Start selling your Lebron stuff......
 

IF TRUE........


It’s coming out that the people who attended Diddy Freak Off parties, will soon be named by the Feds,
These are just some of the names:
This so far includes
- Steve Stoute
- Russell Simmons
- EVE
- Aaron Hall
- Jay-Z
- Beyonce
- Rick Ross
- Steve J
- Dr. Dre
- Usher
- Meek Mill (VIP)
- Drake
- LeBron James
- The Game
- lil Rod
- Cuba Gooding JR
- Stevie
-Yung Miami
-Daphne Joy
-Bishop T.D. Jakes
-Chris Brown
-Jade Ramey

"ain't no party like a Diddy party"....
 

Leaving aside what crimes may have been committed, what's shocking (and maybe I am just naive) is the decadence.

I don't think LeBron's hobby value will decline at all unless he is credibly accused of a sex crime himself or of engaging in gay sexual activity. It's sad, but true.

Has there ever been a hint of scandal around LeBron?

I wonder whether DHs get bored during games. That’s a lot of innings sitting around with little to do. If I were the Dodgers there’s little chance I would have him in the outfield. Pitch? Absolutely.

I think "The Decision" was the closest thing he's had to a scandal.

I have no clue, but I would guess tons of people attend these parties without participating in any of the sleazy shit going on, and maybe it doesn't even start until the main party is over. I'd be shocked out of my senses if LeBron was involved.

Yeah, same here. He seems hyper-aware of how things might affect his image.

NFW is he going to mess with drugs IMO, and certainly not in a public setting. And if he wanted some action on the side, it sure as hell wouldn't be with some sex worker with 100 people bearing witness. Just my opinion.

yah I guess they may keep it quiet, superstars are usually untouchable and find their way out of trouble, whereas a non superstar would be kicked off the team.

Similar to how Kobe Bryant and Ben Rothlisberger both raped women and it got buried and not talked about. They were too valuable to their teams and their leagues.

So yah you may be right if Lebron was there and witnessed or participated in they may give him the superstar treatment.

No need to sell. Even if true and accusations are incoming (is there a credible source?), he will be treated completely different from guys like Bauer by the public, the hobby and this board. People will suddenly be able to understand that an accusation might be false. Instead of ignoring exonerating evidence, any gaps will be highlighted and the case downplayed from the start, instead of magnified.


Don’t think Puffy is getting to find another Shyne to take the rap this time. Couldn’t the Feds have shown any interest in his criminality before the shiny suit era?

What possible reason is there, at this point, to suspect LeBron of anything improper? I would guess countless celebs were at these parties, are they all guilty? Come on.

What possible reason? Are you kidding? He's attended numerous Diddy parties. If he witnessed or participated he is guilty. I know you are like the many who can't fathom their "hero's" could do something wrong. And just deny deny deny.

But for now he is innocent so it's really a dead topic until more comes out, but to deny due to his unblemished image. Are you his friend? You know him via the TV and Computer. Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

It appears that James spoke of the parties on Instagram Live videos he streamed, which appears to be the source he attended these parties. “Everybody know there ain’t no party like a Diddy party”.

Key word -- IF. And you're right, I can't fathom it because I can't believe he would be THAT stupid. We'll see what comes out.

Why has no one called out the OP for being a rumor-mongering idiot? I will be first I guess. What’s the source of your list of people who may not be guilty of anything?

In general, athletes seem to steer clear of this kind of degenerate activity. It's pretty easy to be a drug addicted psycho and still be a successful singer/actor/artist, but it's hard to engage in that and still be one of the world's greatest athletes. I am sure some celebrities joined Diddy in his depravity, but I don't think they were athletes.

Not saying he was involved in the drug activity, yes that's highly unlikely. The other stuff, wouldn't put that past anybody I don't know personally. Nobody knows other people private lives.

Ok my young naive simple friend let me spell it out to you.

Bad shit happens at parties a person throws, not every party I'd assume, but at some of these parties, very bad shit goes down. You have attended this person's parties. Were you at any of the parties where the bad stuff happened?

All on the list were known to be attendees of these parties. Were they at the bad ones is the question. Pretty simple. Like you.

Indeed. This is really reaching , even for an internet message board.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

There were two sides to these parties. They were huge celebrity events. You can find nearly every pop culture staple from a certain era at these parties along with journalists there to cover them. Then there was what happened with a much smaller crowd. Really depends which crowd you were a part of.

Exactly.

Diddy is in deep shit. He recorded a lot of this stuff, mostly for his sick pleasure I'm sure, but also getting big names unknowningly recorded could come in handy one day, and today is that day.

Feds seized all his shit. Do they get rid of any MAJOR names on those tapes? My guess yes, so we may not know.

But if I'm Diddy I have a big Ace in my hand if I know any big names have been recorded and certain people don't want that known. If not he's F'd. If so watch for the Plea Deal and light sentence.

