Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
Speaker 1: will be your host today Emily Simpson with my co
Speaker 1: host Shane Shane. First of all, so much has been
Speaker 1: going on with the Diddy trial, so we are going
Speaker 1: to try our best to get into a little bit
Speaker 1: of that. Also, so much going on in Blake Lively
Speaker 1: and Justin Baldoni, and I appreciate that so many of
Speaker 1: you have sent dms to me asking us to break
Speaker 1: that down because it is very complex the judge's latest ruling. However,
Speaker 1: first let's get into just a little bit with Jared Letto.
Speaker 1: Do you know who Jared Letto is?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you do thirty Seconds to Mars.
Speaker 2: I know the name thirty Seconds to Mars. It's a band.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he's the lead. I know he's the lead singer,
Speaker 1: but he was also he's also an actor. He's been
Speaker 1: in things. I know him best because I'm jen X,
Speaker 1: but I know him best as Jordan Catalano from my
Speaker 1: so called life.
Speaker 2: Oh I don't know that either.
Speaker 1: Well, if you are my age and you are a
Speaker 1: big fan and you were in love with Jordan Catillano
Speaker 1: like I was in the nineties, then you'll know who
Speaker 1: he is. Okay, Apparently he has been accused of sexual
Speaker 1: misconduct by multiple women who have come forward. So nine
Speaker 1: women have accused Jared Letto.
Speaker 2: You know how to pick them?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know. I was the big I was a
Speaker 1: big Sean Combs fan too. So nine women have accused
Speaker 1: Jared Letto of impropriety. This was an Aramelse story published.
Speaker 1: It was on Friday, June sixth. Some of the allegations
Speaker 1: include assaulting a seventeen year old, walking in front of
Speaker 1: another seventeen year old completely nude, and engaging in sexually
Speaker 1: explicit conversations with a sixteen year old. One woman, a
Speaker 1: former model named Laura LaRue, said she met Letto at
Speaker 1: an animal rights benefit. I love that he loves animals.
Speaker 2: Though, well does he Maybe this is where he picks
Speaker 2: up women.
Speaker 1: I don't know, so I guess she met him out
Speaker 1: of animal rights benefit.
Speaker 2: Which she was sixteen.
Speaker 1: You go, I just said she met him out an
Speaker 1: animal rights benefit. This led to email correspondence between them
Speaker 1: that eventually resulted in her visiting him in April two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine. I remember him teasing me the whole
Speaker 1: time I was there, LaRue told airmail. He was flirting
Speaker 1: with me. Then when Laru was seventeen, Leto allegedly walked
Speaker 1: out of a room completely naked and the model's presence.
Speaker 1: He just walked out, dick out like it was normal.
Speaker 1: I thought, maybe this is just what adult men do
Speaker 1: some in Hollywood. Yeah not you, though, a representative for
Speaker 1: Lettos stated their communications contained nothing sexual or inappropriate, and
Speaker 1: Miss LaRue later applied to work as a mister Letto's
Speaker 1: personal assistant, further underscoring the absence of anything inappropriate in
Speaker 1: any of their interactions. LaRue denies ever applying to work
Speaker 1: as Leto's personal assistant. You know, it's always the personal
Speaker 1: assistant defense.
Speaker 2: But that's what we said last week, wasn't it when
Speaker 2: with the chryslies, it was like, oh, it wasn't me.
Speaker 2: It's the accountant. Oh yeah, well that's here. It's like,
Speaker 2: it's not me, it's the assistant.
Speaker 1: Well no, he's claiming she wanted to be a personal assistant.
Speaker 1: So basically, if she was sexually harassed by him, why
Speaker 1: would she apply to work for him? As the argument, but.
Speaker 2: Quick touching me, do you have a job application?
Speaker 1: Stop walking around naked?
Speaker 2: Can I can I come to your house.
Speaker 1: Another woman named Ali Teals is a Los Angeles base DJ.
Speaker 1: She reposted a twenty twelve Facebook status to her Instagram
Speaker 1: story last month. You're not really in La until Jared
Speaker 1: Leto tries to force himself on you backstage in a
Speaker 1: kilt and a snow hat, she wrote. At the time,
Speaker 1: She also referred to him as Hollywood's most persistent predator
Speaker 1: and a kilt and a follow.
Speaker 2: Up story like there's a cat. There's a bunch of
Speaker 2: men in kilts, yeah, in Hollywood that are sexually assaulting,
Speaker 2: and he's the worst of them all.
Speaker 1: He is, He's the worst. He's the prolific kilt wearing
Speaker 1: sexual predator, a legend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my father always told me never trust a man
Speaker 2: in a kilt.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that was one of his us. Yes, he
Speaker 1: was like, live and let live, don't let things bother you.
Speaker 2: And never never trust a man in a kilt.
Speaker 1: Got it? Oh you forgot the snow hat.
Speaker 2: That's indifferent. Oh snowatter not.
Speaker 1: Oh that doesn't make a difference. It's really it comes
Speaker 1: down to the kilt, all right. In a follow up story,
Speaker 1: Teals claimed she was assaulted and traumatized by this creep
Speaker 1: when I was seventeen, alleging that he knew my age
Speaker 1: and did not care. What he did was predatory, terrifying,
Speaker 1: and unacceptable. There's other anonymous claims coming forward. Another woman,
Speaker 1: whose name Ahrmel did not publish, said she was an
Speaker 1: underage actress when she began texting with Letto, and alleged
Speaker 1: that the relationship took a sexual turn when she turned eighteen.
Speaker 1: The woman claimed that at one point, Leto began masturbating
Speaker 1: in her presence and asked her to quote spit on it. Wow,
Speaker 1: this podcast just took a completely different turn, didn't the Yeah,
Speaker 1: we might have to call this explicitly legally Brunette. A
Speaker 1: fourth woman alleges that she began texting Leto after meeting
Speaker 1: him at a cafe when she was only sixteen, and
Speaker 1: that the conversation turned sexual. According to the outlet, he'd
Speaker 1: asked things like, have you ever had a boyfriend? Have
Speaker 1: you ever Alright, this is making me so uncomfortable. Have
Speaker 1: you ever had oral sex? A representative for Letto told
Speaker 1: Airmail all of the allegations are expressly denied. Of course,
Speaker 1: other strange occurrences that are alleged in this article as well.
Speaker 1: Cosmopolitan reported on a now deleted twenty fifteen video posted
Speaker 1: by the director James Gun accusing Letto of sleeping with
Speaker 1: underage girls. The next morning, Gun posted, good morning and
Speaker 1: sorry to all of you around the world who saw
Speaker 1: my ambient fueled periscope session last night at three am.
