Sean Kent

So that's what I thought was interesting is that it's pretty clear that the government is filing this motion because they thought the cross-examination of Mia must have gone well for the defense. And now they want to recall the expert to basically rehabilitate their witness and say this is why she was sending all these loving, adoring text messages back and forth.

So that's what I thought was interesting is that it's pretty clear that the government is filing this motion because they thought the cross-examination of Mia must have gone well for the defense. And now they want to recall the expert to basically rehabilitate their witness and say this is why she was sending all these loving, adoring text messages back and forth.

So that's what I thought was interesting is that it's pretty clear that the government is filing this motion because they thought the cross-examination of Mia must have gone well for the defense. And now they want to recall the expert to basically rehabilitate their witness and say this is why she was sending all these loving, adoring text messages back and forth.

And it's a fascinating legal reason. And let me tell you why. And this is fascinating. When you go back and look in the indictment, I have finally been able to understand what the government is doing. And the classic sense of the word in the federal parlance, it is not bribery. Why? Generally in bribery in the federal rule, we deal with what with public officials, governors, mayors.

And it's a fascinating legal reason. And let me tell you why. And this is fascinating. When you go back and look in the indictment, I have finally been able to understand what the government is doing. And the classic sense of the word in the federal parlance, it is not bribery. Why? Generally in bribery in the federal rule, we deal with what with public officials, governors, mayors.

And it's a fascinating legal reason. And let me tell you why. And this is fascinating. When you go back and look in the indictment, I have finally been able to understand what the government is doing. And the classic sense of the word in the federal parlance, it is not bribery. Why? Generally in bribery in the federal rule, we deal with what with public officials, governors, mayors.

Cops usually have somebody who has been bought off to do something in an official act. You go to somebody, you say, I want you to vote for this bill. I want you to pass this legislation. That's bribery generally in the federal sense. It is a predicate act and it's one of the predicate acts that they need to do.

Cops usually have somebody who has been bought off to do something in an official act. You go to somebody, you say, I want you to vote for this bill. I want you to pass this legislation. That's bribery generally in the federal sense. It is a predicate act and it's one of the predicate acts that they need to do.

Cops usually have somebody who has been bought off to do something in an official act. You go to somebody, you say, I want you to vote for this bill. I want you to pass this legislation. That's bribery generally in the federal sense. It is a predicate act and it's one of the predicate acts that they need to do.

So I went back and looked at the indictment because I'm like, there's some reason why the government is putting this witness on. When you go back and look at the indictment and you look under RICO and you look under the predicate acts, they talk about California state law. They don't just mention federal law. They go under California state law. They specifically mention California Penal Code 137.

So I went back and looked at the indictment because I'm like, there's some reason why the government is putting this witness on. When you go back and look at the indictment and you look under RICO and you look under the predicate acts, they talk about California state law. They don't just mention federal law. They go under California state law. They specifically mention California Penal Code 137.

So I went back and looked at the indictment because I'm like, there's some reason why the government is putting this witness on. When you go back and look at the indictment and you look under RICO and you look under the predicate acts, they talk about California state law. They don't just mention federal law. They go under California state law. They specifically mention California Penal Code 137.

In a RICO case, you can also use state law to prove a federal crime. So what they did is they made allegations of crime. state California bribery to prove federal RICO. And why that's important is under the state of California, which is way easier to prove bribery, all they got to prove is if somebody offers you money not to tell something to law enforcement, that's bribery. That's it.

In a RICO case, you can also use state law to prove a federal crime. So what they did is they made allegations of crime. state California bribery to prove federal RICO. And why that's important is under the state of California, which is way easier to prove bribery, all they got to prove is if somebody offers you money not to tell something to law enforcement, that's bribery. That's it.

In a RICO case, you can also use state law to prove a federal crime. So what they did is they made allegations of crime. state California bribery to prove federal RICO. And why that's important is under the state of California, which is way easier to prove bribery, all they got to prove is if somebody offers you money not to tell something to law enforcement, that's bribery. That's it.

That's a state level bribery claim. And so when I looked it up, I'm like, dang, that makes sense on why they're doing. And even though it's a state level act, It still counts under federal RICO.

That's a state level bribery claim. And so when I looked it up, I'm like, dang, that makes sense on why they're doing. And even though it's a state level act, It still counts under federal RICO.

That's a state level bribery claim. And so when I looked it up, I'm like, dang, that makes sense on why they're doing. And even though it's a state level act, It still counts under federal RICO.

Yes, all of these individuals are part of the enterprise, okay? And that's the first part of RICO. You must prove a criminal enterprise. Well, here comes the second part. You still got to prove two predicate acts. Just because these people are watching this, what are the predicate acts that they've actually committed? That's why they're able to go with Diddy. Diddy has committed the arson.

Yes, all of these individuals are part of the enterprise, okay? And that's the first part of RICO. You must prove a criminal enterprise. Well, here comes the second part. You still got to prove two predicate acts. Just because these people are watching this, what are the predicate acts that they've actually committed? That's why they're able to go with Diddy. Diddy has committed the arson.