Danny Savalos

Thank you.

Hey.

Hey.

Hey.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.

Coercion is commonly understood under the statute to mean the threat of physical harm, not merely haranguing, harassing, bothering, or even threatening with loss of job or any kind of social pressure. That wouldn't be enough. But it certainly is helpful to the government to show this overall atmosphere.

Coercion is commonly understood under the statute to mean the threat of physical harm, not merely haranguing, harassing, bothering, or even threatening with loss of job or any kind of social pressure. That wouldn't be enough. But it certainly is helpful to the government to show this overall atmosphere.

Coercion is commonly understood under the statute to mean the threat of physical harm, not merely haranguing, harassing, bothering, or even threatening with loss of job or any kind of social pressure. That wouldn't be enough. But it certainly is helpful to the government to show this overall atmosphere.

of sort of threatening, harassing, hostile environment where these witnesses saw not only Combs be nasty to people, but physically violent as well. It's all part of the big picture and it helps the government.