have we talked about Shawn Colmes lately well I'll tell you what there have been some updates going on in his legal world and we're going to do a recap of some of those developments for you right now as his criminal trial is quickly approaching welcome to sidebar presented by law on crime I'm Jesse Weber all right so it's time to do a recap of some of the latest details in the Shawn comes case if you haven't been following it day in and day out like we have been doing here on sidebar so the first thing
that we have to address is arguably one of the biggest developments in the past few weeks in regards to his criminal case and remember comes is charged with racketeering conspiracy sex trafficking of victim one using Force fraud or coercion and transportation to engage in prostitution that he was operating this criminal Enterprise that was engaged in a whole set of illegal activity but really we're talking about the exploitation and abuse of women on a large scale so with that in mind com's attorneys recently filed a letter asking judge Arun sub Romanian to order the prosecution to
electronically produce videos of the freak offs and remember what these are right prosecutors alleg that Colmes would intimidate threaten and lore women into these extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers using Force threats coercion that combes filmed and recorded these freak offs as a way to have collateral to use something against these victims and the reason the defense wants these electronically produced the reason they want C copies of these in their possession why they want these videos for them to review and analyze and why they need the court to step in is because under
the protective order in this case regarding how evidence will be viewed and disseminated the video evidence is available for inspection only and according to the defense Federal prosecutors refuse to produce that over to them and obviously that is not an advantage to the defense they want to be able to review this at their own time and when they want but this is even more important colm's lawyers argue that we need these videos because they prove our client didn't commit the crimes he's charged with in their letter they write quote 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 and 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 we believe by the way victim one to be Cassandra Ventura this is Diddy's ex who first filed that initial sexual assault lawsuit against Combs back in 2023 she was in that Infamous surveillance footage that was published by CNN of an incident that happened in a hotel hallway where coms is beating ventur just while wearing a towel it's very disturbing video he argues the videos don't show any orgies or celebrities or violence or coercion or threats or
manipulation or evidence of anyone being under the influence of drugs that this is not sex trafficking quote the premise that freak offs are inherently dangerous shows that the government seeks to police non-conforming sexual activity and that assumes despite all evidence to the contrary that a woman's willing participation must have been coerced that's interesting because that's something we've long suspected that the defense is not going to shy away from the term freak offs they might accept yeah Colmes called these freak offs but this was entirely consensual it was all in the up and up it might
be different to you and me but there's nothing illegal going on here by the way going through all these legal issues with Shawn Combs particularly the lawsuits let me take a second to call out the exclusive personal injury law firm of Law and crime our sponsor Morgan and Morgan this is a firm with over a thousand attorneys you know why because they win a lot in the past few months Morgan and Morgan secured a $29 million verdict for a bicyclist in Philadelphia a $2.7 million verdict for a car accident victim in Florida not to mention
$5.6 million for a car crash victim in Georgia and there this was after insurance offered that client $0 even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve and Morgan and Morgan makes it truly so simple because you can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks so if you're injured you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com LC sidebar now we spoke with criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen about this and this is somebody who has represented celebrities like Drake Lil Wayne
Kodak Black and the question is based on the defense's characterization of these tapes is that the end of the prosecution's case maybe not quite by no means do I think this is any good for the state if it is the government if it is exactly what they're saying that it is if it depicts everything that they're saying if the defense is right and it depicts these things by no means is it good for the State uh for the government is the question really becomes you know how are they going to use those tapes are they
using the tapes I obviously she's going to have to testify that she was under physical and mental abuse and that's why she participated in these things whether or not a believes that is going to be a very big leap but do I think that's the only evidence they have probably not if I mean if they're really if if the government is the government in the southern district of New York I can't imagine this is what they're hanging their hat on if it's what the defense describes it's like one of those things that when you have
a weakness in a case the government has to decide how they're going to use that my guess is they're going to use it to show that there were sex workers that these sex workers were paid I would imagine that they have the sex workers that are in the video to come in and describe what was going on or what happened before they went on tape whether or not they had drugs or alcohol or anything else whether or not Cassie had drugs or alcohol whether or not there was a discussion between Shawn comes and Cassie before
