Sean Kent

And number two, you waited way too long or too close to the trial to ask for a continued. So I think the judge's logic was perfect.

You got it. You 100% have it. His prior bad acts that show that he has conformity with his current accusations.

You got it. You 100% have it. His prior bad acts that show that he has conformity with his current accusations.

You got it. You 100% have it. His prior bad acts that show that he has conformity with his current accusations.

That's the part that's crazy. Victim 5 clearly has got some smoke against old Diddy. And so you have to read in between the lines, it's got to be, it's the prior bad act of Diddy against Victim 5. So it's something that he has done in his history or his past or something crazy. relating specifically to victim number five, but it's something that Diddy has done.

That's the part that's crazy. Victim 5 clearly has got some smoke against old Diddy. And so you have to read in between the lines, it's got to be, it's the prior bad act of Diddy against Victim 5. So it's something that he has done in his history or his past or something crazy. relating specifically to victim number five, but it's something that Diddy has done.

That's the part that's crazy. Victim 5 clearly has got some smoke against old Diddy. And so you have to read in between the lines, it's got to be, it's the prior bad act of Diddy against Victim 5. So it's something that he has done in his history or his past or something crazy. relating specifically to victim number five, but it's something that Diddy has done.

We don't know what they are, but the court clearly knows what they are. And the court in reading this motion says, yeah, that's relevant. That's coming in. So for a judge to deny him part and tell me the part that he granted is massive. I don't know who victim number five is.

We don't know what they are, but the court clearly knows what they are. And the court in reading this motion says, yeah, that's relevant. That's coming in. So for a judge to deny him part and tell me the part that he granted is massive. I don't know who victim number five is.

We don't know what they are, but the court clearly knows what they are. And the court in reading this motion says, yeah, that's relevant. That's coming in. So for a judge to deny him part and tell me the part that he granted is massive. I don't know who victim number five is.

I don't know what the testimony is, but there's something about the path between her, him, them, and Diddy that's going to be a bombshell.

I don't know what the testimony is, but there's something about the path between her, him, them, and Diddy that's going to be a bombshell.

I don't know what the testimony is, but there's something about the path between her, him, them, and Diddy that's going to be a bombshell.

None of it's come in. And when we talk about prior bad acts and stuff of that nature, a lot of judges believe this. If your case needs prior bad acts to make your case, then you don't have a case. Your case should stand on its own on its face.

None of it's come in. And when we talk about prior bad acts and stuff of that nature, a lot of judges believe this. If your case needs prior bad acts to make your case, then you don't have a case. Your case should stand on its own on its face.

None of it's come in. And when we talk about prior bad acts and stuff of that nature, a lot of judges believe this. If your case needs prior bad acts to make your case, then you don't have a case. Your case should stand on its own on its face.

You shouldn't have unrelated stuff to prove somebody's innocence or guilt because just because somebody was a bad person in 1992 doesn't mean you're a bad person today. And that's what they were trying to do. And now they're saying, no, I don't care how bad he was in the early 90s. Tell me about what he did in 2000 blank to 2025.

You shouldn't have unrelated stuff to prove somebody's innocence or guilt because just because somebody was a bad person in 1992 doesn't mean you're a bad person today. And that's what they were trying to do. And now they're saying, no, I don't care how bad he was in the early 90s. Tell me about what he did in 2000 blank to 2025.

You shouldn't have unrelated stuff to prove somebody's innocence or guilt because just because somebody was a bad person in 1992 doesn't mean you're a bad person today. And that's what they were trying to do. And now they're saying, no, I don't care how bad he was in the early 90s. Tell me about what he did in 2000 blank to 2025.

And if you go through all of these motions we're going to talk about, they all come to a central rule called the rule of completeness. And it's... It ain't complicated. It's common sense. If... You and I are in the middle of a massive text thread. Massive. That is seven months long.