Speaker 1: So basically he accuses him of sleeping with underage girls,
Speaker 1: and then the next morning takes down his posts and
Speaker 1: says that it was the result of ambient.
Speaker 2: These people he can't keep up with them.
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen, Leto made headlines again for reportedly sending
Speaker 1: used condoms, anal beads, and dead rats to a suicide
Speaker 1: squad co stars Margot Robbie will Smith and Iola Davis.
Speaker 1: I got so many weird things, Robbie later said in
Speaker 1: an interview with E I can't even begin to tell you.
Speaker 1: And then in twenty eighteen, the British tabloid Metro reported
Speaker 1: on a Twitter post by the actor Dylan Sprouse that read, Yo,
Speaker 1: Jared Letto, now that you've slid into the dms of
Speaker 1: every female model age eighteen to twenty five, what would
Speaker 1: you say your success rate is so Apparently there are
Speaker 1: a lot of instances with Jared Letto of a leg
Speaker 1: You still like this, Jared Lettle guy, Well, I didn't
Speaker 1: know about any of this before.
Speaker 2: I just remember, I bet you all the songs are
Speaker 2: all about sex and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And I don't know what his songs are about.
Speaker 2: But you like him.
Speaker 1: I specified this in the beginning. I liked him as
Speaker 1: Jordan Catalano in the nineties on MTV.
Speaker 2: You don't listen to thirty seconds tomorrow now.
Speaker 1: I couldn't name a single song, can you.
Speaker 2: No, of course not, but I disagree. I bet you
Speaker 2: do listen the.
Speaker 1: Let's give an update on Lively versus Baldoni. So on
Speaker 1: June ninth, twenty twenty five, Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake
Speaker 1: Lively was dismissed by a federal judge. Okay, let's break
Speaker 1: it down.
Speaker 2: This is big, right, this is very big.
Speaker 1: First of all, the entire lawsuit wasn't dismissed, but the
Speaker 1: majority of it was. So I actually it is a
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty two page decision by the judge,
Speaker 1: which I made Shane print out for me, which he
Speaker 1: loves to do, and I read through it twice to
Speaker 1: break it down and try to break it down into
Speaker 1: digestible chunks so that we could all understand what this
Speaker 1: decision actually is.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what's the decision.
Speaker 1: Well, the majority of this claims are dismissed.
Speaker 2: All right, So then we have ones to talk about
Speaker 2: that are dismissed and then the ones that still are
Speaker 2: open for litigation.
Speaker 1: Right, but I'll tell you the big ones. The main
Speaker 1: ones are dismissed.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, So what are the big ones?
Speaker 1: All right? Lit'sten to a little background. Just to give
Speaker 1: you guys a reminder if you haven't followed the case
Speaker 1: that closely, I just want to give you a little background.
Speaker 1: So back in December thirty, first, the twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Lively filed a complaint against the Wayfarer Parties, which is
Speaker 1: Baldoni and his production company, bringing claims for sexual harassment, retaliation,
Speaker 1: breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Speaker 1: And if you remember last week, Blake Lively's team actually
Speaker 1: dismissed from their lawsuit the intentional and negligent infliction of
Speaker 1: emotional distress, and we talked about that in our earlier podcast.
Speaker 1: Then Baldoni and Wayfarer, which again is his production company
Speaker 1: then filed their claim on January sixteenth, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and then by January thirtieth, twenty twenty five, the judge
Speaker 1: had ordered that the two cases be consolidated into one.
Speaker 1: Now he sued Blake Lively as well as The New
Speaker 1: York Times was added and then also her publicist, and
Speaker 1: also there's some claim against Ryan Reynolds. But it comes
Speaker 1: down to basically it was civil extortion, defamation and false light,
Speaker 1: breach of contract, tortuous interference with a contract or prospective
Speaker 1: economic advantage, promisory fraud, and breach of implied covenant. I
Speaker 1: know those all sound very legal in their they are.
Speaker 1: I mean I just met very legalies like they're all
Speaker 1: very legal terms. So basically it boils down to two
Speaker 1: main broad themes that were dismissed from the case, which
Speaker 1: are the two big ones. That is the civil extortion
Speaker 1: and the defamation. All right, the elements of civil extortion
Speaker 1: under California law are not met. That is what the
Speaker 1: judge says. The wayfair parties have not adequately alleged that
Speaker 1: Lively's threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard
Speaker 1: bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions. Additionally, the Wayfair parties
Speaker 1: have not shown that some of Lively's alleged extortionate acts
Speaker 1: damaged them. So basically they're saying, under California law, her
Speaker 1: act of trying to coerce some into giving her the
Speaker 1: cut of the movie, giving her a producer's credit, having
Speaker 1: her take over the movie using her cut of the
Speaker 1: movie do not constitute extortion under California law because the
Speaker 1: elements were not met. And basically what they're saying is coercion.
Speaker 1: It has to be coercion, and then there has to
Speaker 1: be some threat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and threat is lacking. Yeah, right, it's mostly okay,
Speaker 2: she was a crappy person, right, Okay, so she was naggy, right,
Speaker 2: or she was kicking and screaming a little bit in
Speaker 2: the way she was behaving, right and not you know,
Speaker 2: being civil according to her contract terms contractual terms. But
Speaker 2: in this case it's like there was no threat, like
Speaker 2: they never Ryan Reynolds, never sent a text or.
Speaker 1: Something basically, and then also the where they told Baldoni
Speaker 1: that he was the one that had to make Remember
Speaker 1: we talked about this in an earlier podcast, where they
Speaker 1: basically threatened that if he didn't take responsibility for the
Speaker 1: marketing of the movie, Like they wanted him to write
Speaker 1: that public statement that said that it was Wayfair and
Speaker 1: Baldoni that were the ones that chose to market the
Speaker 1: movie the way it was and they wanted him to
Speaker 1: take responsibility for it. They were also claiming that that
Speaker 1: was a type of extortion. Basically, what the judge said was,
Speaker 1: none of that is extortion. It's really just her being
Speaker 1: able to hard bargain and real negotiating.
Speaker 2: Negotiating tactics are like twisting their their arm behind their
Speaker 2: back and forcing them to sign something.
Speaker 1: Right. And also, when it comes to extortion, under California law,
Speaker 1: there has to be a turning over of money or property.
Speaker 1: So basically it's you are coercing someone into giving you something.
