Sean Kent

Just based upon these allegations, I'm not saying they're true or not true, but the Contra Police Department said we did get this allegation. We did look into it and we discounted it and said there was nothing there. Do you know how strong that is for a police department to come in and say that a rape did not happen when someone says it did?

Just based upon these allegations, I'm not saying they're true or not true, but the Contra Police Department said we did get this allegation. We did look into it and we discounted it and said there was nothing there. Do you know how strong that is for a police department to come in and say that a rape did not happen when someone says it did?

Just based upon these allegations, I'm not saying they're true or not true, but the Contra Police Department said we did get this allegation. We did look into it and we discounted it and said there was nothing there. Do you know how strong that is for a police department to come in and say that a rape did not happen when someone says it did?

So that's fascinating to me because usually police departments don't do that.

So that's fascinating to me because usually police departments don't do that.

So that's fascinating to me because usually police departments don't do that.

It is huge, and I'm glad you brought it up because people do get confused because the civil allegation in here is similar to the federal criminal allegations against Diddy. It's the same one as RICO, and people get confused at, wait, what do you mean you can have a RICO civil charge and a RICO criminal charge? But that's exactly what they've alleged.

It is huge, and I'm glad you brought it up because people do get confused because the civil allegation in here is similar to the federal criminal allegations against Diddy. It's the same one as RICO, and people get confused at, wait, what do you mean you can have a RICO civil charge and a RICO criminal charge? But that's exactly what they've alleged.

It is huge, and I'm glad you brought it up because people do get confused because the civil allegation in here is similar to the federal criminal allegations against Diddy. It's the same one as RICO, and people get confused at, wait, what do you mean you can have a RICO civil charge and a RICO criminal charge? But that's exactly what they've alleged.

Using this corrupt organization to cover up the allegations, cover up Diddy's actions, that he is the leader of this RICO organization, and these two... Jane and John Doe's are saying that this organization is created to be the cover up this cavalcade of indiscretions that Diddy is doing. And that's the whole point of this organization. And that's the lawsuit. So it's wild if you think about it.

Using this corrupt organization to cover up the allegations, cover up Diddy's actions, that he is the leader of this RICO organization, and these two... Jane and John Doe's are saying that this organization is created to be the cover up this cavalcade of indiscretions that Diddy is doing. And that's the whole point of this organization. And that's the lawsuit. So it's wild if you think about it.

Using this corrupt organization to cover up the allegations, cover up Diddy's actions, that he is the leader of this RICO organization, and these two... Jane and John Doe's are saying that this organization is created to be the cover up this cavalcade of indiscretions that Diddy is doing. And that's the whole point of this organization. And that's the lawsuit. So it's wild if you think about it.

You can bring a lawsuit for anything, any reason you want. Usually the phrase that we use is upon information and belief. And there's two types of evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, actual facts, DNA, things of that nature. That's direct evidence. This person saying that they saw something would be direct evidence.

You can bring a lawsuit for anything, any reason you want. Usually the phrase that we use is upon information and belief. And there's two types of evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, actual facts, DNA, things of that nature. That's direct evidence. This person saying that they saw something would be direct evidence.

You can bring a lawsuit for anything, any reason you want. Usually the phrase that we use is upon information and belief. And there's two types of evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, actual facts, DNA, things of that nature. That's direct evidence. This person saying that they saw something would be direct evidence.

I believe, I think it's circumstantial evidence. but it ain't coming into court. So the entire reason it is is to make this complaint completely more sensational because it's not necessary, as mentioned. When you look at these lawsuits, what ends up happening is when they get a copy of it, you have to answer it. And when you answer a lawsuit, you can only do really three things.

I believe, I think it's circumstantial evidence. but it ain't coming into court. So the entire reason it is is to make this complaint completely more sensational because it's not necessary, as mentioned. When you look at these lawsuits, what ends up happening is when they get a copy of it, you have to answer it. And when you answer a lawsuit, you can only do really three things.

I believe, I think it's circumstantial evidence. but it ain't coming into court. So the entire reason it is is to make this complaint completely more sensational because it's not necessary, as mentioned. When you look at these lawsuits, what ends up happening is when they get a copy of it, you have to answer it. And when you answer a lawsuit, you can only do really three things.

So they can go through and admit each line of the paragraph. They can say, I admit that Drewski was there. They can admit it. They can deny it. Or they can say, we have no knowledge. That's it. It's admit, deny, without knowledge. So you don't have to explain. So that's why a lot of this lawsuit doesn't make any sense.

So they can go through and admit each line of the paragraph. They can say, I admit that Drewski was there. They can admit it. They can deny it. Or they can say, we have no knowledge. That's it. It's admit, deny, without knowledge. So you don't have to explain. So that's why a lot of this lawsuit doesn't make any sense.