the tape started so I think that the tape is going to be one portion of it but the testimony of either the sex workers that were in the video and or Cassie is going to kind of tie it together that's my guess now something else to address here with respect to Shan com's argument here his attorneys say that these tapes weren't even seized from com's properties so the idea that he had these secret tapes of freak offs as collateral to be used against anybody like victim one who turned against him that's false they claim that
victim one kept these videos on her own device for years and that victim one produce them to the government now from there col's defense attorney argues that Colmes has a right to copies of these videos by law that it's backed up by his due process rights to defend himself how a defendant is entitled to exculpatory evidence to be turned over by the prosecution that even the federal rules of criminal procedure require this well the prosecution responded in their own letter and they argued the defense judge violated the protective order in this case because they included
in their filing quote unredacted descriptions and characterizations of material designated AEO this is attorney's Eyes Only and they argue that this threatens the privacy of the victims they shouldn't have disclosed what these tapes were about and they are asking the court to remove it from the public filing have it be refiled with redactions well the defense responded in a follow-up letter and they said look Court we will make these requested redactions we're not happy about it and we want the court to actually step in allow us to refile this later on with narrower redactions why
because we believe that the government's request here was way too over Brad especially because the government has already told everybody what these freak offs are about they have been quite explicit and specific about freak offs and the defense argues that there is a presumption of Public Access here this is about the government's key piece of evidence in their criminal case against comes the freak offs and they say that his trial rights are being compromised by not having proper access to this material they write quote indeed the public can only have confidence in the Consciousness reason
Ness or honesty of judicial proceedings if the documents on which judges rely are publicly available and they say the government provides no adequate rationale or reason for sealing this information I'm going to read you part of what they say they write while victim one may have privacy interest 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 and 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 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 same evidence as exculpatory and consensual is an unfair double standard and demonstrates the government's intent to mislead the public and the court in other words they're saying government you already told everybody what all this is about we're not going to give you specific details about the sex acts right now but look we're allowed to provide our own characterization of what's going on you certainly did now moving on another big update in the Shan comes legal Saga is the pre-trial schedule in the criminal case and we've talked about this before there was a battle between
the prosecution and the defense over this and the court had to step in and set a schedule about what's going to happen so for example on February 1st the Enterprise letter is due this is big I want everybody to pay attention to this date because that letter filed by the prosecution it should be laying out the specific acts and conduct that it says proves the racketeering conspiracy so maybe dates maybe times maybe places maybe the participants maybe each legal racketeering act what are we talking about here you know we have all been waiting for more
clarity and specifics in this case so we may get that February 1st keep an eye out for that date then on February 17th both sides need to have their pre-trial motions filed two weeks after that opposition filings are due then replies in those filings are due one week later on March 10th and then when comes to jury selection which will most likely be quite the undertaking given com's worldwide celebrity and how much this case has been publicized the proposed jury questionnaire forms are due April 11th this is according to the judge's schedule and that's essentially
the first step right the forms that are going to be sent out to prospective jurors to gauge their eligibility for jury service and by the way talking about jury selection that is going to be tough trying to find fair and impartial jurors especially again when there is so much coverage of combs in the past year or so and that includes being exposed to so many claims and so many lawsuits which brings me to another update when it comes to Shan Colmes this is not on the criminal front this is on the Civil front so a
new sexual assault lawsuit has been filed this was filed in New York state court on Monday it names Sean Colmes companies like Bad Boy Records Colmes Enterprises LLC and also two unnamed John do now in Jane Do's verified civil complaint it reads quote plain if bring suit against defendants to redress the substantial and lifetime injury she has suffered as a result of being drugged sexually assaulted and abused by Sha Colmes or P Diddy while codefendants facilitated and or directly participated in the action of Combs and she is suing for violation of New York's gender motivated
violence protection act we talked about this before this is a law that created a look back window for victims to come forward and file claims even if the statute of limitations would have normally run out and as of March 1st 2023 under this law victims could pursue civil claims against their perpetrators for past offenses no matter when they happened that look back window closes soon though it's set to expire uh on March 1st 2025 but the key is that it has to be an act of violence that is motivated by an animus towards someone's gender