Let's not forget Epstein, very similar and we know how that ended, or do we?

It would not surprise me if the private parties started well after the public ones had ended. Human nature being what it is, some known people probably stayed.

That is a whole lot of speculation, but to the last point it was reported this morning that Combs has been placed on suicide watch. So we shall see if the two cameras covering his cell stop working at the exact same time the guards fall asleep and then falsify records, the day after his cellmate is removed.

The thing is I don’t know there’s anything for Diddy to give up to help himself. Even if you attended one of his sick parties my understanding is that Diddy and his underlings are still the only ones who engaged in criminal behavior by virtue of organizing the party and would also be responsible for any coercion. It would certainly kill your reputation but I don’t think Diddy has much to bargain with.

If anything it would keep people from testifying against him but that testimony might not be needed to convict anyway.

Getting to someone in prison is shockingly easy with the right connections. A school teacher from New Mexico once had ten prisoners killed within a two minute window.

Tell us more, please...no relevant search results for NM teacher has 10 prisoners killed.



.

His name was Walter White. He went by the nickname Heisenberg from time to time.

Oof.

.

https://www.totalprosports.com/nba/p...ther-its-real/

Well, the photo of LeBron in a maid's dress looks fake to me. But if I were holding a lot of in-the-money LeBron paper, I might de-risk a bit.

Diddy knew not to try Ice Cube 💯
https://x.com/ClownWorld_/status/183...70862732202453

I couldn't care less about the parties. It's the way he's willing to parrot Communist China's party line that bother me. Of course I've never been any kind of fan of his either.

Other than the Lithuanians, the last NBA basketball star I really liked was George "The Iceman" Gervin.

:(

I personally think the OP should stop reading tabloid newspapers and trying to pass it off as real news.

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

So OJ was innocent?

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

:confused:

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense. But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing. Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence. That said, it is considered to be part of due process. It goes back to the Magna Carta and probably further.

It's the law that's the subject of discussion here and my only interest is that the presumption of innocence isn't eroded. Were it not for the presumption of innocence I'm sure they'd be rounding up those they find "inconvenient". (Didn't they just put Tulsi Gabbard on the "Watch List" in your own country for criticizing the government?)

So then I guess the prosecuting attorneys must have been fired by the California Attorney General and then disbarred for incompetence beyond the norm for State employees. But I don't recall hearing or reading any such accounts. Perhaps my memory is failing me now that I'm past retirement age.

I have severe problems with the civil litigation process in the States. A major problem is that litigants have broad scope to select a favourable jurisdiction for the assessment and trial of their case

How about this then?

;)

I absolutely agree, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a jury trial, are fundamental.

The OJ prosecution was a disaster. Asking him to try on the gloves was one of the stupidest courtroom moves ever. Some of the witnesses were very poorly prepared. It may be a closer call, but the decision not to offer any evidence of his attempted flight also was a mistake IMO. Was this because Clark and Darden were too busy having an affair? Dunno.

I don't have any issue with the venue statutes and rules. Tell me what specifically you think is a problem. Is your issue with forum selection clauses? The forum chosen still has to have a reasonable relationship to the matter at issue. How are they different from any other contractual term?

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

I am sure he took some liberties dramatizing some of the scenes, but not with the basic facts. The scene of the legendary Texas ranger Frank Hamer (Bonnie and Clyde) walking through that Texas hill town where a key part of the fraud took place is priceless. So is the scene where Abe Fortas comes up with the strategy to stop the investigation.

Great book and series, I just hope Caro lives long enough to finish it. He'll be 89 at the end of the month, and makes George RR Martin look fast-paced; Martin at least has churned out five ASOIAF books in 33 years. Caro has been working on The Years of Lyndon Johnson for 50 years now, and has written four books, the most recent one coming out 12 years ago.

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

I remember Time (or was it Newsweek) gushing over Marcia Clark never having lost a case she was prosecuting before the O.J. trial. I guess she was accustomed to working plea bargains with Court appointed defence "counsels". Facing experienced trial lawyers was another ball of wax for her entirely.

1. First of all, in this specific case the civil proceedings were moved to Santa Monica from Los Angeles County because the plaintiffs didn't like the pool from which the jury would be selected in Los Angeles County.

2. And in general:

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

:mad:

Yes, that was me. See above.

Moreover as another Canadian I'm appalled that your first examples of the miscarriage of justice don't include the cases of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. It's their cases among others that should give us nightmares. And no, those "other" cases don't include that of O.J. Simpson.

:mad:

This makes no sense from a moral perspective. If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent? The legal system has huge limitations in terms of its ability to identify much less convict the guilty. Rightly so, because the alternative is much worse, but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.

Class actions subject to CAFA are a tiny, tiny percentage of cases. I assure you there is no "general" problem with forum shopping in US civil litigation.

