Law&Crime Sidebar - Shocking Twist in P. Diddy Lawsuit Claiming Beyonce Attended 'Freak Offs'

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

In a recent development, Joseph Manzaro, who filed a civil lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging sexual assault at a 2015 Miami party, has amended his complaint to remove references to Jay-Z and Beyoncé. Initially named as witnesses, the couple's legal team provided evidence confirming they were not at the party. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber delves into the details of this case and its implications.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://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest 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. views 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. The man who claimed he was sex trafficked by Sean Combs, paraded around a party where multiple celebrities were allegedly present, and then assaulted, has now dropped two big names from his lawsuit, Jay-Z and Beyonce. While other big names remain in the suit, why were references to these two A-lister's purposely omitted in a newly amended complaint? Lots to discuss. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, we have a follow-up to quite the lawsuit. I talked about this a few weeks ago. This guy out in Florida named Joseph

Manzaro filed a lawsuit in Florida federal court, claiming he was a victim of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation at the hands of Sean Diddy Combs and others. Explosive lawsuit broke the whole thing down in a prior sidebar. You can check it out on Long Crimes YouTube channel, but basically he alleged that he was kidnapped, he was drugged, he was held against his will, he was beat up, he was transported to a celebrity-filled party where he was then sexually assaulted, forced to partake in unwanted sex acts. And while he listed a lot of high-profile names in this lawsuit, not necessarily as defendants, but as people who were at this party that he claims, by the way, was held at a property owned by Emilio and Gloria Estefan in

Miami and then taken by a secret tunnel to Sean Combs' property. The complaint that was filed at the beginning of the month read high-profile individuals, including Jacob Arabo, Jacob the jeweler, Jay-Z, Gloria Estefan, LeBron James, and Beyonce Noles Carter are identified as witnesses due to their presence or knowledge of the events surrounding the freak-off orchestrated by defendant Diddy? You know, a freak-off has been described so many times in different lawsuits and the indictments. But here's the thing. In a newly amended complaint, Manzaro has dropped Jay-Z and Beyonce's names. And that is really interesting, because here's the thing, what did Manzaro allege in the prior complaint?

Quote, upon regaining partial consciousness, the plaintiff found himself inside a large party area. information of belief that it was Diddy's son's birthday party. Jay-Z and Beyonce Knowles Carter were seated in the room. And upon seeing plaintiff, Beyonce Knowles Carter asked, what's this? What's this all about? Why is this half-naked white man with a blank mask standing here in front of me? Defendant Eric, this is Eric Mejiaz, responded, Diddy wants him to see what we do to snitches. This is part of his punishment. Plaintiff was forcibly paraded through multiple rooms filled with people who were jeering and taunting him. defended Diddy explicitly ordered plaintiff's degradation, saying he's going to find out

what we do to snitches tonight, get him undressed. But now, in a newly amended complaint, Jay-Z and Beyonce, no sign of their names. Their names are dropped. Their names don't appear anywhere. Why? Well, there's no official stated reason, but according to page six, the couple's legal team provided information to show they weren't in Florida at the time of this alleged incident back in 2015. That reporting from that time indicates, Jay-Z was actually making an appearance at NYU, and then he and Beyonce went on vacation in Hawaii with the Daily Mail back in the day publishing photos of them together there. So I want to bring in right now Long Crimes Legal Counsel, Elizabeth Vuli, to talk more about

this. She is so generous with her time because Long Crime, we have so many legal issues we've got to talk about, but she's been following these cases. So, Elizabeth, thank you so much. So is this why they were dropped from this amended complaint? It feels intentional. I mean, what do you think? Yeah, it's a great point. So like you mentioned, it's been reported that JZ's attorney, Alex Spiro, has provided evidence and has been in touch with plaintiff's counsel, providing proof saying, you know, there's

photos of them in Hawaii. There's reporting that JZ was at an event in New York for NYU, and the plaintiff is claiming that these incidents happened in early April. So if you can provide concrete evidence, specifically photographic evidence, that they weren't even in Miami or anywhere near the area at the time. I think that's a really key indicator. And also, you know, I think because he's also left the names of some of the other witnesses in the complaint, but he's taken Jay-Z and Beyonce out. And even though this is an unrelated case, if you remember, the Jane Doe complaint that was filed against Jay-Z

claiming that she was raped at a VMA after party in 2000, she later withdrew that complaint, and then he ended up filing a defamation lawsuit. So that could also add some pressure to this plaintiff as well. So if he sees, okay, I might not have the evidence to back this up, I don't want to be faced with the defamation lawsuit. So that could also be part of it. I was going to ask you that. I was going to ask you that because he files this after that complaint was dropped. After my timeline's correct, you know, Jay-Z's attorneys file that extortion defamation suit against Jane Doe, again, who claims that when she was 13 years old back in 2000, she was raped by Jay-Z, drops that case. So you would wonder, I'm not going to go after