Speaker 2: So I was saying, like to a complete illegal transactions, right.
Speaker 1: And you're receiving a benefit. So basically what the judge
Speaker 1: is saying is there was no turning over of property
Speaker 1: or money that gave Blake Lively an advantage or a benefit.
Speaker 1: It's basically like she was just using her bargaining power
Speaker 1: as an a list actress to say I'm not going
Speaker 1: to do that unless this I'm not going to do this.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do that. I don't want to
Speaker 1: do that. I don't want him at the premiere. I
Speaker 1: want this. And I guess technically what he's saying is
Speaker 1: if that's the way she wants to be and that's
Speaker 1: the way she wants to bargain her her role, and
Speaker 1: that's the way she wants to negotiate things, then that's her.
Speaker 1: That's on her. And the judge also explains that there
Speaker 1: were so many things that she requested of them or
Speaker 1: demanded or however you want to say it, that they
Speaker 1: didn't do that.
Speaker 2: They don't be a statement, maybe a threat could have
Speaker 2: been more like had she or Ryan Reynolds said if
Speaker 2: you don't do this and that, then we will not
Speaker 2: show up at the premiere, or you don't do this
Speaker 2: and that, and then we will not go on a
Speaker 2: tour to promote the movie. And then then he's in
Speaker 2: a position where he's like okay, okay, okay, and he
Speaker 2: signs whatever document or he gives her some you know,
Speaker 2: something that she wants and then now she completes the
Speaker 2: terms of the contract. That would have been more like
Speaker 2: civil a threat, right.
Speaker 1: Maybe. Also the judge also says that there's just no
Speaker 1: evidence of actual monetary loss. Like, you can't prove there
Speaker 1: has to be damages, so there has to be duress,
Speaker 1: and then you have to prove that as the plane
Speaker 1: if you suffer damages, and there's just no proof that
Speaker 1: there was damages. This is according to the judge. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can argue both sides. I would say this guy's
Speaker 1: reputation has been damaged his Oh yeah, I mean his
Speaker 1: I don't know if he can make movies anymore. He's clearly,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, probably lost projects because of all of
Speaker 1: this going on. I don't know, but obviously they aren't
Speaker 1: showing in their original pleading where they're suing her, they
Speaker 1: aren't showing enough damages. Right. But anyway, so the civil
Speaker 1: extortion part was dismissed by the judge. He just says
Speaker 1: that lively threats were not legally wrongful, that it was
Speaker 1: just basically hard bargaining and negotiation. There was no threat
Speaker 1: of physical harm to person or property or threaten a
Speaker 1: false lawsuit.
Speaker 2: Man, do you know how much of a bigger head
Speaker 2: those two have now? Oh?
Speaker 1: I know, and I keep seeing it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're like, see we were in the right. See
Speaker 2: we didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: Right, And I tell you, every time I get on
Speaker 1: Instagram and I flip through it, it's just ease posting
Speaker 1: Blake Lively out and about it some events on a
Speaker 1: red carpet, and I don't I personally, I don't want
Speaker 1: to see her. I would like to put the no
Speaker 1: Blake Lively filter on my phone so that every time
Speaker 1: I flip through Instagram, I don't have to see her
Speaker 1: on a red carpet. The judge goes on to say
Speaker 1: Wayfairer and Baldoni do not show facts that Lively had
Speaker 1: a contractual obligation to promote the film or to approve
Speaker 1: marketing materials. That is a problem. And I knew this
Speaker 1: was going to be an issue when I read the
Speaker 1: original complaint by Justin Baldoni and Wayfairer. They do talk
Speaker 1: about how Blake Lively never actually signed her contract to
Speaker 1: appear in the movie, that there were emails going back
Speaker 1: and forth and she took whatever the chunk of money
Speaker 1: is to retain her, but that she actually never signed
Speaker 1: her contract. So she went through and starred in this
Speaker 1: movie and did promotional things and marketing things, but never.
Speaker 2: Had an action was intentional to never really lock herself
Speaker 2: into something.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it seems like it's working in
Speaker 1: her favor because it's saying, how can you claim that
Speaker 1: she has a contractual obligation to promote the movie and
Speaker 1: market the movie without for the movie, And then you're
Speaker 1: saying there's no contract in place for her to be
Speaker 1: in this movie.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's like, she didn't do what we agreed
Speaker 2: this she would do what'd she agreed to do? Nothing
Speaker 2: signed her contract.
Speaker 1: Only bargaining and seeking improved working conditions is basically what
Speaker 1: the judge comes down to, saying that she was doing
Speaker 1: that she had every right to do what she did
Speaker 1: and to do it the way that she did.
Speaker 2: Wow, Like, to the next producer that signs her on, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean that he's got even a bigger head. She's like,
Speaker 2: I'm just negotiating. I mean, get out of here, I'm
Speaker 2: just negotiating, right, do it my way or the highway?
Speaker 1: That was just like an all encompassing power trip for her.
Speaker 1: And basically like the way you've acted, the things that
Speaker 1: you've alleged, the way that you kept him from attending
Speaker 1: his own premiere, the way you undercut the movie, made
Speaker 1: your own edit took over coerce them into giving you
Speaker 1: a PGA.
Speaker 2: Talking about this in the beginning, you said that she
Speaker 2: was surrounded by yes people. Yes, she surrounded yes judge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now she's a yes judge. Well, you know, here's
Speaker 1: the thing about the judge, and I don't know you
Speaker 1: can you can take away what you want from this,
Speaker 1: But his brother is a big director and producer in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: The judge's brother, the judge's brother, Doug Lyman. All right,
Speaker 1: So that's the civil extortion part of Baldoni's claim that
Speaker 1: the judge dismissed. There was also the defamation part of
Speaker 1: Baldoni's suit, which those are the two big ones. It
Speaker 1: was extortion and the defamation. It was a and defamation
Speaker 1: is an injury to reputation by a false, oral or
Speaker 1: written communication. And obviously there was a different standard for
Speaker 1: public versus private person. We're talking about Blake Lively being
Speaker 1: a public person and Justin Valdona being public. So what's
Speaker 1: the standard do you know?
Speaker 2: Well, a defamation doesn't include opinions, right, So it can't
Speaker 2: be like he's a jerk, Yeah, he's a creep, right,
Speaker 2: stuff like that.
Speaker 1: It's more like a sexual predator. I think that's defamatory.
