P. Diddy Judge Makes Decision on 'Freak Off' Sex Tapes in Criminal Case

you remember when Shawn Colmes and his lawyers were trying to get copies of his alleged sex tapes in his criminal case well the judge just made a decision on that welcome to sidebar presented by law and crime I'm Jesse [Music] Weber hey everybody this is another lawn crime legal alert so the Los Angeles wildfires are still making an impact and it's estimated that these wildfires cause more than $250 billion worth of damage the loss of life is immeasurable and there are reports though that insurance companies canceled thousands of homeowners fire policies in the months before

the wildfires were those cancellations even legal will insurance companies be able to help people recover everything that they've lost while Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury Law Firm is here to help they were there for the Northern California wildfires they were there in Maui and now they're here for you and the families affected by these horrific fires so if you've lost loved ones your home business property because of the Los Angeles wildfires you can visit for the people.com lcf fire and you may be entitled to significant compensation we got two decisions from the judge overseeing

Shan col's criminal case that we got to talk about and the judge of course we're referring to as judge Arun subian the judge out of the southern district of New York federal case so the first decision concerns videos of the freak offs and we've talked about this before on other sidebars you see earlier this month com's attorneys had asked the court to to order the prosecutors to electronically produce videos of the freak offs and remember what the freak offs are right prosecutors have alleged that comes would intimidate threaten lure women into extended sex acts with

male sex workers using Force threats coercion that coms filmed and recorded these freak offs and these are key components of the racketeering conspiracy the sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution charges that he currently faces and by the way he's scheduled to go to trial in may now the defense wanted copies of these videos handed over to them not just the ability to view them at like the prosecution's office they wanted copies of these videos for themselves and I've talked to lawyers about this before there's a big advantage to having the electronic video

the electronic evidence yourself right you don't have to always go over to the other office you can view the materials on your own it's a way to better prepare for your defense and Shan's lawyers argue that under the federal rules of criminal procedure if the defendant asks for it the government has to give a defendant the opportunity to inspect and to copy electronic data that is in the government's possession and that data that evidence has to be material to Preparing their defense and here com's attorneys argued material the videos of these alleged freak offs are

at the center of the allegations put forward by the government and they say look the government hasn't presented a real legitimate solid reason for why they shouldn't be turned over to the defense it's not like we're dealing with child pornography or classified information where you have to have certain protocols put in place by how that material should be shared or disseminated and they say more importantly these tapes prove our client is innocent so colm's lawyers wrote in a previous letter having reviewed these videos it is now abundantly clear that they confirm Mr com's innocence and

that their full exculpatory value cannot be investigated and used unless they are electronically produced The Nine videos at issue are the so-called freak off tapes with victim one that the government has repeatedly referenced causing wild speculation in the media contrary to what the government has led this court and the public to believe the so-called freak offs were private sexual activity between fully consenting adults in a long-term relationship like many Americans in the privacy of their own bedrooms they sometimes filmed their sexual activity these videos unambiguously show that the person alleged in the indictment to be

victim one not only consented but thoroughly enjoyed herself and by the way victim one is with respect to that sex trafficking charge and we believe victim one to be Cassandra Ventura this is Diddy's ex-girlfriend who first filed that initial sexual assault lawsuit against him back in 2023 the person who was featured in that Infamous footage from 2016 where comes is reportedly beating her and dragging her in a hotel hallway while he's just wearing a towel remember what the prosecution claims they claim that she was trying to escape a freak off that there was a male

commercial sex worker in that hotel room and that's what she was running away from now their letter to the court said that victim one was in these videos quote was happy dominant and completely in control and that there's no evidence of coercion or threats or manipulation again IE sex trafficking the defense said there's no evidence that anyone is incapacitated or under the influence of drugs or excessive alcohol consumption meaning maybe there was some alcohol consumption there's certainly no evidence of sex trafficking moreover contrary to innumerable sensationalistic media reports the videos do not depict sex parties

