Weapons/Plenty of drugs Found at Diddi's Home Plus The Dozens of Diddi's Star Sex/Druggies Not Revealed

 Sean Diddy Combs

The news surrounding Sean “Diddy” Combs continues to come through on a daily basis, as the business mogul and celeb has been incarcerated. Based on the latest updates making the rounds, there’s even more going on at the facility where they are keeping the rapper and producer.

New Can Of Worms Opens Daily Surrounding Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs

Ever since Diddy has been a target, and ever since he has been scrutinized, the more people look, the more skeletons there are to find. On a daily basis, new findings and new allegations surface around Diddy and all of his alleged activities.

What makes this case so fascinating is the fact that all of this is not limited to just Diddy. Because he is so well connected, and because he has a lot of famous friends, the spotlight has turned to some of those people as well, especially for anyone who regularly attended his infamous parties. 

Drugs And Weapons Found In Diddy Prison Sweep?

Federal authorities recently confirmed that they found and seized “drugs, homemade weapons and electronic devices” during a sweep of the jail where Sean “Diddy” Combs is. Diddy is currently there for sex trafficking conspiracy charges and is awaiting trial next year.

The sweep took place in Brooklyn at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Many have questions about the sweep, including if Diddy being there had anything to do with it. When you have someone as high-profile as Diddy there, those theories are going to pop up.

It turns out, this sweep was already in motion, and had nothing to do with the high-profile inmate. However, this certainly adds more drama and intrigue to the current real-life storyline playing out on a daily basis. 

Violent Detention Center Cracking Down

This sweep was in motion due to a series of violent incidents at this Brooklyn detention center. There were two fatal stabbings over the summer. This led to five inmates eventually being charged with murder as a result.

Of course, with Diddy as the latest celebrity inmate there, the facility is under even more scrutiny. So, it would make sense to have this public crackdown, as a show of force.

Currently, Combs faces more than a dozen civil claims of sexual assault, and was denied release, as well as denied bail by two different judges in Manhattan.

Diddy

Diddy – The Ellen DeGeneres Show

A federal grand jury is set to hear “new evidence” against Combs next week. This new evidence is expected to include new testimony. So, anyone who has been following along with this case is going to want to tune in for more updates.

For all the latest on this developing Diddy story, come back to TV Shows Ace for more.

(ByEvan Morgan)

Sean Combs is facing lawsuits from at least 17 anonymous plaintiffs. They all must persuade a judge to allow them to proceed while remaining nameless.Credit...Shareif Ziyadat/Getty Images

 

By Julia Jacobs

 The New York Times

As Sean Combs faces numerous anonymous accusers in both civil and criminal court who say he sexually abused them, his lawyers have argued that such anonymity is an unfair impediment to his defense.

In more than half of the 27 sexual abuse civil suits against the music mogul, the plaintiffs filed under the pseudonyms Jane Doe or John Doe, drawing opposition from Mr. Combs’s lawyers.

Similarly, in his criminal case, where he has been charged with racketeering and sex trafficking, the defense has argued that prosecutors should have to reveal the names of the accusers who are part of their case. The only one listed in the indictment was identified as “Victim 1,” though prosecutors say there are multiple.

“Without clarity from the government,” his lawyers wrote in a letter to the presiding judge, “Mr. Combs has no way of knowing which allegations the government is relying on for purposes of the indictment.” 

Sexual assault accusers have long sought anonymity in the courts and in the media. The flood of complaints during the #MeToo movement ushered in a much broader societal understanding of their fears of retribution and social stigmatization, and protocols in the American media that withhold accusers’ names became even more entrenched — a commitment illustrated last month when the country superstar Garth Brooks identified an anonymous accuser in court papers. Few, if any, media outlets published her name.

Securing anonymity in civil court can be much more challenging.

So far, at least two judges in Federal District Court in Manhattan have rejected requests from plaintiffs to remain anonymous in lawsuits against Mr. Combs, who has denied sexually abusing anyone.

In one of the cases, in which a Jane Doe plaintiff said Mr. Combs raped her in 2004, a judge found the accuser's fears of physical retaliation or psychological harm from the disclosure of her identity speculative and insufficient. (Even in cases where the courts do not require a plaintiff to be publicly identified, the defendant is typically provided the accuser’s name.)

“The norm is that people have to sue under their own names,” said Eugene Volokh, a law professor who studies anonymity in the courts. “And that’s true even when there’s very good reason for them not to.”

Though U.S. civil courts are more likely to grant anonymity in sexual assault cases than other litigation — especially when the accusations involve minors — Professor Volokh and other experts said judges still often decide in favor of a defendant’s argument for a fair and open trial. 