Speaker 2: Right for private figure. Basically, it just needs to be
Speaker 2: a fact that can be disproven, right or something like that. Right,
Speaker 2: it has to be a false statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but also you also have to it has to
Speaker 1: be negligent, like you were you didn't try to find
Speaker 1: the truth.
Speaker 2: I was talking about private person. Yeah, the private person
Speaker 2: just needs to be a false statement. Is it a
Speaker 2: negligent standard, yes, okay, so then a public figure would
Speaker 2: probably be more of a malicious Yeah, it's actual malice,
Speaker 2: actual malice.
Speaker 1: Which actual malice means knowingly you know something is false
Speaker 1: or you have a complete disregard to reckless disregard for
Speaker 1: the truth. So that's the standard, and there has to
Speaker 1: be special damages. That's the legal term of it. So
Speaker 1: I always like to give you guys a little legal background.
Speaker 1: So if you're having a conversation with your friends, you
Speaker 1: can just pull out, you know, your defamation. You can
Speaker 1: tell them that it's a public figure.
Speaker 2: So which is because the actually don't journalists do a
Speaker 2: lot of times they'll be like, oh, well I had
Speaker 2: an anonymous source that told me this, so therefore, like
Speaker 2: that was my research. Yeah, yeah, didn't Tom Cruise used
Speaker 2: to go around Sue and everybody. I don't know Tom
Speaker 2: Cruise and Nichols you do.
Speaker 1: Other than movies. I don't know about him suing people looking.
Speaker 2: I don't know anything about him.
Speaker 1: And he's short.
Speaker 2: I know that's short tempered. No, he's short. Yeah, yes,
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: He's maybe shorter than you.
Speaker 2: Maybe.
Speaker 1: I think he's like five six. I think you have
Speaker 1: an inch on him.
Speaker 2: He's got nothing on me. No, but it's Tom cruisey
Speaker 2: Nicole Kidman needs to go around Sue and all the
Speaker 2: tabloids and stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, all right. Well, basically, the judge denies the
Speaker 1: defamation suit against Blake Lively, saying that the litigation privilege applies.
Speaker 1: Basically that everything she wrote in her original CRD complaint,
Speaker 1: which was a civil rights and that she filed, and
Speaker 1: then that New York Times used that complaint to then
Speaker 1: write their article is basically called a litigation privilege, which
Speaker 1: means that you can feel safe writing space. It's a
Speaker 1: safe space, this piece of papers a safe space, a
Speaker 1: safe space for you to write whatever you want.
Speaker 2: Anyone, no standards here, just write whatever you want.
Speaker 1: Anything you want. You can accuse anyone of anything. You
Speaker 1: can call them anything you want. You can say whatever,
Speaker 1: you can collude with the New York Times, and then
Speaker 1: they can write an article accompanying it and taking all
Speaker 1: the information that you put in your complaint, and then
Speaker 1: you are covered on litigation.
Speaker 2: So someone photo copies it and shares it, which is
Speaker 2: essentially what the New York Times did. That's okay because
Speaker 2: where it came from, it was allowed to be written
Speaker 2: as it was.
Speaker 1: Right, and the New York Times also falls under the
Speaker 1: fair reporting privilege, which basically is very broad. You know
Speaker 1: that under the Constitution, the First Amendment, there's the free press,
Speaker 1: and they have a very broad range of being able.
Speaker 2: To So is that more like you can report this
Speaker 2: what is it called a CRD.
Speaker 1: Well, the original complaint before she.
Speaker 2: Filed a federal civil rights it's.
Speaker 1: The Civil Rights Department.
Speaker 2: Okay, So she files something with the Civil Rights Department,
Speaker 2: and then they're saying it's fair for the press to
Speaker 2: review it and report on it.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, So that's and they're saying she also due
Speaker 1: to privileged communications, everything within her CRD complaint is privileged.
Speaker 1: Therefore everything that she alleges about him or says about
Speaker 1: him is privileged. So it's not defamation. So basically what
Speaker 1: we have all learned from you can say whatever you
Speaker 1: want about someone else as long as you put it
Speaker 1: on pleating paper, file it, and then you're protected under
Speaker 1: the litigation privilege. So and basically, also because Jessin Baldoni
Speaker 1: alleged that even the things that she put in her
Speaker 1: original CRD complaint where it was like she was manipulating texts,
Speaker 1: not showing full contexts, you know, leaving emojis out, that
Speaker 1: had that set a tone to what she was, you know,
Speaker 1: implying in her and her complaints. And the judge goes
Speaker 1: on to say she's permitted to martial the facts to
Speaker 1: tell her side of a contested story. She doesn't have
Speaker 1: to provide a balanced account of what happened, and the
Speaker 1: litigation privilege still applies. It's so basically, you can just
Speaker 1: marshal the facts, man.
Speaker 2: She really, yeah, I'd be careful if I was producing
Speaker 2: her next movie that there might be some colliints with
Speaker 2: the CRD department, because now she knows like, well she
Speaker 2: does want to be complaining about I'll just make I'll just
Speaker 2: put in it with the CRD.
Speaker 1: Well, basically, what she's done is laid out the exact
Speaker 1: steps that you need to do to take to a
Speaker 1: store campaign someone's livelihood and reputation with zero consequences on
Speaker 1: your part. Also, there was the false light, which is
Speaker 1: also a form of invasion of privacy under California law,
Speaker 1: the invasion of privacy by placing a planet and a
Speaker 1: false light in the public eye. False light must be
Speaker 1: highly offensive to a reasonable person. So this was a
Speaker 1: claim that Justin Baldoni made in his claim against Blake
Speaker 1: Lively that she placed him in a false light by
Speaker 1: her litigation. The judge dismisses the slight claim because of
Speaker 1: the same reasons as the defamation.
Speaker 2: Anytime you get sued, it's a negative look on your image.
Speaker 1: Right all right. So basically, just to break it down,
Speaker 1: just to give a simple summary of what happened, the
Speaker 1: judge throughout the extortion claim, which was the big one,
Speaker 1: which was the way she went about trying to coerce
Speaker 1: herself into taking over the movie, taking over the editing,
Speaker 1: producing the movie, getting producer credits, and the judge basically said,
Speaker 1: you know what, that's just her being an A list
Speaker 1: actress and negotiating her way through the system.
Speaker 2: And just it's more like an a whole actress.
Speaker 1: Then the second big one that got thrown out, which
Speaker 1: we just talked about, was the defamation suits. And that's
Speaker 1: because the judge is stating that everything she put in
Speaker 1: her filings was privileged. And also the New York Times
Speaker 1: has no culpability because of the fairer reporting.
