Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy's 5 Best Defenses Against Horrifying Trafficking Allegations

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs could potentially face arrest as federal investigators look into an alleged sex trafficking operation. Combs has faced multiple accusations of sexual assault and abuse in recent lawsuits. On Monday, federal agents raided two of his homes. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber examines possible defenses for Combs if he were to go to trial with criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen.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 DeiningerScript 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.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry 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. There has been a lot of talk about Sean Diddy Combs lately, the raids, the accusations, the lawsuits, a potential criminal case. Now let's talk to you about if he does get arrested in charge, what would his defenses be? For that, we bring on Bradford Cohen, acclaimed defense attorney to the hip-hop stars. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. As we dive more into these shocking raids on properties linked to rapper, producer, entertainment mogul, Sean Diddy Combs, and as we talk about potential charges he could

face, let's talk about potential defenses. And that can get a little. tricky. We'll talk about it. So first, let me just say what we're talking about. We're referring to the fact that just days ago, federal agents swarmed these Diddy properties in Miami and Los Angeles. Reporting suggests that this was pursuant to an ongoing investigation, potentially connected to sex trafficking. Reporting indicates that electronics, guns, documents were seized. At the time of this recording, though, neither Diddy or any of his family members or associates have been arrested in connection with this investigation. However, Brendan Paul, Diddy's alleged drug mule who had been accused in a lawsuit of supplying the rapper with guns and drugs.

He was arrested in Miami on two drug possession counts, made bail, he's out. But talking about those lawsuits for a second, these raids, this reported investigation, comes on the heels of multiple lawsuits that were filed against Diddy in the past several months. That includes one from Cassandra Ventura, who accused Diddy of sexually assaulting her, beating her, forcing her into sexual slavery, sex trafficking. She and Diddy actually settled that case the day after that lawsuit. But then as we discussed, there was more lawsuits. There was a recent lawsuit that has actually just been amended.

And it was filed by Rodney Jones, a former producer of Diddy. The lawsuit is not only against Sean Diddy Combs, but his son, Justin, several of Diddy's companies, even actor Cuba Gooding Jr. It contains allegations of sexual assault, harassment, violations of a sex trafficking statute. He also recounts instances of gun possession. multiple shootings, threats, minors, sex workers, prostitutes, drugs, it's a heavy lawsuit. It's a heavy lawsuit, to say the least. But as his attorney, Diddy's attorney correctly pointed out, Aaron Dyer, in a statement after

these raids, quote, there has been no finding of criminal or civil liability with any of these allegations. That is true. No charges have been filed yet. He hasn't been convicted of anything. The lawsuits are still pending. He goes on to say, Mr. Combs is innocent and will continue to fight every single day to clear his name.

That is what I want to talk about right now. potential defenses and for that let me bring back on special guest here on sidebar acclaimed defense attorney bradford cohen who is famously represented stars like drake y n w melly kodak black joins us now bradford good to see you good to see you as well you know i'm going to ask you before we even get into anything about the defenses your reaction to this news this week you know um i've lived down here for probably uh i mean the majority of my adult life i moved down when I was 21 years old. So we, it's a very small community,

and there's always chatter about things that go on in Miami and the individuals that are roaming around in Miami. I was surprised by the manpower and the attention that this got because generally that's reserved for really, really serious stuff, the way that they came in and the way that they conducted, this raid and simultaneously conducted a raid in California, that tends to give you the idea that there is something there with these raids that they were specifically looking for. I'm actually interested that you were surprised.

I thought I'm interested you were surprised because if you read the allegations against Diddy just in the lawsuits, and we don't know if the lawsuits fueled this investigation, it would seem like they're substantial weapons in the house. Did he implicated in multiple shootings in that lawsuit? There was an allegation that he blew up Kid Cuddy's car. You're dealing with massive properties. You don't know where anybody is, if there's secret rooms. So I can't say I'm not surprised that level of manpower.

I was surprised at the level of manpower, and I was surprised that there was no leaks about it. That was the bigger surprise because generally when it's someone of that level and that they're conducting an investigation. And the reason why I think that there were no even kind of hints at it. Nobody was getting interviewed or saying that they were being interviewed is because it appears that this is out of the Southern District of New York and not a Southern District of Florida case. I believe it was a if it was a Southern District of Florida case because so many defense attorneys represent so many individuals and we're a very tight network, someone would have said, hey, my client was being interviewed for a possible this or a possible that.

I think that was more surprising than anything that they just conducted this raid and no one even had an idea that the feds were interviewing people. That's really interesting. Before we even get into the defenses, so the idea here when everybody's like, oh, you know, Did he might have fled, he might have been, he might be in another country. That would presume that he knew this was happening or he had some sort of tip and got out of there beforehand. Nothing to indicate that.

