win. And speaking winning, Morgan and Morgan, they have a track record of securing verdicts and settlements on the multi-millions. So if you're injured, this may be the firm you want in your corner. You can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. talk all about this. I want to bring in right now trial attorney Jennifer Alcotti, who specializes in human trafficking cases. Jenny, so good to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time. So if this allegation is true that Combs was engaging in freak off sessions this late in the game, what does that tell you? It tells me a couple of things. Looking at the legal

implications, I think you said it exactly right. I mean, he had consistently obstructed. I mean, he had consistently obstruction of justice, there were violations of court orders, and he continued racketeering and trafficking. It just does not look good for him. And on an appellate level, looking at that, it wouldn't be a argument as to whether or not the court's order for denying of bail was a de novo, meaning that it was a question of law. It would be looking at it as a potential abuse of discretion. And I think the lower court is absolutely looking at. at Combs and his potential risk to society. And like you mentioned with the timeline,

I mean, continuing to proceed in these freak-offs, even after the raids, is indicative of his nature to have that obstruction of justice, violating those court's orders and continuing- Clear about the timeline there. Let's be clear about the timeline. And a couple of things that you mentioned, right? You mentioned that how this higher court

would review this lower court's decision, really only saying, the lower court make a mistake? Was it so egregious to deny bail? And when you have accusations like this and you talk about the weight of the evidence and you talk about the gravity of these alleged crimes, I think it's going to be a long shot to say that this judge made a mistake by not granting bail. I'll put that to the side for a second. But the timeline's important. So they said January 2024, not clear if he was having freakoffs in New York, but putting that to the side. If let's say the last time he did it was January 2024, that was before the

raids, right, but that was after the lawsuits. Is it fair to say that he would have known he was under investigation? Because I look through, one of the things that was presented was the defense when they were filing their letter with the court to seek bail. They included their communication with the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York. As far as I could see it dated back to April. So after the raids, I didn't see any communication from early 2024 from January. So would it be fair for prosecutors to say Combs was engaging in freakoffs? He should have known he was going to he was under investigation would have been charged. This was before the raids. Absolutely. Because that like you mentioned, that timeline is

important. And it goes also to to a preservation of evidence and almost putting you on notice as to that you are going to be investigated. And when you're a public figure like that, too, you've got so many people that are informing you as to what it is that this could potentially lead for you in the future, right? It could lead to a legal investigation. So to say that he did not know is potentially a long shot, but definitely that he should have known that this could have been a bigger investigation, I think is completely reasonable. In other words, he should, should have known by the lawsuits that he was probably being investigated by federal authorities? I mean, is that fair? Because the other way of looking at it is, and let me ask you a question

about this. Two questions I have about this. First of all, how often do we see that? How often do we see civil lawsuits turn into a federal investigation? Now, there were allegations of sex trafficking. There were allegations of racketeering. He might have said, yeah, like if he really did it, the statute of limitations ran on kind of these assault claims, maybe these rape claims, If you're thinking about, look what happened, Galane Maxwell, you're looking at R. Kelly. Should he have known that based on the lawsuits, the feds were looking at them? So I think you bring up a really good point, right? And the fact of the matter is in these civil litigations, especially when you are a public figure,

there are numerous allegations that come out about public figures specifically. And sometimes they're brushed off. Other times they're investigated further. And I think with this situation, what you mentioned, too, is that it was a federal claim, right? I mean, these are egregious allegations of human trafficking and racketeering. So those are, in it of itself, very, very egregious crimes to which they should have been taken seriously. And I think that is something to be said whether or not they were to him. So I think that's like the main issue here as to the level of crime that was brought.

I'll flip it for you. I'll flip it for you. I think that there's a chance he could use this as a defense. It might be a long shot defense, but bear with me here. Couldn't he say, I never thought these freakoffs were illegal? Yeah, Cassandra Ventura mentioned them. Cassandra Ventura sued me. Others mentioned them.

But I've always maintained that they are consensual sex parties. If this really was a crime, and I just got called out on it on a national, international stage by Cassandra Ventura, oh, oh, secrets out. Why on earth what I keep doing it? So again, I go back to this issue of if he's, he's going to defend himself throughout this case and say everything was consensual, freakoffs in of themselves if there's no drugs, there's no force, there's no coercion, there's no prostitution. Wild sex parties are legal, right? Couldn't he make the argument? Yeah, I did it in January 2024 because I didn't think it was illegal. He absolutely could make that argument for sure. And I think you mentioned, too, that

If there was no evidence of coercion, forced, drug use, impaired consent, that's definitely a defense. And I think that's going to be his defense is that these were consensual parties. Now, again, if it was that these are adults, that's a defense. If these individuals were minors, then it's a different story. Minors, there's numerous laws that protect minors tremendously. So you don't have to have any type of force, fraud, or coercion. And to be clear, he's not charged with that. They don't mention anything about minors or underage people at all.

Correct. And so like you mentioned, I do think that this is going to be a giant defense of his, is that these were consensual. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. There's no evidence of forced fraud or coercion, whatever it may be. And he, there was no evidence of drug use, whatever. So it's definitely going to be a huge defense of his. Yeah, I don't know if it's going to work because the allegations are a freakoff wouldn't be a freak off if there wasn't criminal activity afoot.