Jay-Z. I mean, he wasn't named as a defendant in this action, but I'm not even going to mention Jay-Z or Beyonce unless I have the goods, right? Which is interesting because, as you mentioned, attorney Alex Spiro, who represents Jay-Z, released a statement to people saying, Jay-Z wasn't in Florida at the time to witness this incident. He was engaged in easily findable public activities that prove he was not at this event. This is more nonsense that erodes the trust in our justice system. Talking a lawsuit like this, how do I not bring up litigation experts, our sponsor, our partner, Morgan and Morgan, right? America's largest personal injury law firm.

In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident a victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple.

You can start a claim from your phone in just 8,000. clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. So here's the question, Elizabeth. If this is easily findable, the attorney representing Mr. Manzaro, wouldn't they have said, can you prove this other than you saying this? I mean, if this was easily findable, you have to imagine that attorney before filing a complaint would say, let me see if I can back this up. That's the part that's a little concerning, unless there's another reason they drop their names. Right. Yeah, it's completely right. And when this first came out and the photographic evidence and other things came out showing that they weren't apparently in

Miami at the time. I was a little surprised that they brought their names up as well, especially considering the defamation lawsuit that's currently pending the JZ filed. There could be a multiple multitude of reasons. You know, maybe the attorney handling it is taking what his client is saying at face value. I would think most attorneys, especially if you're bringing up big names like that, people that have a lot of resources, a lot of financial means, they have a lot of power. I would think that an attorney would, you know, want to make sure they do their due diligence and make sure they were really there. It could be that he did and he thought there was enough evidence to support that. It could also be as an attorney, you know, if you're dropping these

big names, and again, strictly as witnesses for now, most of them, if you're dropping these big names, maybe that'll draw more attention to your case, it might put more pressure on the opposing parties. So there could be a bunch of different reasons. What's the ability for a Jay-Z or Beyoncé to file a lawsuit because they were named in this lawsuit. I mean, there is a litigation privilege, right? Yeah, that's right. So there is a litigation privilege. Usually what happens is that you don't typically are not able to sue for defamation for statements that are made within judicial proceedings. Sometimes what people do is they can file attorney for the other party can file a motion for sanctions. So in federal court, and this is a federal court case in Florida,

you have the ability to file sanctions if the attorney is bringing forward a lawsuit that's frivolous, that's done sort of recklessly. Because they're being named as witnesses, though, I would think that's going to be a little bit tougher because they're not the direct parties named here. They were just witnesses. But there's a potential option for them to bring forward a defamation claim if they can show that there was negative statements being made. So these statements that they were witness at this potential freak off, allegedly, that they witnessed all these things that maybe they didn't do anything to stop it. They could apply this is a negative statement. It's not true. It was made recklessly. Therefore, there could be defamation here. I think moving for motion like sanctions,

if you're not a named defendant, might be tough. But, you know, there's a possibility you can move forward for defamation claim if you're recklessly named as a witness in a lawsuit and it's not true. But the fact that their names were dropped, and again, this doesn't appear to be like an oversight. Oh, we meant to include them and we're going to amend it. It seems like they were intentionally dropped because there's pretty much everything else about the second amended the amended complaint is identical. It makes me wonder, is that show a weakness in this case? Does it show a weakness in the accuser's account? Yeah, I think it could be alleged that it sort of chips away at possible credibility because like you said, the other witnesses were left in. LeBron James,