Speaker 2: Those are all legal standards. It's not like she did anything.
Speaker 2: More like, it's not like, oh, she's a great person.
Speaker 2: Calm down. No, it's like, no, legally, legally, you have
Speaker 2: no recourse.
Speaker 1: Legally, you have no recourse. However, I do feel, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure people would agree with me, that she definitely
Speaker 1: lost in the court of public opinion and she has.
Speaker 2: No But I mean, is this not Is this going
Speaker 2: to change people's opinions. Are they going to be like, oh,
Speaker 2: so it wasn't that bad.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I feel like if you look at
Speaker 1: social media and anytime there's anything of her, if you
Speaker 1: read the comments, it is just NonStop like she's a
Speaker 1: horrible person. Get her off my page. I don't want
Speaker 1: to see her. Why are you posting her? Why are
Speaker 1: you giving her? It's it's bad. It looks like the
Speaker 1: backlash is pretty bad.
Speaker 2: But and here we are talking about her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right. The judge did allow for two causes
Speaker 1: of action to be amended and refiled, but these have
Speaker 1: to do with contractual issues, not the bigger, overlying things
Speaker 1: like defamation and extortion, which have been thrown out.
Speaker 2: It's not the juicy stuff.
Speaker 1: It's not the juicy stuff. It's boring contracting, contractual stuff.
Speaker 2: They're going to amend and refile because they can't just
Speaker 2: walk away.
Speaker 1: Oh no, They'll definitely amend and refile it. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it will be successful, but they will. One
Speaker 1: is breach of implied covenant of good faith. The judge
Speaker 1: said that they're able to amend this and refile it.
Speaker 1: It means that there's the existence of some specific contractual
Speaker 1: obligations and that she interfered with plainous performance of the
Speaker 1: contract or failure to cooperate with the plaintiff. So basically,
Speaker 1: there's no relevant contract in place. That's what we talked about,
Speaker 1: and the judge talks about this, how there isn't a
Speaker 1: contract because Baldoni claimed several times that Lively did not
Speaker 1: sign her employment contract. But he's giving them the opportunity
Speaker 1: to prove that there is some type of contract and
Speaker 1: that she didn't fulfill her duties under that contract. And
Speaker 1: then also they're allowing Baldoni's team to refile, to re amend,
Speaker 1: refile the tortous interference with contractual relations or perspective or
Speaker 1: perspective economic advantage. This I had to read this a
Speaker 1: couple times to understand this because this gets down into
Speaker 1: just like logistics and legalies, and it was difficult. But
Speaker 1: this has to do with the accusation that Ryan Reynolds
Speaker 1: interfered with Justin Baldoni's talent management team. You know how
Speaker 1: he was dropped from WME, which is the talent company
Speaker 1: after all these allegations came out, and Justin Baldoni claims
Speaker 1: that they dropped him because Ryan Reynolds was like, that
Speaker 1: guy's a sexual predator. I don't want him, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to be in the same talent agency
Speaker 1: as him, and they dropped him. So basically they're saying,
Speaker 1: if you can, if you can prove that you know
Speaker 1: you're a part of this talent agency. He's a part
Speaker 1: of this talent agency, he forced them to drop you,
Speaker 1: which interfered with your contract with them, and that you
Speaker 1: suffer damages from that. Then Okay, re amend, refile, and
Speaker 1: we'll hear that. But again, like Shane said, which makes sense.
Speaker 1: All the juicy, all the juicy stuff is gone. And
Speaker 1: this was a huge way. I hate to say this
Speaker 1: because I don't even want to say it, but this
Speaker 1: was a huge win.
Speaker 2: In the public courts.
Speaker 1: Yes, no, and yes, not in the public eye, but
Speaker 1: in the public courts, in the court.
Speaker 2: System, civil court system.
Speaker 1: This was a no. It's a federal court.
Speaker 2: In the federal civil court system.
Speaker 1: What do you say.
Speaker 2: I'm just ready to move on. These people are annoying me.
Speaker 1: All right, let me just I just want to do
Speaker 1: one more thing. I just on this. I like to
Speaker 1: give Brian Friedman's response to all of this.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, what is it?
Speaker 1: So? Brian Friedman said, while the court dismissed the defamation
Speaker 1: related claims, the court has invited us to amend four
Speaker 1: out of seven claims against Miss Lively. I don't understand
Speaker 1: the math there because I read the judges ruling twice
Speaker 1: and I only see two claims that he allows them
Speaker 1: to amend. But maybe there's some smaller claims underneath those
Speaker 1: big broad claims. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm going to go off of what Freeman said versus
Speaker 2: what you said.
Speaker 1: I know whatever. He has invited us to amend four
Speaker 1: out of the seven claims against miss Lively, which will
Speaker 1: showcase additional evidence and refined allegations. Most importantly, miss Lively's
Speaker 1: own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday.
Speaker 1: And with the facts on our side, we march forward
Speaker 1: with the same confidence that we had when miss Lively
Speaker 1: and her cohorts initiated this battle. And I look forward
Speaker 1: to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking. He
Speaker 1: loves to remind her that he's taking her deposition because
Speaker 1: you know, if you remember when we did earlier podcasts,
Speaker 1: she was trying to do everything possible to get it
Speaker 1: and to not have Brian Friedman be the one that
Speaker 1: deposes her.
Speaker 2: So if anything that we're going to get it, hopefully
Speaker 2: a video depots.
Speaker 1: Hopefully we just hopefully will get a comeback. It will
Speaker 1: be Brian Friedman deposing Blake Lively, and that will feed
Speaker 1: our souls.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that you want to see on Instagram that
Speaker 2: I want to see.
Speaker 1: We are grateful for the organic show of support from
Speaker 1: the public and for the dedication of the Internet sleuth
Speaker 1: community who continues to cover this case with discernment and integrity.
Speaker 1: All right, So there we are on Lively and Baldoni.
Speaker 1: That was a big one for Blake Lively. Boo hoo,
Speaker 1: womp womp. And Reynolds and Ryan Reynolds. If you did
Speaker 1: not think that their heads could be any bigger, I
Speaker 1: feel like they have.
Speaker 2: They're going to have to inflated. They're going to have
Speaker 2: to move into a new place, a bigger place. Yeah,
Speaker 2: fit their heads.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, let's move on to the Diddy trial.
Speaker 1: Have you been following Diddy? Do you know anything?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's still in jail.
Speaker 1: He's still in chail, Yes he is. He's still in jail.
