Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[Shoeless Moe]

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

[Shoeless Moe]

https://x.com/TheNBACentel/status/17...arties-comment

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[bk400]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

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?

[Carter08]

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.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Has there ever been a hint of scandal around LeBron?

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

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.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

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.

[G1911]

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[G1911]

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”.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

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.

[CardPadre]

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?

[Brendan]

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Brendan

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

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?

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.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

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?

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

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[packs]

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by packs

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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?

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.

[packs]

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.

[Carter08]

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.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.



.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

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.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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

Oof.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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

.

[bk400]

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.

[irv]

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

[Balticfox]

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.

[etsmith]

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

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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?

[Balticfox]

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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?)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence.

How about this then?

Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 11(d)

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:

d. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

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.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"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."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

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.

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ.

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.

[irv]

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

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The OJ prosecution was a disaster.... Was this because Clark and Darden were too busy having an affair? Dunno.

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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:

Originally Posted by Class Actions Comparative Guide: mondaq

Are the courts in your jurisdiction generally considered sympathetic to class actions?

Generally, certain state courts have been known to be more sympathetic to class actions than federal courts. Though the rules for class certification are similar, the manner in which certain state courts interpret the class action rules gives the impression that the state courts are far more favourable for plaintiffs. Thus, class action plaintiffs often file class action complaints in state court whenever possible, while defendants often try to 'remove' such cases to federal court.

In fact, state court 'sympathies' for class actions against corporate defendants made certain state jurisdictions notorious for class action abuse and state court 'forum shopping'. These perceived abuses led to the enactment of the federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) – perhaps the most significant change to class action practice in many years. CAFA sought to prevent this type of state court forum shopping by granting the federal courts jurisdiction over class actions involving more than 100 class members and over $5 million in controversy, among other requirements.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

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.

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

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.