there are no secret cameras no orgies no other celebrities involved no underground tunnels no Miners and not so much as a hint of coercion or violence far from the government's lurid descriptions the videos show adults having consensual sex plain and simple at bottom this case is about whether victim one was or was not a willing participant in her private sex life with Mr combms the video is confirm that she plainly was so consent appears to be the main defense to the Federal Criminal criminal charges and that would make sense right because the idea would be

did they engage in sex yes did he transport her across state lines yes but as long as there was no threats or fraud or coercion or illegal you know sex acts or commercial sex acts it's fine it's legal it's not sex trafficking and so their whole defense here is this was all consentual and these tapes prove it we need these tapes and also I will say in that portion uh what I just read to you they're trying to separate what sha Colmes is actually being accused of in this Federal Criminal Case versus the claims that

he's facing in multiple civil lawsuits so just because in a number of lawsuits that he has been accused of you know sexually abusing and raping men and children that doesn't necessarily mean that that is what this criminal case is going to be about and while there's been a lot of talk about celebrities involved in these episodes and like he said secret cameras and tunnels they argue that a lot of this is speculation the speculation about oh what's on the Diddy tapes they say no no no no no no all of it's not true we got

to be clear about what these tapes are and what these tapes are not and they also highlighted something else the defense also said these videos another reason why I think we deserve them and deserve copies of them is they were taken from victim one's device not Shan Colmes so the idea that he kept these videos as collateral or blackmail as a form of power and control over victim one doesn't hold water and basically they asked the court to amend the protective order that has been put in place in this case to allow the prosecutors to

turn these tapes over to the defense this was an order from the court that dictated how information would be disclosed and shared and disseminated by the defense and prosecution and as the defense called out in their letter to the judge the protective order made this video evidence again allegedly of the freak offs quote available for inspection only and not electronic Al produced they said Court you need to amend this we deserve the tapes and they also argued by the way that we need these videos we need copies of these because they said that the audio

on the tapes you can barely hear it and the lighting is very bad that the images are dark and grainy so we need our own experts our own defense experts to enhance the quality and analyze the metadata so now back to judge Arun subber manan's order that came down yesterday what did he decide well judge subramanian denied the defense's mo to amend the protective order but without prejudice meaning this issue could be Revisited so sub Romanian order reads quote while the government objects to handing the videos over they provide several options for defendant to consider

that would permit the defense to view the videos access the information they're looking for and even allow them to manipulate the videos as they see fit to the extent these options are insufficient the defense May propose other options to the the government it doesn't appear that the defense did this before raising the issue with the court the party should have these discussions and if they really reach an impass the defense can come back to the court and if that happens they should be prepared to clearly articulate why they need possession of the videos despite the

options furnished by the government so Colmes and his team they don't get the tapes and judge subramanian seems to be you know calling out the defense a bit like you really could have worked this out with the prosecution before right did you really need the court to step in did you even ask the prosecutors how you might be able to regularly View and analyze the tapes as you see fit to prepare for your defense so look this issue may be Revisited if they really can't figure out a way to make all of this work and

look it's not surprising that the judge just won't allow the defense copies of these tapes and amend the protective order I mean essentially we're talking about sex tapes right key pieces of evidence in this case is very private very sensitive got to be careful about how this is handled and let's not forget Sean Colmes is in hot water right now he was denied bail again partly because he was accused of violating the bureau of prison rules by improperly using other inmates phone access numbers improperly contacting people and allegedly trying to reach out to victims and