I actually believe he's still in the country, but that, so that's interesting. You're saying that it would tend to prove that he didn't just flee the country because he would have had to have some advance notice. And especially when we're dealing with not just, you know, the, not the FBI, but we're dealing with Homeland Security. It's probably likely he wasn't tipped off and had advanced notice to do something. Yeah, no, my inkling is that he was not tipped off. This was probably a vacation that he had planned or something like that.

Because to think that the feds did not know that he was getting on a private plane and flying anywhere when they're conducting a raid on two of his houses, you're underestimating what the federal authorities know. When they're conducting a raid, they know exactly where that individual is, probably by his cell phone or by his social media. They know what planes he owns. They know what boats he owns. And when you fly private, there is a list of who's on your plane and you have to file that with the Fed. feds. So the aviation would be on notice about who's on that plane, where they're going, all those things. So to think that he was like getting on a plane and escaping the country without the feds knowing where he's going would be a very silly idea to have because I don't believe that to be true.

All right. Let's get into some defenses here. Now, of course, we don't know what he would be charged with, if anything, but based on the reporting, we can make some theories. And before we even get into that, you know, I asked Meek Mills attorney on a prior sidebar, and I'm going to ask you the same question. If you were representing Diddy right now, what would you advise him to do? Well, you first advise everyone to keep their mouth shut. That's the number one golden rule of being a defense attorney is there's nothing that you can say that is going to change a federal authority's mind if they want to make an arrest or get an indictment. You're not going to go in and say, hey, listen, I made a mistake or this wasn't true.

None of that ever happens. And when anyone ever tries to make excuses, usually they dig themselves deeper because the feds might already know more than what you think they know. So when you give a statement, now they're also getting you for lying to a federal authority, which is also one of their favorite crimes. So the number one thing is to keep your mouth shut.

Then the number two thing is, is to start getting ahead of the ball and investigating exactly what the accusation. are. The accusations in this case, they've made clear have to do with sex trafficking and weapons possession and things of that nature. So now you have to get ahead of the ball. Find out what weapons they seized. Who owns those weapons? The pictures that I saw, it looks like there's a gun safe in a what looks like some sort of break room because there was like a mini refrigerator in there. That could have been his securities room. So his security is allowed to be armed. Anyone that

doesn't have a felon on their record is allowed to be armed. So you want to find out what weapons they seized and then start doing history on those weapons who owns them, when's the last time they used them, things of that nature. The feds will do DNA and fingerprints on any weapons found in the home because they're going to try and prove that someone that shouldn't have possession of them had possession of them at one time. So that's something else you got to look into. And then also the accusations of sex trafficking. Obviously, you want to start getting ahead of the ball, it's trying to get interviews of individuals that may have knowledge of any of those accusations and start getting statements from them and hopefully be able to use those going

forward, where they might have a statement that is out there from some five years ago that may contradict what's going on now. So you want to start getting a list of names of individuals that you want to start doing background checks on. And everybody, so I want to thank Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this episode of Sidebar, always love talking about them. Now, here is the incredible thing about Morgan and Morgan, and one of the reasons why I like talking about them so much. Hey, say something about our big wins. Uh, you're not supposed to come on camera. The reason, Morgan and Morgan, America's largest personal injury law firm, is so big, and I'm sure you can guess it, is because they win a lot. And that's... I forget huge

verdict. Yeah, I was... They've won big verdicts. Uh, six point. $1.8 million in New York, $26 million in Philadelphia. You see, the thing about them is they don't settle for low-ball insurance offers from insurance companies, which is something... You mention that you can submit a claim from your couch at home and on your phone. Dan, they've completely modernized the process by submitting your claim, talking to your legal team. It's all done straight from your smartphone.

Again, that's something that... If eight clicks, eight clicks or less. Eight clicks or less. Yes. You can see if you have a case. In just a few minutes. A thousand lawyers. I have over a thousand lawyers.

All right. You know what, Dan? If you really think you can do better, maybe you should just do it yourself. What Jesse was getting at is if you've ever been injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan and Morgan. You can submit a claim in eight clicks or less. Start your claim. Just visit for the people.com slash LC sidebar.

It came a little too close to me. It hurt me a little bit. I'm probably actually going to have to hire you guys now, but that was well said. That was well said. NBC had reported that there were several people. who have been interviewed by federal authorities in Manhattan, and in relation to, quote, allegations of sex trafficking, sexual assault, solicitation, distribution of illegal narcotics and firearms.