Gloria Estefan, the only real people that were taken out were Beyonce and Jay-Z. It sort of reminds me again, coming back to that Jane Doe lawsuit when she had mentioned that a member of the band, Good Charlotte, was a witness to this alleged incident. And then it later came out a representative for the member of the band said, actually, no, he wasn't even in the state at the time. He was on tour with his band in a completely different state. So even though he was initially referenced as a witness, in the public eye that sort of chipped away at the alleged victim's credibility. And I think it could be argued the same as being done here. You know, if you are throwing out these names and it leaders revealed that they weren't there. I don't know if it necessarily negates every single

claim that he's making, but it could pose some challenge to his credibility in the public eye. And you mention that because it doesn't appear that Menzaro and his lawyer, whatever conversation they may or may not have had about Jay-Z and Beyoncé and why they decided to drop them from the suit again as witnesses, they are moving ahead. They have filed this amended complaint. They've named several people as defendants and they've still named several people as potential witnesses. So you have LeBron James, Jacob the jeweler, the Estefan's, which in fact, according to the amended complaint, which is, again, seemingly almost identical, it reads, quote, inside Gloria Estefan panicked upon seeing plaintiffs deteriorating state demanding call an ambulance. However,

defendant Emilio quickly silenced her and ushered her away into the crowd. At that moment, plaintiff briefly saw LeBron James, who was wearing a white bag, towel, brown shower shoes, and carrying a shaving bag, walking through the hallway. LeBron James looked at plaintiff, and in response to Gloria Estefan's plan for an ambulance remarked, you all better do something about that. So, Elizabeth, it seems that Menzaro still believes he can prove that this happened, and he may want to call LeBron James and Gloria Estefan as witnesses. And by the way, Emilio, Gloria's husband, is named as a defendant, by the way,

claims that he enabled Sean Combs' sex trafficking of Menzaro. It seems like he's going full steam ahead saying this happened and they have a part of this. They're a part of this too. Yeah, he's definitely going full steam ahead. And I think the key thing about him still leaving Gloria Estefan as a witness is that like you mentioned, Emilio Estevan, is a defendant. So he's alleging that he engaged in wrongdoing. Whereas with Jayze and Beyonce, all he was alleging was that they were witnesses and this is what they saw. So I'm not surprised that he's still moving forward and still keeping in, you know, Emilio and Gloria obviously referenced.

heavily within the complaint, Gloria, just as a witness. I was still a little surprised that he did leave LeBron James within the complaint, because from what I see, he's just an apparent witness. I don't think he alleged any sort of wrongdoing against him. He wasn't named as a defendant. And I believe his attorney made some sort of statement that he might not have been in Miami at the time that he was playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers. So I was kind of surprised he left him in there, but I wasn't surprised that he was still moving full steam ahead with the complaint. Yeah, I'll get to those statements in a minute because they are quite telling as well. The interesting part about this is how are celebrities going to fight these subpoenas to testify if this case progresses?

Yeah, so assuming this case progresses that far, let's say, to a trial, I don't think it will. But if it does, you know, it is hard to negate or fight against a subpoena. There's different ways that you can do it. You can say for a lot of people, they will say, you know, the subpoena poses an undue burden, and whether it's, you know, in terms of my time or my resources or other things I have going on in my life. A lot of people also claim the burden of travel if you're required to travel very far distance to come to court to testify. I think that's probably going to be a hard claim to make with, again, celebrities that have an excessive amount of wealth and privilege and things like that. So if it does progress this far and if they are called to testify and it could be shown that they were in fact possibly at this incident and that it occurred and they witnessed something, I think it would be really hard to fight against that.

Elizabeth, this development makes me think about this lawsuit in general. And as I mentioned, we broke it down here on Sidebar whenever it came out, two weeks ago or so. But here's the thing, it makes me wonder the strength of it, because talking generally about this lawsuit, a few days ago, Combs' legal counsel released a statement saying, this complaint demonstrates the depraved lens plaintiffs will travel to garner headlines in pursuit of a payday. No sane person reading this complaint could credit this story. Mr. Combs looks forward to having his day in court where these lies and the perverse motives of those who told them will be revealed.