I think that was what the prosecution would say. And there's a difference. There's a difference between a wild party and there's a difference between what the prosecution is focusing so much on the freakoffs, these illegal sexual encounters. I did think it was interesting. The fact that the government alleged this in their letter, and to be clear, there's a lot we don't know about the prosecution's case. don't know exactly who they've spoken to, who cooperating witnesses are, what the evidence exactly shows. Their letters provide a little bit more information than the actual indictment, but the fact that the government alleged this, that he was having freakoffs this late in the

game, what does that tell you in terms of the evidence they have or maybe who they've spoken to? Again, this is after some of the lawsuits had already been filed. My thought is who turned on columns. You know, it's so funny. I actually had that in my notes at one point, too, is that I was thinking about there had to have been more witnesses that came out because at this point, too, what you have to think about is that the investigation is continuing. So in a federal case like this, it might be that there's whistleblowers. It could be that they're trying to protect themselves at this point because they could potentially be corroborating or they could have been instigating these freakoffs as well. So to protect themselves, they're probably coming out right now to ensure

their safety and security with respect to this lawsuit. So I do think that there were witnesses that have been coming out more so like whistleblowers at this point, too, where it's that they were in his inner circle and they're just trying to protect themselves at this point too. By the way, if the government, let me phrase this, if law enforcement was aware that, you take the allegations the worst they are that a illicit freak off was about to happen. So if they were investigating him and they were to get word that a freakoff was about to happen sometime between, I don't know, January 2020, for when he was arrested, would law enforcement let it go on in order to get more evidence or were they step in and say a crime's about

to be committed? We got to jump in because it seems to me they found out about this after the fact. Yeah, I'm putting it into perspective of my cases that I deal with on a day-to-day basis as to, you know, one of the main ways that law enforcement gets, investigates a lot of their claims is through tips. And so, but a tip is a tip. At the end of the day, they have to do their due diligence and they can't just go and arrest anybody based off of a tip. So I do think that law enforcement was probably investigating it, but they just didn't have. enough evidence at that point to go ahead and do anything. But I don't think that they just threw their hands up and said, it's probably nothing. So talk to me about how you think that this allegation is going to factor into his chances of getting bail. Do you think it's going to come up? Do you think that his chances of getting bail are better going to an appellate court? You mentioned

that the kind of the standard that they have to review, but let's not forget what he was offering. He was offering as part of pretrial release home confinement, $50 million secured by a Miami property. He gives up his phone privileges, his internet privileges, only limited people can visit his home. He is a private security firm monitoring the house. Visitor logs would be provided to the court. Again, some would say an attractive bail package, but in light of these allegations that he was allegedly still continuing to break the law and contacting witnesses and victims, what do you think the show? is that his appeal is successful. I still don't think his appeal is going to be successful.

And again, I think it really is just based off of an appellate's review is really looking for either de novo, which is a question of law, abuse of discretion, you know, did the trial court make a reasonable decision and clearly erroneous, which would be finding of facts made by the trial court that were potentially clearly wrong. based off of that, it's not to know about this is not a question of law. Look, I really do think it's going to be an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous. And I think that the trial court looked at everything and saw that he was, I don't want to say the word menace, but basically to society, he might have been considered a menace. And as a public figure, you have more heightened

responsibility. So I don't think there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. I think that they saw that he was ignoring court orders. And I think that he just continuing to have these breakoffs with such egregious claims was reasonable for them to assume that he could be a danger to society. Yeah. In other words, it's understandable why the judge made that decision. Both of those judges. I mean, my understanding is on the law given the charges, given the allegations, there is a presumption of pretrial detention. This would be different if you had, I don't know, like a church lady with no criminal background that stole a candy bar and you lock her up for until trial you can say oh the judge what's the judge doing here this makes sense i'm curious to see if anything will change

if his circumstances will change that he can make us another argument for pre-trial release but jenny it seems to me by all accounts he could theoretically still be locked up at the metropolitan the detention center for a year, two years, until trial actually begins. Yeah, and something that I practice solely in federal court and something that does unfortunately happen with federal court is that the cases do take anywhere from three to five years from the time of filing. So, I mean, it very well could be that this is going to be a long case. State court claims move pretty quick, but federal cases do take quite some time.

I mean, it's also, too. I mean, you have to think it's a federal issue. you know, you want to make sure that the court, the judges are getting it right. So I do think that it's going to take some time. And look, we also don't know appellate courts also have their own discretion, right? We don't know what an appellate court is going to do. They very well could just be like, you know what, yeah, put him on bail. It's fine. We don't, we really don't know what an appellate court can do. But just based off of the facts that we know right now, I do think that it's a long shot for him to get bail. They might say the prosecution hasn't shown enough

to prove this, the show the freak-offs happened in 2024. They was contacted witnesses. It'll be interesting. Before I let you go, as somebody who specializes in the human trafficking field, this is a unique case, but a similar case. So the idea here that he sex trafficked, right now victim won, at least one person through force, for order coercion, that his alleged criminal enterprise was engaged in sex trafficking on a larger scale, again, you know, using these methods for commercial sex acts, also bringing people.

in for purposes of prostitution. What is your take on how strong a case like this is, how unique a case like this is from a human trafficking perspective? So, I mean, it really is going to depend. RICO is a federal claim. And it is a very, very difficult and high standard to prove. I will say that specifically with respect to corporations. But it's because we don't have all the evidence and all the known facts right now, and it is unfortunate that you can't have, obviously, in federal proceedings, more information like this. But I do think given the totality of the circumstances and as more evidence comes out, I think it's a strong case. I do see that there are vivid signs of human trafficking with respect

to force, fraud, and coercion. And it is going to depend on the evidence and witnesses. Those are going to be the two key pieces. I do think fact testimony is going to be important. And I think expert testimony is also going to be important. All right. We will see. Jennifer Alcotti. Thank you so much for coming on. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Jesse. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.