Again, we do not know what the precise charges would be, what they're exactly looking for, but presuming that's what we're looking at, right? Let's actually start with the firearms. I thought that was so fascinating because you were mentioning who actually possessed them, right? So a legal possession of firearms. If his security had the weapons or someone else had the weapons, and I know there, I mentioned Brendan Paul was the alleged drug mule. He was the source of the weapons.

If they're in Diddy's house or on their on Diddy's property, is he criminally liable? Even if he never touched the weapons, even if he never bought the weapons, never registered the weapons. Could he be criminally liable, Diddy? So it's not a short answer. Generally speaking, if you are a convicted felon or you're someone who's prohibited from having a firearm, if someone else is in your house with a firearm, if you have security that has firearms, If they have a safe like it looked like in this helm, that was a gun safe, it looked like it was for long rifles. If those things are present, just in your house, but you don't have access, you don't touch them, you don't handle them.

Generally speaking, that's a very weak case against someone. You know, the short answer is, can they file against you? Sure, they can file against anybody. But the long answer is that that would be a very difficult case to prove without DNA, fingerprints, or video cameras that they say were in the home. If there's video evidence, sometimes your own cameras rat you out, where there's video evidence of you handling a weapon in your own home, and then they would have to prove that that weapon was one that they found and was an actual firearm. So there's a couple different steps there. It's very difficult to prove, like I said. I mean, I just walked the guy on a federal case about a month ago on a felon in possession of a firearm.

They had DNA. He was rapping about it in a video. They had pictures of him holding the gun. and we still got a knock guilty because a lot of times it's very difficult to prove those cases unless you find it on the person as opposed to that there's DNA on it because you sneeze and you can get DNA on something. So if something's present in your home but you don't own it and you don't possess it and your DNA is somehow on it, that's not an open and shut case by any stretch of the imagination. And that's why I ended up getting a not guilty on that federal

firearms case last month. Yeah, because if it's coupled with, again, I'm just Let's say I presume that Rodney Jones, that producer, is one of the witnesses that's cooperating with law enforcement. As I saw them with all these guns and then they find weapons in the property, you know, you couple that testimony with finding the weapons you could make, maybe, make a case against Diddy, but there's so many of these loopholes that we might not have been thinking of. I assume that's the same thing with narcotics. If narcotics are found in the house, tying it back to Diddy, is it different? Is it different illegal substances I'm talking about? Yeah, of course it is because, you know, listen, I've represented a lot of entertainers through my 27 years. Drug cases, gun cases, other cases such as this.

The fact is that everybody always wants the top dog, like the feds don't want Rodney Smith or whoever it is. They don't want any of those people. They don't want the drug mule. They'll probably give that guy immunity. They don't want any of these people. Who they want is whoever is the top dog. in that because that's what gives them the press so the the question is can they charge him with drugs that are found in his home when he's not even present in the home they don't know the last

time he was in that house they don't know where he was in the home it's very difficult there's there's specific case law that makes it even harder to prove some sort of constructive possession when you're not even present in the home now especially when it comes to entertainers that they have parties in their house they have cleaning crews they have security They have butlers. They have all these different people that are in the house, and it's very difficult to prove. It's like, you know, they found cocaine in the White House. It certainly wasn't Joe Biden's.

But, you know, the issue becomes whose is it? Because there's so many people coming and going, it's very difficult to prove. Now, how do they narrow that down? If there's DNA on the baggie, if there's a fingerprint on the baggie, if it's found in his, you know, his bed stand next to his bed, There's different ways to narrow it down, but like I said, it is a very difficult case to prove. Again, I've gotten a lot of dismissals and not guilties just based on that constructive possession law where it is hard to prove, especially when someone is not even in the home when they find these items. And you mentioned the electronic devices, which we believe were confiscated. So, look, if there's camera footage, right, and there was an allegation that Diddy records everything on his cameras, but also.

If someone records something on their phone, right, him ingesting a drug or possessing a drug or possessing a weapon, that is obviously going to be key for prosecutors. So you mentioned what could be potential charges rare, right? You know, narcotics of firearms. Let's get into the big one here, the human trafficking one. And I'm curious to talk about potential defenses because when we're talking about human trafficking, right, we're generally speaking is when you exploit somebody for labor or services or commercial sex. And more specifically for sex trafficking, it's the recruitment, the harbors,

the transporting, the soliciting someone for the purposes of commercial sex, and it's usually through the use of fraud or force or coercion, or if the person, the victim, is a minor under 18 years old. Now, I would assume one defense could be, assuming we're not talking about minors, we're not talking about underage people, we're talking about adults. I assume one defense the sex traffic could be, tell me if I'm wrong, that the purported victims consented? Sure. There's many defenses, right? So a lot of of times you find in these human trafficking or you know another big one in florida is living off uh living off the money of a prostitution which is essentially pimping um a lot of times you find that