Speaker 1: I did think I just want to talk about this.
Speaker 1: It's on the run, Dawn, but we'll just talk about
Speaker 1: it first because I want to know your reaction to this.
Speaker 1: But he did get admonished, I think it was yesterday
Speaker 1: by the judge because he continues to make faces at
Speaker 1: the jurors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what kind of faces?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know because there's no cameras in the courthouse,
Speaker 1: so it's not like I've seen the pains.
Speaker 2: There's paintings.
Speaker 1: There are paintings, but they're not. I haven't seen any
Speaker 1: artwork that shows me the faces that he's making.
Speaker 2: But he's doing that.
Speaker 1: He he became like when someone's testifying, he shakes his
Speaker 1: head or he nods his head or and he looks
Speaker 1: at the jury and I think he's I mean really,
Speaker 1: the interpretation is that he's trying to influence them. I
Speaker 1: agreeing disagreeing with testimony, which you you cannot do. So
Speaker 1: he got in trouble for that.
Speaker 2: What kind of trouble.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know that. Just like spoken to judge
Speaker 1: said that she was gonna kick him out of the
Speaker 1: courtroom if he continued to do it. So we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens with that. Hopefully he keeps his.
Speaker 2: He would probably be a video presence. He could, like
Speaker 2: video be able to see her accusers.
Speaker 1: Right, But I guess the problem is is that the
Speaker 1: jury's over here to the side, and he just completely
Speaker 1: turns to the side address.
Speaker 2: He slit his throat. He's like scratching his throat. I
Speaker 2: know where you live. Yeah, well anyway, yeah, but you
Speaker 2: were pointing like like in the manner of a gun
Speaker 2: fingers and you pulled a trigger. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have Jane, who's been testifying for the
Speaker 1: last couple of days. It is a former girlfriend and
Speaker 1: she's using the pseudonym Jane. We know that there was
Speaker 1: an earlier a woman who testified under the pseudonym Mia,
Speaker 1: So now we're to Jane, Jane.
Speaker 2: To take that name. Who gets to pick your pseudonym?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I wonder the same thing, And why Mia? And why
Speaker 1: what would your pseudonym be?
Speaker 2: I don't know, Frank, I don't know what it would
Speaker 2: be John Jansen and everyone would just flood over to him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Jane dated Sean Combs from early twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one until his arrest in September of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So this is a recent girlfriend, which is interesting. She
Speaker 1: met Combs in twenty twenty. She's a single mother and
Speaker 1: an OnlyFans model. Jane began testifying on June fifth, and
Speaker 1: her cross examination begins on June tenth. What is today? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's today, So she's getting cross examined today, all right,
Speaker 1: So let's just go through some key points from her testimony.
Speaker 1: She talks about the emotional impact. So from around May
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty one, Combs introduced her to voyeuristic group
Speaker 1: sex events. He called hotel nights parallel to the freak
Speaker 1: offs that Cassie Ventura described. So here's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 1: Every time he has a new girlfriend, he.
Speaker 2: Has to change the name, change the name of his because.
Speaker 1: With Cassie Ventura he called him freak offs, but with
Speaker 1: this girl he calls him hotel nights.
Speaker 2: It's like a new chapter in my life. I need
Speaker 2: to rebrand my freak offs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so what with the next the next? Wait, so
Speaker 1: this one is called hotel hotel nights, Hotel nights, the
Speaker 1: hotel hotel. The first encounter involved a male escort and
Speaker 1: a hotel room.
Speaker 2: Set up by the next next one will be called
Speaker 2: in my cell alone, sad with gray hair. That's what
Speaker 2: it will be.
Speaker 1: Nights. Yes, the first encounter involved a male escort and
Speaker 1: a hotel room set up by Combe's assistance. Jane testified
Speaker 1: that she was super nervous and found herself participating in
Speaker 1: a multi man event that opened up Pandora's box. First
Speaker 1: of all, you do understand, and let's just talk about
Speaker 1: this briefly, that the fact that she's testifying that the
Speaker 1: assistance set it up is very important because that is
Speaker 1: going to proving rico, which is that this is a
Speaker 1: criminal enterprise and that he has employees who are working
Speaker 1: underneath them who are setting up these freak golfs, hotel
Speaker 1: nights and criminal activity, criminal activity, and that these sex
Speaker 1: workers are being paid and are traveling from state to state,
Speaker 1: which then goes to the sex trafficking. Though initially exhilarated,
Speaker 1: she regretted it, and the events became the centerpiece of
Speaker 1: their relationship. Okay, so we have to get down to
Speaker 1: coercion control and the abuse part of it. She repeatedly
Speaker 1: told Comb she did not want to participate, texting to him,
Speaker 1: I'm not a porn star. I'm not an animal.
Speaker 2: I'm an only fans star.
Speaker 1: I'm an only fan.
Speaker 2: What is your problem?
Speaker 1: It's loveless for me. I mean, I feel like when
Speaker 1: there's lights and people setting it up, it's IMPI apply
Speaker 1: that is loveless, but there's like stage and baby oil
Speaker 1: and ring lights. Combs responded dismissively, calling her crazy and
Speaker 1: urging her to continue on. Starting in March of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, Combs paid her ten thousand month rent, a
Speaker 1: benefit she feared losing if she refused to comply. Basically,
Speaker 1: this is how he leverages these women. He coerces them
Speaker 1: by taking financial control, and then they get their self
Speaker 1: in a position where they have to go along with
Speaker 1: what he wants because he's controlling their finances.
Speaker 2: Oh it sound about right.
Speaker 1: He also controlled her appearance, requiring veneers and regular grooming.
Speaker 2: Then okay, can I say something? Yes?
Speaker 1: No, you can't?
Speaker 2: Yeah, go I can or cannot? You can go ahead,
Speaker 2: thank you. If he has all this money, they uses
Speaker 2: right to control people and have these large party and
Speaker 2: all that. So money's not an issue for him. He's
Speaker 2: got plenty of it. Why doesn't he just find the
Speaker 2: women that fit his criteria instead of finding someone that
Speaker 2: needs veneers? Now I think about it, Maybe it's because
Speaker 2: he wants someone that he can he can say, I'll
Speaker 2: give you this, I'll do this, and you need this.
Speaker 2: You you look ugly, you're.
Speaker 1: So you're saying. He targets like a six, seven or eight,
Speaker 1: so that he can make them a ten and then
Speaker 1: they or he.