In recent years, courts have rejected bids to proceed anonymously in sexual assault lawsuits against Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, citing the “constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.”

“This is going to the heart of our justice system and what has been the norm since the birth of our country,” said Imran Ansari, a lawyer for Mr. Weinstein.

The plaintiffs in the Weinstein and Spacey cases decided to withdraw their claims rather than reveal their identities.

Still, in some settings, courts have taken into account the mental anguish plaintiffs say they will experience if their names are made public — especially in an era of intense exposure on the internet — and consider the argument that declining to protect an accuser’s identity could deter others from reporting sexual abuse.

“One can imagine someone who is coming forward with a claim of sexual assault who has children and relatives who don’t even know about it,” said Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer who represents multiple accusers in the Combs cases. “The potential psychological damage and stigma associated with that leads some — but not all — of our clients to want to proceed as a Jane or John Doe.”

In a recent case against the actor Cuba Gooding Jr., a judge allowed the plaintiff to proceed as Jane Doe for nearly three years, citing the plaintiff’s account of depression and suicidal thoughts that she said stemmed from the alleged sexual assault, which Mr. Gooding denied. 

But several days before the trial was scheduled to start last year, the judge ruled that the plaintiff would have to reveal her identity publicly, suggesting that continued anonymity could sway jurors who might mistake the court’s embrace of her privacy as an endorsement of her account. The case was settled shortly after.

Mr. Combs, who has denied the criminal charges and is awaiting trial in a Brooklyn jail, is now facing lawsuits from at least 17 plaintiffs who have filed under pseudonyms.

 

Most of the anonymous filings have come from a legal team led by a Houston lawyer, Tony Buzbee, who has solicited clients through social media and a hotline. Mr. Buzbee has said that he intends to file a large number of lawsuits under pseudonyms “until the court tells us otherwise.” The lawsuits allege a range of sexual misconduct, including accusations of drugging and rape. Several come from plaintiffs who say they were minors at the time.

“Most of our clients still fear retribution and have conditioned moving forward on anonymity,” Mr. Buzbee has written in court papers.

Lawyers for Mr. Combs have described the cascade of civil claims as an “onslaught of baseless allegations that desperate plaintiffs are lodging at him (for the most part anonymously) in civil suits designed to exact a payoff from Mr. Combs and others.” 

Several of the cases have received temporary approval to proceed anonymously, until Mr. Combs’s lawyers have an opportunity to respond and the judges are able to more substantively consider the arguments on both sides.

Legal scholars say there have been broad inconsistencies in how civil courts across the country handle the issue of anonymous plaintiffs, making outcomes largely dependent on the leanings of individual judges.

“Courts resolve it differently, with very little rhyme or reason,” Professor Volokh said.

The issue is more settled in criminal court, where the names of alleged sexual abuse victims are regularly withheld from the public, and the media has long refrained from identifying them.

In the indictment against Mr. Combs, prosecutors have identified Casandra Ventura, Mr. Combs’s former girlfriend who publicly sued him last year, as simply “Victim 1.”

The government has accused Mr. Combs of sexually abusing multiple unnamed victims, and prosecutors have resisted defense demands to identify them. In court papers last week the government argued it was premature to release those names six months before Mr. Combs’s trial, which is scheduled to start in May.

Ultimately, in a criminal case, those witness identities will often become clear to the defense as part of discovery before trial, though the government can seek to delay by arguing that naming the people would put them under threat. Anthony Capozzolo, a former federal prosecutor, said that in extreme cases, a judge can suppress a witness’s identity until just before they testify at trial, but typically the defense learns the names several weeks or months before the case begins. 

Some judges go a step further to protect identities by having witnesses testify under pseudonyms in public court proceedings. In the sex trafficking cases against R. Kelly and Keith Raniere, some victims were not identified by their full names in court.

In civil cases, those who argue that plaintiffs should be identified point to instances where the publicized identity of the accuser led others to come forward with information helpful to the defense.

That reasoning was cited in a decision this year in a Combs case in which a woman who accused the entertainer of participating in a gang rape in 2003 was told she must reveal her identity if the case proceeds. The presiding judge noted the plaintiff’s fears of being traumatized if her identity was revealed, but found that those concerns were not sufficient to warrant possibly suppressing evidence crucial to Mr. Combs’s defense.

There’s a lot to weigh on both sides, which experts said has likely played a role in the inconsistency of judicial rulings on the anonymity issue. Reputations, livelihoods and essential freedoms are at stake.

“Having anonymity as a plaintiff is a powerful tool,” said Jayne Ressler, an associate professor at Brooklyn Law School who studies the issue. “Courts recognize that and are trying to balance that power.”