And that is very consistent with how he has been denying almost all of the allegations or all of the allegations in the civil lawsuits that he's been facing. And of course, he's facing criminal charges. He's been denying them as well. Looking forward to his day in court to fight those. But I have to say, Elizabeth, after reading this suit, I myself have some issues with this complaint. And I want you to sort it out for me. Like, for me, I'm reading it. it didn't seem clear from the complaint. And you and I both know that when you file a complaint,

there needs to be a level of specificity, a level of particularity for it to survive a motion to dismiss. And it didn't seem clear to me why the plaintiff, Manzaro, was allegedly targeted and what his connection to Combs was. You wonder if certain aspects of this account are maybe too fantastical to be credible. The idea that his doorknob to his home was laced with some sort of drug that knocked him out, that he was in and out of consciousness, that he was drugged, but remembers certain details, including that he was dragged to the Estefan residence at about 1230 a.m., very specific. I mean, what do you think about the claims overall in this case, particularly now that we're

talking, two big celebrities are no longer named in that, and it makes you question the strength of the case. Yeah, I agree. Again, like I said, I think this definitely chips away at the overall case slightly. And it was a little bit confusing when I was first reading through the complaint, what is this person's connection, apparent connection to Diddy? Because a lot of the lawsuits that we've been seeing that have been filed or allegations that have been talked about in documentaries or things like that, the person was either

maybe in Diddy's entourage, they had worked for him, they had known him in some capacity. Here, it's not really clear. The issue of celebrities being dropped, a lot of the claims that were made, like you said, are very fantastical. So it does provide a little bit of doubt. But I will also say, when all this stuff about Diddy first came out, a lot of people didn't believe it. And this first civil lawsuit that I think spawned all of this, Cassie's lawsuit against him, a lot of people didn't believe her.

And it wasn't until months later, they ended up settling that suit, but it wasn't until months later when that video came out of them in that hotel hallway, I think did the general public start to see, okay, maybe there's more to the story than we believe. And even in the indictment, when the famous references to freak off and thousands of bottles of baby oil, all of that seemed ridiculous. but the more and more time goes on, the more allegations we're seeing, the more possible credence there could be. So it does seem like a really fantastical complaint, but based on what we've seen so far, you never know. It's a great point, because it seems to me, I think a fair

argument, at least my opinion, is the defense in his criminal case hasn't shied away from there might be a lot of bottles of baby oil and that they might, the sexual encounters he had were called freakoffs. They're just providing different explanations for what they are. But talk talking about a lawsuit like this, could it be successful? Could it move forward if you just have Manzaro testifying? Let's say you don't have surveillance footage. Let's say you don't have photos. Let's say you don't have text messages. Can it survive based purely on his account, him taking the stand, saying this happened to me? I think it's difficult. You know, so generally in federal court judges are very hesitant to grant motions to dismiss because the whole idea is they

want to give plaintiffs a chance to prove their case. And when a person files a complaint, there hasn't been any discovery yet, no depositions, no written evidence, nothing like that. So it might go on for a little while. Whether or not he prevails, if it's just based on his testimony, I think that's going to be really tough. Because again, let's say a victim like Cassie, she had video evidence. She had other witnesses to these alleged other alleged incidents aside from that hotel hallway incident. So there was a lot of evidence to back up what she was claiming. Whereas if it's here, if it's just this individual just testifying, no video, no corroboration, no witnesses, I think that's going to be really tough. You know, another way of looking at it.

You said it before, it could be so outrageous, so specific that you might be saying, how on earth can someone make this up? Maybe this actually, you know, did happen, which makes me wonder, before you file a lawsuit like this, if he had some evidence, right? If he had some proof, why not put it in the complaint? You know, put it in the complaint. It's a legal question of, does he really need to? You know, you don't necessarily have to per se, but this is also a fight in terms of a media battle and a public perception battle. And you wonder, if you're going to file a lawsuit like this and name really high-profile

people, if you have some of the evidence to back it up, why not put it in the complaint? What do you think? Yeah, I personally think the more detail and evidence you can put in initial complaint, the better because it lessens the chance. of a possible motion to dismiss, dismissing the whole case. So an unrelated case, but the Blake lively, Justin Bell, don't claim. You know, when he filed his complaint, he had all of those text messages and different forms of evidence that he's claiming backs up his claims within the complaint.

So I think when you can include more evidence, it's stronger. However, it could also be a tactic by his legal team to not essentially want to give everything away right away, right? Maybe they want to save certain evidence for motion practice or for a potential trial. I personally think, again, the more evidence you can put in your initial pleading, the better it is, the better your chances of the case going on are. So it could be a possible tactic by his team. And he might not have it, right? You know, one of the reasons for litigation is during the course of discovery, you believe upon information and believe something might exist, but you're waiting for discovery to actually get your hands on it.