Witnesses while he's locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center can he and his team be trusted with copies of these videos now to be clear the judge didn't say that in his order but you have to wonder if that is ultimately a point of consideration in not handing these tapes over to Shan Colmes and his team and with that in mind this is not the only issue that came up there was another ruling from the judge we got to talk about there was another thing the judge decided just now we want to talk about it

and it concerns the same issue it concerns the tapes you see the prosecution weeks ago responded to the defense's letter but they didn't Focus so much on turning over the alleged sex tapes they didn't want to turn over but rather what they focused on what they accused the defense of is they alleged the defense violated the protective order they argued that the defense revealed just way too much about the content of these videos even though the defense redacted certain portions of the videos in their letter to the court that we all saw was a public

letter but they say that's not enough the prosecution argued that under the protective order no portion of the videos should have been filed on that public doc ET without being filed under seal basically meaning the public won't have an opportunity to see it or they shouldn't have filed it without the defense first talking with the government as to the proper designation they say the defense didn't either so instead of talking with the government about this or redacting all of the content related to the videos the defense they argued left unredacted descriptions and characterizations of material

in these videos that was designated attorney Eyes Only AEO they argued that by doing this and kind of telling the world what these videos in their opinion show this threatens the privacy of the victims in this case and they asked the court to remove it from the public filing have it be refiled with full redactions the defense objected to that so they responded in a follow-up letter to the judge they said okay tell you what we'll agree to make redactions but judge and we need you to allow us to refile this letter but with narrower

redactions they argue that what the government is asking for is way too over Brad that we shouldn't have to redact everything that look judge the government started this the government has been quite specific about details of freak offs and what they're alleging the evidence will show we have a right to respond we have a right to provide our own description our own characterization of what these videos are and the defense also argued that there is a presumption of the public having access to all the details about these videos again videos of freak offs are the

government's key piece of evidence the public has a right to know and com's rights are being compromised by not having the proper access to this video evidence so in their letter the defense rights indeed the public can only have confidence in the conscientiousness reasonableness OR honesty of judicial proceedings if the documents on which judges rely are publicly available and they say the government provides no adequate rationale for sealing this information in fact let me read you this part in its entirety because I think this is a key to what the defense's argument was and and

then I'll tell you what judge Arun subber Manan decided but the defense wrote well victim one may have privacy interests that justify keeping the videos themselves under seal at this stage including details of the content of the videos the fact that victim one was filmed while participating in the so-called freak offs is public information indeed the government has publicized that these were extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers and elaborate and produced sex performances that were electronically recorded the government has publicized gratuitous details including the use of baby oil lubricant extra Linens lighting room

damage delivery of IV fluids the government even held a press conference publicizing the seizure of more than a thousand bottles of personal lubricant and baby oil and the government has publicly asserted that during the freak offs alleged victims were subjected to physical emotional and verbal abuse including being hit kicked and dragged and that alleged victim claims are corroborated by videos of the freak offs faulting the defense for characterizing that that same evidence as exculpatory and consensual is an unfair double standard and demonstrates the government's intent to mislead the public and the court to accept the

government's broad reading of the protective order would turn it into a tool to Shield the public from any interpretation of the evidence that could be favorable to Mr Colmes after the government has been able to tout its own inculpatory interpretation the result will be an unfairly polluted jury pool manufactured by the government's misleading narrative and widely disseminated by the press okay now to the judge's order from yesterday and here is what judge sub Romanian wrote quote the protective order is clear that the defense shall not share any AEO material attorney's Eyes Only material or the

content of the AEO material with any other persons the defense's original letter which the court ordered stricken from the public docket did not redact numerous descriptions of the content of the videos that issue which have been designated AEO pursuant to the protective order these descriptions are also appropriately sealed under the test and and then they cite a case but the judge says this but to the extent certain of the government's proposed redactions don't relate to the content of AEO material the defense's original letter can be refiled with those specific sentences unredacted in other words defense

you didn't redact what you should have okay namely the descriptions of the videos or your characterizations of the videos that was attorney's eyes only not for the public to see we actually remove that letter from the docket but I will tell you it's already been you know heavily reported in the media so how much good is that but judge subber Manan seems to leave a little bit of opening here that if the government proposes over redactions if the redactions just go too far and they're covering things that really don't need to be attorney's Eyes Only