Assuming the government is 100% correct 100% of the time is the most big brother thing of all. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, and sometimes guilty people are not and frequently the crime is never charged at all.

The burden of proof is very high, the rules of evidence are onerous, and the defendant doesn't have to testify. That the prosecution does not convict someone does not mean they are "innocent" of the crime.

I don’t think the burden of proof is that high. It’s supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but doubt is subjective and a highly individual emotion.

I hope you're going to be OK?

And, are we not talking about O.J. here, or should I have brought up all such cases from centuries of litigation?

I'm strong, healthy and snarly, i.e. a classic curmudgeon. And hoping to stay that way for many more years!

Incidentally, are you a big time CFL fan and collector? Or are you merely an American sycophant?

This thread is actually about Lebron James. For whatever arcane reason, another poster inserted O.J. Simpson into the discussion.

Bringing up a few 21st century miscarriages of justice from our home jurisdiction would have been enough.

;)

I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.

My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".

See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit (despite the timeline of events) because he was "weird". He played the clarinet and he just wasn't a "regular" guy. So one of the things they did was induce another prisoner to lie him up (give false testimony against Morin). And was compensation for Morin then taken out of the "investigating" officers hide? No, it was taken out of the taxpayers' hide instead.

Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law."

Hmmmpphhhffff! My position is that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law. Case closed.

You on the other hand seem determined to explore nuances in the meaning of the word "innocent". In so doing you're simply acting as the handmaiden of those who would happily undermine the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And let me point out that this principle is one of the very few bulwarks we the citizenry have against the overriding power of the State and one that all freedom loving individuals must fight to protect.

I agree.

:)

But like many words, innocent has more than one meaning which varies by the situation. I'm too lazy today to copy and paste from the dictionary.

Not guilty and innocent are different things.

examples - Both true

Friend was a juror. State did a bad job of prosecuting. Verdict not guilty.
Judge met with the jury after. Asked about the case. Every single juror was certain the accused had done what he was accused of. But that the state had not proven it even by a more lax standard than reasonable doubt. No choice but to aquit.

Worked for a car dealership. New finance manager, who I was told had been fired a couple years before for embezzeling 15K. (it was the late 80's, but really, almost not worth the trouble.) No police involved, just fired and the money taken as a loss.
He lasted a month. another 15K. Again no police, just fired.
Innocent? Hell no.
Not arrested tried or convicted? yes

[QUOTE=Balticfox;2469527 Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law." [/QUOTE]

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction. Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

To reply to your charges of us being handmaidens of dystopia: My personal sympathies lean towards anarchism/libertarianism - limited government, at the very least - not some state-uber-alles society. I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says. It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.

Baltic's position is circular. If innocent MEANS not convicted, then of course you're innocent until convicted. But the overwhelming majority of people would not so define it.

One of the crooked cops, (Durham Regional Police) lived in a house I used to pass everyday on my way to high school.
He mysteriously got sick when he was called upon to testify about the doctoring of notes and evidence and did not appear.

The old saying, "the apple does not fall far from the tree", holds true here as his son was, and still most likely is, a complete and utter imbecile. (Goof is a much better word) When he was in grade 12, him, (he was with a couple of his friends) threw one of my friends, (the smallest one, of course, who was in grade 9), into the creek on his way to school in the winter.
Unbeknownst to him, one of my other friends was fairly tough and not afraid of much of anything so he tuned him up, and tuned him up good.
Of course word got around school about a grade 9 student beating up a grade 12 student and magically his attendance plummeted after that. :D

Without legal proof, I'm not willing to convict a man in thought, word or deed. And when I consider a man to be innocent, I just say he's innocent and I leave it at that. I leave no doubts whatsoever with my choice of words.

A false equivalence if I've ever seen one. Stones need no constitutional protection. It's only individuals, particularly free thinking ones, who do.

Do you really suspect that a Libertarian whose overriding interest is protecting individuals (including myself) from malicious prosecution by the State may just be trolling? Well you're wrong, very wrong. When it comes to the presumption of innocence, I make no compromises. It's innocent until proven guilty.

Fffftttt! Claptrap. The only protection that an individual has from the overriding power of the State is strict constitutional constraints on the power of the government. And the presumption of innocence is one of those.

Nonsense! That's a preposterous argument. Just because I accept one specific definition in the Constitution in no way implies that I must embrace any other let alone all other government definitions. :rolleyes:

In only a 1984 kind of State can a man be guilty before being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I'm saying that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. What I'm saying is simple and direct. There's no circularity there at all.

Yes, precisely. Case closed.

There is no inconsistency between believing in the presumption of innocence as the right way for a society to govern itself, and believing in a definition of innocence that does not depend on the court system. Again, innocence in the eyes of the law, and innocence in a broader sense, are different things.