Speaker 2: Could just make them feel inferior by saying, your teeth
Speaker 2: are nasty. You need me to help you. You need
Speaker 2: me to make you look good. You're you're nothing without me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're saying that's a way of controlling and breaking them.
Speaker 2: Down's funny because when we got married, you got veneers.
Speaker 1: I was just gonna say, well we got married. You
Speaker 1: were like, I think you.
Speaker 2: And then you were like, he come, you didn't just
Speaker 2: marry a ten Wow, I'm just kidding. And I said,
Speaker 2: I did marry it. Oh yeah, I like you.
Speaker 1: You just got yourself out of trouble. Even after an
Speaker 1: FBI rate on his homes in March of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: the sexual encounters continued in cities like Miami and la
Speaker 1: I did not know that though, but that's very interesting.
Speaker 1: So even after his homes got raided, he's still continued
Speaker 1: with his hotel night So he's like, not even the
Speaker 1: FBI is going to stop this.
Speaker 2: Wow. That means he really thought he wasn't doing anything
Speaker 2: wrong or he had some Indea.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he didn't think he was doing
Speaker 1: anything wrong, or he just thought he was above the
Speaker 1: law and that he.
Speaker 2: I guess that's what I meant, Like he thought he
Speaker 2: was untouchable.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: During her twenty twenty third birthday, and this is we're
Speaker 1: talking about, Jane Combs orchestrated me who went.
Speaker 2: To the freak offs after he was raided. That's interesting.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I also thought they could go like why
Speaker 2: people kept showing up?
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's an interesting question. Okay. So during Jane,
Speaker 1: we're still talking about Jane. This is her testimony. During
Speaker 1: her twenty twenty third birthday, Combs orchestrated a multi escort
Speaker 1: event at a hotel, which she said her feeling invaded.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine, though, it's her birthday and he's like,
Speaker 1: for your birthday, You're going to have sex with a
Speaker 1: bunch of escorts for your birthday, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: watch for your birthday.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, it didn't matter even if it was Combe's birthday.
Speaker 2: That's still wrong. You act like she got you know,
Speaker 2: screwed out of a birthday presenter. No, I'm just saying
Speaker 2: it didn't matter if it was a birthday or Memorial day.
Speaker 1: I was saying the whole point of it being like
Speaker 1: her birthday.
Speaker 2: That's how disgusting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, apparently in a recorded phone call that she had,
Speaker 1: Combs is asking her is this coercion? They played this
Speaker 1: in court, and this is after he hit her and
Speaker 1: forced her to take ecstasy at a June twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four dinner. He would threaten to expose sex tapes or
Speaker 1: stop paying rent if she pushed back. You know, he
Speaker 1: did the same thing with Cassie, And this is her
Speaker 1: corroborating a lot of Cassie's testimony because if you remember
Speaker 1: when Cassie testified that she also remember her momfied that
Speaker 1: he said he would release sex tapes of Cassie venturay
Speaker 1: twenty grand and then she had to take a mortgage
Speaker 1: out on her house and pay him the twenty grand
Speaker 1: and then like two days later he gave her the
Speaker 1: twenty grand back. It was basically just like just to
Speaker 1: mess with her. That's like a cat messing with a mouse.
Speaker 1: You know, they're just playing with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they grab it, they go chase it again and.
Speaker 1: Grab it exactly Like that's the kind of sick and
Speaker 1: twisted behavior. You know that he has a lot of
Speaker 1: her testimony had a lot of parallels with Cassie Ventura,
Speaker 1: which is good because the prosecution has her testifying, which
Speaker 1: helps to corroborate everything that Cassie had testified about earlier.
Speaker 1: Jane noticed striking similarities between her experiences with Cassie Ventura's lawsuit,
Speaker 1: so much so that she almost fainted when she was
Speaker 1: reading it. During a recorded call, Comb's dismissed both experiences
Speaker 1: as some kinky shit that we both enjoyed, which she
Speaker 1: firmly rejected. It's interesting that when she read Cassie's lawsuit
Speaker 1: and all of the facts and in all the details
Speaker 1: she puts in there about her time with Sean comes
Speaker 1: and then this this girlfriend, Jane reads it and says
Speaker 1: that she like, she almost fainted because it was basically
Speaker 1: the same thing. It just goes to show you that
Speaker 1: it's just repeated behavior of control over these women. And
Speaker 1: I think that he would He probably is so advanced
Speaker 1: in how he does it and how he goes about it.
Speaker 1: It's almost systematic, like I'm sure he looks for a
Speaker 1: certain type of girl and then he makes them better.
Speaker 1: He gives them money, he pays their rent. Then he
Speaker 1: slowly introduces them into this voyeuristic lifestyle with the assigns.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure some of the things he's exposing into
Speaker 2: him is you know, glamorous, right, big parties. You know,
Speaker 2: he might shower them with you know, I don't know,
Speaker 2: they go clothes shopping or whatever it is to make
Speaker 2: them feel like this is like an upscale lifestyle and
Speaker 2: I'm living it, and then you know, bam, he hits
Speaker 2: them with a bunch of other crap.
Speaker 1: Right. There was evidence presented which for text messages Jane
Speaker 1: stating doescome like I'm not a sex robot, and Comb's
Speaker 1: dismissing her objections. Recordings, there were dialogues where Combs exhibits
Speaker 1: physical force and defensiveness, and photos. There were fifteen images
Speaker 1: showing encounters with escorts that were displayed for the jury.
Speaker 1: The prosecution stance is that Jane's testimony aligns closely with
Speaker 1: venturas showing coercion via violence, drugs, threat of eviction, and blackmail,
Speaker 1: fitting federal definitions of sex trafficking. So we know what
Speaker 1: the prosecution is doing. They're just laying out this criminal
Speaker 1: enterprise by having all of these people testify over and
Speaker 1: over again, corroborating the way he systematically goes about setting
Speaker 1: it up, about how the employees worked for him, about
Speaker 1: how they set things up about the sex workers. And
Speaker 1: the defense's argument is obviously that they assert that all
Speaker 1: acts were consensual and part of a swinger lifestyle. They
Speaker 1: also claim Comb's aggression was isolated domestic abuse, not trafficking,
Speaker 1: all right, So another thing that happened was Ditty. His
Speaker 1: defense team seeks a mistrial over alleged false testimony. This
Speaker 1: is actually very interesting. So there was a woman named
Speaker 1: Brianna Bongolan who testified. She's a fashion designer and a
Speaker 1: friend of Cassie Ventura. She testified about a confrontation with
Speaker 1: Sean Dittycomb's at Cassie's apartment. Bongolan stated that while she
Speaker 1: was on the balcony, she said she was either out
Speaker 1: there smoking or about to smoke. Diddy allegedly ran out
Speaker 1: onto the balcony, grabbed her and held her over the
Speaker 1: balcony railing. She said that he shouted, quote, you know
Speaker 1: what the f you did, before pulling her back inside
Speaker 1: and forcefully pushing her into furniture. Bongolan testified that she
Speaker 1: sustained injuries to her leg and neck as a result,
Speaker 1: and the prosecution presented photos showing large bruises on her leg,
Speaker 1: along with marks on her neck and back.