It does make you wonder, though, if something, if he had something, if he has some photo, if he has some surveillance tape, if he has a receipt, if he has something to indicate, to back up his story, would he maybe release it, right? Release it to the media, release it to the public. Because again, I agree with you. When that tape of Cassandra Ventura was published by CNN, and there's still a debate about how it was actually obtained and published, it gave credence to, I think, arguably, to a lot of people's minds about the allegations that she made and doesn't necessarily. necessarily mean all of her allegations are true. But my gosh, one of the key allegations where she was beat up in a hotel hallway and then this video came out. So do you anticipate that in a case like this, we may see a piece of evidence publicized for everybody to see? It's always possible. You never know what type of evidence people have or may not even have access to yet, right? Maybe the reason Cassandra Ventura didn't include that video within her complaint was she might not have had access to it. Again, it was surveillance tape from a hotel hallway. So there's a possibility that it could. I think, again, striking Jayze and Beyonce's

name and kind of eliminating any possibility that they were even in Miami at this point. Again, it does chip away a little bit at his credibility. So I don't know if we're going to necessarily see a smoking gun in the same way that we did with the Cassie video. But again, you never know what kind of evidence people have. Again, when Justin Baldoni came out with that set footage of him interacting with Blake lively, public didn't know that he had that. He's claiming that helped support his claims. So, you know, there's possibility. We don't know what evidence he might have. So I don't know, again, if there's a possibility we're going to get a smoking gun type evidence or video or photo, but there's always a small possibility. Now, I mention the celebrity

responses. I want your take on this. So LeBron James spokesperson told TMZ when this lawsuit was first filed, this is demonstrably false and doesn't even merit a report or response. A basic internet search shows what LeBron was doing all of April 2015. He was playing basketball for the Cleveland Cavaliers and never in Miami. Glory and Amelia Estefan's representative saying Gloria and Emilio Estefan strongly deny the allegations made. The property in question was never a home where glory and Amelia resided, but it was rather a house they owned for family use. There were no parties thrown at the property between 2012 and 2019. We have all necessary documentation to support these facts and will provide it to the court. And the attorney for Brendan Paul,

who's an alleged associate of Combs, a defendant in this action. He's accused of obstruction, human trafficking. He also released a statement saying when the complaint was filed on April 1st, quote, is this an April Fool's Day joke? If someone seriously filed this lawsuit, the allegations against Brendan are 100% false and literally impossible to have occurred. Brendan was still in high school in Ohio at the time, having never even set foot in West Palm Beach in his life. Now, Elizabeth, these are their responses.

These are their counter-arguments. It's hard to sort what's true or what's not. But the fact that you see these responses, which you could say are very consistent to the response from Jay-Z and Beyonce, we have an alibi, an alibi. I mean, we could tell you we weren't there. The fact that Mr. Menzar is moving forward, naming these individuals despite these responses, an interpretation is he feels, I don't believe them. I can prove they're wrong or I'm waiting to see them, you know,

discredit what I'm saying I what do you take away from this two things that came up from that because I think all the attorneys for all the parties put forward evidence the best scenario and the best defense you could afford is an alibi I wasn't there here's the proof I was out of the country or out of the state I think one thing to keep in mind is the attorney for jZ had said look at photos you see that they're in Hawaii celebrating their anniversary there's report that he was in New York photographic evidence is sort of it's hard very difficult to negate so I don't know if those attorneys for the other celebrities and people named have provided that sort of concrete photographic or video evidence, that could be one. And also number two, I think, again,

the fact that Jay-Z filed a defamation suit against Jane Doe and the other complaint that we mentioned unrelated case, I think that's a big, big factor here because so far for the other individuals involved, I haven't seen their attorneys make that type of move. But if you're seeing that Jay-Z's legal counsel is taking a very aggressive stance and saying any allegations against him, you know, whether as a witness or defendant, we're going to take this seriously. And if you don't have the proof to back it up. We will initiate a defamation lawsuit. That's really serious. I mean, no plaintiff wants to face that. No plaintiff's attorney wants to face that because that doesn't just chip away at the plaintiff's credibility. It also could possibly chip away at the plaintiff's

attorney's credibility and just overall standing as well. So those are the two things that really came up when I saw that. Elizabeth Vuli, such a pleasure to talk to you. Really, thank you so much for breaking so much of this down with me. I had so many questions, as you can see, and always enjoy our conversations. Thanks so much for taking the time. Thank you so much for having me. It's always a pleasure. 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 YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.