the individuals who are involved is either or a couple different things one is yeah if there's consent uh if this isn't some situation where he's forcing them to do something because he's holding something over their head or he's, you know, somehow making them do it through a threat of violence. There is a difference between that and hiring a prostitute. Hiring a prostitute, some federal agents would argue that the hiring of a prostitute is somehow involving themselves in sex trafficking itself. Really, I guess the individuals that would be charged with the sex trafficking in that prostitution kind of case would be the individual. who are actually, quote unquote, forcing the women into whatever slavery it is to provide services for men who are paying for it.

The John, at the end of the rainbow there, isn't the sex trafficker. So the other defense to this is, or possibility, and I don't know the facts or circumstances that are surrounding this, is that hiring a prostitution in itself is not sex trafficking. Now, we go to the complaints that have been filed, and those complaints, you know, argue, against that that you know all these complainants were not willing participants and that's a real issue that's a real problem because what they do now is those complaints there were so many complaints filed and so much dirt thrown and I think in this newest complaint the one in South Florida I read

through it and my guess is is that there is a lot of puffery in it I think that that individual probably approached Sean early and tried to get money out of them and why that happened was the settlement with Casey. So the settlement was with Casey, I think, was so, and that's his ex-girlfriend, was so reported on, and it was so quickly that it made, you know, it was like rain and the worms came out on the sidewalk. It just brought everyone and anyone out to possibly sue Sean over allegations of anything. Because I think that that really that was the dinner that was the dinner bell and everyone came to the party so the newest allegations the newest complaint i think there's some in there and i don't know all of it

but i think there's a majority of it that that are that is a lot of puffery yeah and i i think it's it's a lot of posturing where that guy you know wants to get you know taken off the table but i think it's too late for that well there's no settlements going on at this point it's just it is what it is. Now, a counterargument to that would be, yes, we're talking about the civil arena, right? We're talking about these lawsuits. The standard of proof is different, but also, like you're saying, you're still dealing with the same kind of issues of credibility if these people who are suing did he become government witnesses. I totally get it. So counter argument to that would be, and tell me if I'm wrong, if the allegation is I was sex traffic because I was forced to do

X, Y, and Z, I was transported to X, Y, and Z, it was forced into these sex acts because I was under the promise I was getting paid and I was never paid. You know, one of the things that I keep remembering from the Rodney Jones case is that he thought he had a contract and thought he was going to be paid a certain amount. He was, he says he was not paid what he was agreed to be paid and he was forced into these different kinds of situations and was exposed and harassed and assaulted. So the idea is, yeah, I'm coming after the money now, not because it's a money grab, but because you promised me something. And that fraudulent promise is an element of sex trafficking. Is that, does that make sense? It makes sense. The problem is, is that they,

they are asking not for the payment that they're owed. They're asking for substantially more. So my guess would be this guy in the Southern District of Florida that filed, he was probably demanding $20 million when maybe the contract was for, you know, 100 grand. And I think the same thing with Casey is that her demand wasn't was not based in in the law because they weren't married they were boyfriend and girlfriend and her demand wasn't based in the law it was based in her saying hey I'm going forward with these allegations these are really going to hurt you and this is what it's worth right and unfortunately when you deal with a lot of individuals like I deal with a lot of high net worth individuals they get these lawsuits or they get

these threats on a daily basis. The problem is, is you have to know, like Kenny Rogers say, who says, you know, you got to know when to hold him and when to fold them and when to walk and when to run. And to be quite honest with you, the Casey lawsuit was one that you had to fold very early because she was so close to him. She wouldn't be considered someone like this guy who filed in the Southern District of Florida. She would be considered more credible because She was with him that long. She had history with him. There was a lot of inside baseball that she knew, and that was probably the one that

should have been settled, and that probably would have called it a day for everything else that was going on. What do you do if the victims in this alleged sex trafficking charge of these counts, what do you do if they're minors? Do you attack the idea, because consent won't work. Do you attack the idea of they weren't transported, they weren't transported, they were in harbor they weren't solicited you say we never had sexual relations with them i mean how do you defend it feels like a much difficult a much more difficult case to defend if the victims are minors

if the victims are minors it becomes a whole different kind of animal it's it is much more difficult to defend uh it becomes a different kind of case um cross-examining minors is a different specialty it's a different tool in the toolbox than you have when you're cross-examining uh you know someone who you feel is just lying through their teeth and is out for the cash. So those are way more difficult to defend. Yes, the defenses that you mentioned, some of those are valid. Obviously, I didn't realize she was under age as in a defense because it's a, you know, it's a strict liability type crime where, you know, you could say, oh, I met this young lady in a bar. So like, how could she be under 18? The bar

