The True Crime Tapes

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.

​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.

Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.


to contact me:


[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.

Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.


to contact me:


[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

The case of Jones v. Combs (1:24-cv-01457) involves a complex series of allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs and multiple associated parties, including Universal Music Group and Love Records. The opposition to Combs' motion to dismiss centers on serious allegations of misconduct, with the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The request for judicial notice of Combs' federal indictment ties into broader accusations, including sex trafficking and racketeering, which have gained significant attention in a separate federal case.

This particular filing challenges Combs’ legal team's attempt to dismiss the case by bringing forward evidence that links the civil case to Combs’ criminal indictment, arguing that the indictment supports the plaintiff's claims of exploitation and manipulation over a prolonged period. The opposition excludes Justin Dior Combs but includes other significant figures and corporations, with the plaintiff seeking to ensure the court acknowledges the federal charges in the ongoing civil proceedings.

The case has seen numerous legal maneuvers, including motions for sanctions and attempts to amend complaints, reflecting the high-stakes nature of the litigation and the complexity of the issues at hand​.


(commercial at 7:02)

to contact me:


[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.78.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The case of Jones v. Combs (1:24-cv-01457) involves a complex series of allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs and multiple associated parties, including Universal Music Group and Love Records. The opposition to Combs' motion to dismiss centers on serious allegations of misconduct, with the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The request for judicial notice of Combs' federal indictment ties into broader accusations, including sex trafficking and racketeering, which have gained significant attention in a separate federal case.

This particular filing challenges Combs’ legal team's attempt to dismiss the case by bringing forward evidence that links the civil case to Combs’ criminal indictment, arguing that the indictment supports the plaintiff's claims of exploitation and manipulation over a prolonged period. The opposition excludes Justin Dior Combs but includes other significant figures and corporations, with the plaintiff seeking to ensure the court acknowledges the federal charges in the ongoing civil proceedings.

The case has seen numerous legal maneuvers, including motions for sanctions and attempts to amend complaints, reflecting the high-stakes nature of the litigation and the complexity of the issues at hand​.


(commercial at 7:02)

to contact me:


[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.78.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)