and sexual assault could be argued to be just that now according to the complaint Jane Doe grew up in lower Manhattan she was 16 years old and living with her father and stepmother when she started working part-time as a babysitter in a building around the corner and she says that one of the women who lived in that building she describes as a quote well-known woman with whom the defendant meaning Shan Colmes was in a relationship now remember Colmes had started his meteoric rise to the top of the hip-hop world during the 90s he was a
very well-known name at this point especially in New York City because this all concerns events that took place on or about in between late August or early September 20 2000 again when she was just 16 years old that is when the claim is that just before school started plff was working as a babysitter in the building where com's romantic partner lived as she left the babysitting job and was exiting the building the plff Came Upon Colmes who was in the presence of two male individuals who apparently worked for him comes was sitting in a car
with the door open Colmes engaged her in conversation asking where she was going so late at night and then it was not safe for her to be walking alone she advised Colmes that she lived around the corner was familiar with the neighborhood and would be fine Colmes offered her a ride home several times which she continued to refuse after much colling by com she agreed and got into his car quote getting into com's car that day was something plff would come to regret forever during the ride plff became scared when they did not drop her
off at home as promised the defendant gave her a drink to quote calm her down she soon became groggy and unsteady and then it says that Colmes and his staff the two male codefendants proceeded to a location where she was sexually assaulted by Coles and this is something that's alleged time and time again against Shan Colmes that he or his associates would use tainted drinks to make victims compliant according to Jane Doe when Colmes was through with her they dropped her off the complaint states she was eventually taken home and left in the lobby of
her building by the same driver joho one and orando 2 who was present when she was picked up and the lawsuit continues given the extensive media coverage of com's abusive treatment of women defendants Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc and Coles Enterprises LLC had knowledge and were put on notice of the sexual abuse allegations made against him and that's a way to get them on the hook right you know they say they should be responsible I'm not sure if that's going to be sufficient because usually you hold the company liable if the employee was acting within
the scope of his employment or was using company resources to commit the offense but enabling his behavior his control over the companies maybe there's something there and yes this lawsuit on its face is quite Bare Bones there's not a lot of evidence backing it up you know her account is very similar to other lawsuits that we have seen that is based primarily on the alleged victim's account and we don't know if there's going to be text messages or photos or videos again this is from 200000 but also that may all come out during the course
of Discovery when you file a complaint it's just a lower standard to merely file a complaint you just need to make the statements that are sufficiently particular that make clear what the claims are they provide the parties notice of what's being alleged and what the elements of the claims are now col's legal team responded to this latest lawsuit in a statement to People magazine saying no matter how many lawsuits are filed it won't change the fact that Mr Colmes has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone man or woman adult or minor we live in
a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason fortunately a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth and Mr Colmes is confident he will prevail in court now Jane Doe is requesting a trial by jury seeking a judgment against the defendant and quote a sum to be determined at a trial of this action and any further relief that the court deems is proper now talking law suits we got another update for you in a separate reportedly $50 million lawsuit that was filed against sha comes so the federal judge overseeing another
case another sexual assault case brought by Ashley parum who claims that Colmes threatened her with a knife and she was then gang raped by Colmes and others well the judge says she might have to throw this whole case out why well Fox KTVU reports that the judge May throw the case out because parum failed to properly serve coms with the lawsuit in time as per the federal rules of civil procedure she had to serve Colmes and his codefendants within 90 days of filing the complaint and it was filed on October 15th last year the deadline's
up she hasn't served him now the judge did extend the deadline to February 14th to show proof of service otherwise this case will get tossed it could be refiled but it will be dismissed immediately but parm's attorney Ariel Mitchell who we interviewed here on sidebar previously said it's hard to serve Shawn comes because he's in jail he's in the metropolitan detention center and that he can refuse mail now there's been a little back and forth on that or whether or not an inmate can really refuse it or whether or not you just serve it on
the uh the officials there and that's proof of service but we'll see how that one shakes out whether or not this case actually gets dismissed but you know what's interesting about that lawsuit about parm is that she claims in her lawsuit she may have been assaulted by Shawn Colmes as a form of retaliation as Revenge because she claims that when com's friend had tried to introduce her to Shawn comes over a FaceTime call initially she had made a comment to the effect of that she didn't want to talk to him because Colmes had a hand