as 21. That often is a mitigator, but it is not a ultimate defense to the crime itself. So the ultimate defense to that crime would be that there was no sexual interaction, that there was no benefit to it, that it was, you know, it was something other than what they're making it out to be, or that it's a money grab, you know, that these people aren't telling the truth or that the real individual who should be liable is whoever was pimping that person. And the the fact is, is that they took advantage of the defendant and his lack of knowledge of how all the individual was because they were going to use it to their advantage. So there's different ways to attack it, but it is a completely different animal.

Now, assuming for the moment that we're saying, let's say Diddy didn't have any physical contact with these purported victims, let's say he didn't have sex with them at all, but members of his entourage did, let's say he tried to pimp them out to celebrities, to friends, and there was this network, this sex trafficking ring, right? Would a defense be from Diddy, I didn't know what was going on, okay? I don't know who these people were. I have handlers. I have bodyguards.

They were doing whatever. Just people were at my house. I didn't ask who was happening. It's too big of an organization. Maybe even say I had a substance abuse problem. I didn't know what was going on. I wasn't in my right mind. I was high.

I was drunk. I was speculating whether or not that could be something that could be explored. And if you've ever seen it work before. So it can always be explored. The I was too high or drunk is like, again, a mitigator. It could be I was too high or drunk to know what was happening, you know, at my parties. I didn't invite these people. I didn't know who was present.

Sure, that could be somewhat of a defense. The bigger defense is that I never had contact with these individuals. I only, you know, I invite people to my parties. They show up. I don't know what goes on at the parties. I don't direct what goes on at the parties. I don't make introductions to individuals. Those are just people that I know in the industry.

Everybody kind of knows these people in the industry. And what happens just happens. That defense, I don't know how strong it would be depending on the testimony. And listen, this is going to be very heavily driven on camera footage, on electronics, on digital. you know, like I said, the feds don't have evidence to make an arrest. They have evidence to make a conviction. That's what they're looking for. Whether or not they could indict someone, they could indict, you know, anyone. You know, they could find enough evidence to indict anyone on the planet. That's not what they're looking for. They're looking for enough evidence. When they bring

a case, they're looking for enough evidence to convict. That's why they have a 99% conviction rate. That's why the Southern District of New York is the Southern District of New York. It's a very serious district. I've had cases in the Southern District, the Eastern District, and those prosecutors that they have in those districts are, you know, they don't just hire someone from, you know, and no slight the Cumberland Law School, but they're not hiring someone from any tier other than a first tier law school. Right. And that's, and that's, those are the individuals that they hire there and they hire them for a reason because it's one of the busiest districts in the country. Oh, yeah. Look, this is, this is, I wouldn't be surprised if we are going to see charges

down the line. And look, you mentioned, you can go after not only the digital evidence, the credibility of witnesses. There's always you can poke your argument against the prosecution and law enforcement. But yeah, so they have a number of different arguments. I did want to ask you this, though. I think they're going to charge them. I do. Based on everything that you've said, based on everything that we've seen. Having said that, let's say, after all of this, the raids, everybody talking about it, if they come up with nothing, if I don't even know if they say, issue in a statement say at this time, our investigation is closed.

They do not charge, did he? Does he have any legal action against the government because they arguably put him in an embarrassing situation, seemingly harmed his reputation? Would he have any action against them? Unfortunately, no, because, you know, regarding the, the raids. on his house, those are done pursuant to a search warrant that a judge reviewed. Unless there was a lie in that search warrant, if the search warrant was truthful and the affidavit that was attached to that search warrant was truthful, they are relying on evidence and relying on individuals

that gave statements and the judge is then relying on reviewing that and signing off on it. And they would have immunity from any sort of lawsuit, even if they find nothing. Yeah. Because it was based on good faith and there's a good faith exception and there's also an immunity for prosecutors that are bringing cases. So he wouldn't have a case against them. He may have if it becomes total BS. He may have civil remedies against individuals who were making the accusations against them. Right, right. But he wouldn't have it against the government. Meaning the witnesses who worked with the government and gave that information if they gave false information. Bradford Cohen, if anything is clear from this whole discussion, it's why you are such a great defense lawyer.

So fantastic, really so happy to get your perspective on this. Always enjoy talking to you. And we will see where this case progresses. Keep us on the line. We'd love to continue the conversation. I will. Thank you so much for having me. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on this episode of Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.