then those things don't have to be redacted by the way before we finish things up I just want to quickly lay out something else so there was a big bombshell that came out recently about freak offs I'm get I'll get to that in a second but just so we all are clear about what I mean when I'm talking about freak offs and the alleged tapes of the freak offs just so we understand their importance to this criminal case I want to read you just one more time the descriptions of what freak offs are as laid

out by the prosecutors in com's criminal indictment comes and other members and Associates of the com Enterprise wielded the power and Prestige of com's role at the com's business to intimidate threaten and lure female victims into com's orbit often under the pretense of a romantic relationship Combs then use Force threats of force and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers that combms referred to as among other things freak offs freak offs were elaborate and produced sex performances that coms arranged directed pleasured himself during and often electronically recorded

in arranging these freak offs comes with the assistance of members and Associates of the comes Enterprise transported and caused to be transported commercial sex workers across state lines and internationally freak offs occurred regularly sometimes lasted multiple days and often involved multiple commercial sex workers during freak offs Colmes distributed a variety of Controlled Substances to victims in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant sometimes unbeknownst to the victims Colmes kept videos he filmed of victims engaging in sex acts with commercial sex workers after freak offs coms and the victims typically received IV fluids to recover

from the physical exertion and drug use by the way little side note I I keep getting this question isn't it interesting that he's going to trial for racketeering and yet he's the only criminal defendant it is interesting right he can't engage in a racketeering Enterprise like this or an alleged racketeering Enterprise like this by himself so you imagine uh that there will probably be alleged co-conspirators who are testifying against him I don't see I mean is it possible that other people might actually be indicted alongside him maybe but I mean at this stage seems unlikely

I don't know just an interesting point it's the same thing that we talked about with galain Maxwell right anyway let's not forget that prosecutors alleg that these freak offs though they weren't just happening years ago right in one of the letters to the court they wrote indeed since at least in or about January 2024 when the defendant was unquestionably aware of the criminal investigation the evidence shows that he is engaged in multiple freak offs some including the interstate transportation of individuals to participate so that's going to be the heart of the case now we actually

heard about freak offs quite recently so Rolling Stone just published a piece and it's entitled as Sha colm's love era began new accusers say he was still a demon and one of the people interviewed as part of this piece was an alleged male sex worker identified as Nathan now Nathan in this report claims that Colmes actually contacted him to participate in a freak off in 2019 he claims this was out in Miami at the one hotel essentially a threesome two men and a woman apparently though that didn't happen that specific freak off event or alleged

freak off event but Nathan says he was paid between $2,000 and $5,000 for these types of sexual episodes and that freak offs were quote ritualistic and that comes would be there he would choreograph the whole thing he would watch quote he would pretend to leave the room but like go around the corner and crawl in the room on the floor and peek around the corner or use the mirrors this is what Nathan claimed really creepy s obviously because it's like your girlfriend why do you even have to do that he claimed that these episodes would

occur at places like hotel rooms in Miami New York Los Angeles that there would be warm baby oil that he was even allegedly drugged during a freak off I mean what he's alleging here is entirely consistent with what prosecutors are alleging now we don't know if Nathan is going to be a witness at the federal criminal trial that's scheduled for May but I imagine that is probably consistent with testimony we will hear potentially from other alleged sex workers and if there are Paper Trails Money travel invoices Hotel invoices that is all going to help the

prosecution prove their case particularly the prostitution and sex trafficking charges now the the defense has seemed to suggest in Prior filings that there are witnesses who will rebut this and they will say that everything was consensual that everything was on the up and up during these and I don't think they're running away from the term freak offs so again goes back to the idea of consent we shall see how this unfolds but again big decisions by judge Arun subber Manan in this criminal case that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar everybody

thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on YouTube Apple podcast Spotify wherever you should get your podcast I'm Jesse Weber I'll speak to you next time [Music]