in the killing of rapper Tupac Shakur back in 1996 you remember when he was gunned down in Las Vegas she claims Sean Colmes allegedly took offense to that and wanted to make her pay now why do I bring that up well we have another update for you when it comes to sha comes you see sha col's former bodyguard Jean deal sat down for a new documentary that aired on peacock now deal who reportedly served as com's Bodyguard from 1991 to 2005 spoke on Diddy the making of a bad boy that again aired on peacock and
on that documentary when asked about whether Colmes played a role in the death of another famed rapper com's friend and artist Notorious BIG biggie Christopher Wallace remember he died he was shot dead in Los Angeles Well jean deal said on the documentary so did he directly have something to do with it he could have yeah this just came out that he said that and Gan deal bases that off of his perception that Shawn Colmes was acting a little weird leading up to the 24 year-old's death he says on the show the week in which biggie
was murdered he was just acting real anxious and trying to get big at this party and what was crazy was big was telling people he had to be in London but puff was telling people he ain't going to London that whole week so you fast forward to the day of the party and deal says I'm sitting up at the Beverly Hills Hotel and I get a phone call it's about 9:00 and they say Jean get ready we going to the vibe party I was like we going to this party we don't have no security and
according to deal he tried to warn Colmes that this probably wasn't a good idea he said yo puff I got some Intel bruh he said what I said yo man if we go to this party tonight one of us going to get killed somebody going to die because now we at East Coast West Coast beef he said yo jeene I don't want to hear that s so we all jump in the car now this was in reference to the infamous rivalry in the hip-hop world that lasted several years in the 90s between West Coast Death
Row Records so we're talking Suge Knight Dr Dre Tupac Shakur again tragically killed in 1996 out in Las Vegas actually some believe that biggie was killed as retribution for Tupac's death and then on the other side you got the East Coast we have Bad Boy Entertainment Bad Boy Records col's label and he had his artist Biggie and when you think by the way of Diddy and Biggie you're thinking More Money More Problems it's all about the Benjamin's Victory so deal explains that what happens is they all leave this V party and he says I was
in a car with puff big was in his own car and the next thing you know you hear pow pow pow pow now the FBI has stated that biggie was in the passenger seat of a Chevy Suburban when a Chevy Impala pulled up at a red light and a shooter just open fire shot Biggie multiple times and deal tried to make sure this is what he says in the documentary that he tried to make sure that biggie didn't go to sleep that he wanted to keep him talking to keep him alive and according to de
they told him that they were taking him to the hospital to which deal claims biggie replied just do it deal says in the documentary that's the last thing I heard big say deal says and they said the hospital was two blocks away and that's the longest two blocks I ever seen in my life now going back to Shan Colmes deal says they go to the hospital by the way biggie dies less than an hour after arriving and deal explains to Colmes what's going on quote so puff ran out of the hospital door and he grabbed
my arm he said jeene we got to pray we got to pray we got to pray and I knocked his hands off of me and I said pray for what that ends dead bro he was just stunned he just seemed like he had this look in his eye like he couldn't believe it that he was dead he couldn't believe it now the documentary makes clear that Colmes has always denied involvement in the killings of Biggie and Tupac and in fact Diddy's legal counsel in response to the claims in this documentary wrote Shan Colmes unequivocally denies
the baseless allegations being circulated in connection with this documentary now I actually spoke with veteran criminal defense attorney Brian mcmonagle who has represented stars like Meek Mill and Bill Cosby about what effect this could have at col's upcoming trial take a listen I don't think this is going to have anything to do with this criminal trial right but it's got everything to do with jury selection it's got every and it's got everything to do with just where he stands in the eyes of the public and perhaps his jury as he starts a trial because in
other words what you're saying is this documentary these words that could taint a future jury there's no question about it I mean people watch these shows I mean some of these shows are great obviously and people watch them and now they come into this trial not only with the allegations that are made against him in the indictment but the idea that he might have been a a party to a murder and so it's it's dangerous for the defense just in terms of jury selection and this is going to be something that they're going to have
to use in jury selection to if anybody's watched these documentaries listen to them and these will be jurors are going to have to strike you know as they try to prepare for this trial all right so there you have it some quick updates about what's happening in Shan com's world there's obviously a lot going but these are some of the bigger points that we saw and to be clear let me say this one more time Colmes has always maintained his innocence he has entered a not- guilty plea in federal court and reportedly told his attorneys
he cannot wait to fight these allegations in court and while Colmes has previously settled that bombshell lawsuit that was filed against him by Cassandra Ventura back in 2023 he has never been found liable for any sexual misconduct in any of these lawsuits as of yet and he and his attorneys have adamantly denied all claims of sexual assault 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 Apple podcast Spotify YouTube wherever you get your podcasts I'm Jesse Weber speak to you
next time