Speaker 2: It's a very hip hop artist thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is. The isn't that Suge Knight? Didn't
Speaker 1: he hang Vanilla Ice over a balcony too?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: There must be like a like a wrap handbooks.
Speaker 2: Too, how to deal I don't know, negotiate effectively the
Speaker 2: opposing party over a balcony by their ankles, yes, while
Speaker 2: screaming at this.
Speaker 1: However, the defense challenged the prosecution's evidence, which was bongole
Speaker 1: and testifying to this alleged balcony incident, pointing out that
Speaker 1: the metadata on the photos shows that they were taken
Speaker 1: on September twenty six, twenty sixteen, when Diddy was reportedly
Speaker 1: on the East Coast for the Bad Boy Family Reunion tour,
Speaker 1: making it highly unlikely that he was in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: at the time. I do know that they had They
Speaker 1: had hotel receipts from him staying in the in the
Speaker 1: hotel in New York City. So the point is clearly
Speaker 1: he cannot be physically in New York City a concert, yeah,
Speaker 1: and in La hanging someone over a balcony. If she
Speaker 1: claims that those bruce, this is where the result of
Speaker 1: an incident that happened hours before or the day before
Speaker 1: or whatever. But he's in New York City.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Again, that's for the jury to decide, right.
Speaker 1: Cassie Ventura recounted the violence during her own testimony at
Speaker 1: Comb's trials, So Cassie when she was testifying, talked about
Speaker 1: this incident on the balcony. However, Ditty's defense argued that
Speaker 1: a series of texts from Cassie to Christina Korum, who
Speaker 1: if you remember we talked about her before, was one
Speaker 1: of Ditty's employees, indicated she hadn't witnessed the incident herself.
Speaker 1: TMZ reported this. The text, which said I just found
Speaker 1: out some crazy shit indicated to the defense that she
Speaker 1: had heard of the alleged incident through another source and
Speaker 1: had not seen it firsthand like she claimed. So just
Speaker 1: to break that down to make that make sense, Cassie
Speaker 1: testified on the stand that she witnessed the balcony incident
Speaker 1: happen first person. She was there, she saw it. That's
Speaker 1: what she testified to. The defense offers texts that she
Speaker 1: has with Ditty's assistant, sating oh I heard about that.
Speaker 2: So basically like she did you see it or did
Speaker 2: you hear about it?
Speaker 1: Right, So basically her text message is saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I heard about that crazy Yeah.
Speaker 2: That's there's gonna be questioning around that, and then the
Speaker 2: jury's you have to decide which version of the story
Speaker 2: is the truth exactly, or at least they see is the truth.
Speaker 1: All right, So that's where we're at, Diddy, Do you
Speaker 1: have any final thoughts on this criminal enterprise and the
Speaker 1: sex trafficking charges.
Speaker 2: I don't. At the end of the day, it's as
Speaker 2: long as he's in jail for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: You don't care what he's doing. As long as he
Speaker 1: just never gets out of.
Speaker 2: Project Cares, tax fraud, whatever, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: No, No, you just want him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he should never be with public again, with like
Speaker 2: people again. Yeah, because he's terrible. I mean, look what
Speaker 2: he did. I mean, assuming all this is true. Obviously
Speaker 2: we weren't there, but look at how he reacted to
Speaker 2: the jury, you know, giving him you know, threatening, you know,
Speaker 2: facial expressions or intimidating facial expressions.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if his facial expressions or whatever
Speaker 1: we intimidating or.
Speaker 2: It was enough for the judge to slap them and
Speaker 2: tell him to stop doing that.
Speaker 1: Well, it's I think his expressions and his nodding or
Speaker 1: to influence them as to what he when he agrees
Speaker 1: with something that's being testified to or when he disagreed.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you're saying, not intimidate, influence, that's the same thing.
Speaker 1: Well no, yeah, exactly, But in this.
Speaker 2: I'm saying dangling them over the balcony by their ankles
Speaker 2: is just influencing tactics. No, it's intimidation.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that there were there was alleged incidents
Speaker 1: of actual intimidation in the beginning. That's why he wasn't
Speaker 1: allowed to be on house arrest, right, and jury tampering,
Speaker 1: and that's why they were worried about being able to
Speaker 1: get a jury of twelve people of his peers because
Speaker 1: there was rumblings or I don't know if there was
Speaker 1: actual evidence, but I think there was.
Speaker 2: Well, there was a lot of concerns.
Speaker 1: Concern, right, that's the word I was looking for, concern
Speaker 1: with jury intimidation and people not wanting to sit on
Speaker 1: his jury. So here he is in court actually addressing
Speaker 1: the jury, looking at them and giving them nods or whatever.
Speaker 1: So you're right, I mean, you can call it whatever
Speaker 1: you want, influence, intimidation, whatever. What he's doing is wrong.
Speaker 1: And so anyway, all right, Well, so we went through
Speaker 1: a lot today, Yeah, and we tried to break it
Speaker 1: down into digestible chunks because it was a lot of information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially the Baldoni stuff that was that could be
Speaker 2: very complicated and it is complicated, kind of boring depending
Speaker 2: on how you go over it, or you can just
Speaker 2: pull up the basics and yeah, you know, know the
Speaker 2: status of the case as it is today.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, thank you guys for listening. We appreciate it,
Speaker 1: and as always, I appreciate all the feedback. A lot
Speaker 1: of you send me so many dms telling me that
Speaker 1: you enjoy the podcast or asking about other cases that
Speaker 1: you would like us to talk about and touch on.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that, so continue to do that, and
Speaker 1: if you have any questions or comments, feel free to
Speaker 1: DM me as well. And also we do have an
Speaker 1: Instagram legally Brune Podcast, so you could follow that and
Speaker 1: you can always comment on the cases that we discuss
Speaker 1: and talk about. So thank you for listening.
Speaker 2: Thank you,