Tzvia Pinkhasov

@Lawyeredup1 We can agree to disagree 🤷‍♀️Thanks for the analysis and banter!

@Tzvia_P The existence or nonexistence of a pattern is a conclusion. Address facts: Is there any evidence that, for a specific act of alleged prostitution by Cassie, she was given money (or something of value) in return for, or in exchange for engaging in the alleged act of prostitution?

#DiddyTrial LONG AND POSSIBLY CONTROVERSIAL ANALYSIS: DIDDY CAN ACTUALLY WIN ON THE MANN ACT CHARGE vs CASSIE (COUNT 3)! Most legal observers have opined that enough evidence has been presented to prove Diddy guilty of Transportation for Prostitution or illegal sexual activities (the Mann Act). Upon further review, I think these legal observers are probably wrong. In Count 3 of the Indictment Diddy was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a), which provides as follows: “Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, OR IN ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY FOR WHICH ANY PERSON CAN BE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” (emphasis, added) The emphasized portion of the above statute is the most expansive aspect. This is one of the reasons why the Mann Act has been widely criticized for criminalizing seemingly kinky sexual acts by consenting adults. To emphasize the breath of this expansive aspect, consider this example. Assuming you are in NJ and you wanted to transport yourself and your wife to NY so that she can meet with and have sex with the Punisher (for a fee, which you will pay) - after hearing all these stories about the Punisher. lol. You clearly express your intention to your wife in text messages. You and your wife come to NY, your wife indeed had sex with the Punisher, and you pay the Punisher for his “services.” You, sir, have completed the crime of violating the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. § 2421(a)). Specifically, you violated the expansive portion of the statute. Even though your wife is not a prostitute, and you did not transport her for the purpose that she engage in prostitution, you transported her for purpose of sexual activities for which anyone could be charged. In the scenario I described, the Punisher could be charged with prostitution (under state law) for getting paid to have sex with your wife. The fact that any person (not necessarily your wife) could be charged for the sex act with the Punisher, means that the expanded portion of the Mann Act was violated. If one applies this expansive portion of the statute, the case against Diddy has easily been proven for violation of the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. § 2421(a)). Diddy transported Cassie across state lines, and they called a sex worker who engaged in sexual activities with Cassie and the sex worker was paid for the sexual activities. The sex worker could be charged with prostitution because of the sexual activities (in NY, CA, etc). With respect to intent, Cassie’s testimony could be deemed to be enough proof that Diddy’s intent for transporting Cassie was for her to engage in sexual activities with a sex worker. By the way, even though the statute does not require that the person transported actually engage in the sexual activities (intentional transportation is enough), proving that the chargeable sexual activities happened has been used as strong evidence of the intent underlying the transportation across state lines. Thus, the case against Diddy is buttoned up with respect to transportation across state lines regarding Cassie. IS IT REALLY? I took another look at the indictment, and this is what I found in Count 3. The Caption of Count 3 is “Transportation to Engage in PROSTITUTION.” It alleges that “… the defendant. knowingly transported individuals in interstate and foreign commerce with intent that the individuals engage in PROSTITUTION, and attempted, aided and abetted, and willfully caused the same, to wit, COMBS transported, aided and abetted, and willfully caused the transportation of multiple individuals, including but not limited to Victim-1 [Cassie] and commercial sex workers, in interstate and foreign commerce on multiple occasions with the intent that they engage in PROSTITUTION.” Emphases added. The reason I emphasized the word prostitution is that it is the specific and restrictive part of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2421(a)) that Diddy was charged with. The prostitution part is the more restrictive part of the statute. Diddy wasn’t charged with the more expansive part of the statute which deals with ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY FOR WHICH ANY PERSON CAN BE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. In my opinion, this was a huge mistake by the govt. Since Diddy was charged in relation to the prostitution part, and since New York was the only jurisdiction specifically named in Count 3, let’s look at NY’s definition of prostitution. Pursuant to NY Penal Law § 230.00: “A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person IN RETURN FOR A FEE.” Emphasis added. Under this definition, Cassie would engage in prostitution only if she offered to engage sexual conduct with an escort (the Punisher, for an example) in return for a fee. In this definition, Cassie would be offering sex and would be getting a fee (or something of value) in return. As the evidence showed, Cassie did not get a fee or anything of value IN RETURN or EXCHANGE for engaging in the sexual acts. While Cassie may have received houses, cars, money, etc, from Diddy, there is no evidence that she received those things IN RETURN for or IN EXCHANGE for engaging in sex acts. Also, the escorts certainly didn’t pay Cassie for the sexual acts. Thus, Cassie did not engage in prostitution under NY law. Even though, the sex workers/escorts may have engaged in prostitution under New York law, Cassie didn’t. Though count 3 mentioned some sex workers as potential victims, they were not identified. The only identified victim in Count 3 is Cassie and she didn’t engage in prostitution. Combining the NY prostitution law with the text of the MANN Act dealing with prostitution, it is readily apparent that for a conviction on Count 3, Diddy must knowingly transport Cassie across state lines to NY with the specific intent that Cassie engages in prostitution. Since there are no records of Diddy specifically stating that the purpose of the transportation was for Cassie to engage in prostitution, since there is no testimonial evidence that Diddy said the purpose of the transportation was for Cassie to engage in prostitution, and since there is no evidence that Cassie did in fact engage in prostitution as defined by NY law, Diddy cannot be found guilty on Count 3. The same result would apply if you used the California law regarding prostitution. The prostitute offers or engages in sex and gets money or things of value in exchange. Cassie did not receive money or anything of value in exchange for her sex acts with the escorts and sex workers. Indeed, the govt’s predicament is that they cannot even argue that Cassie received a fee or anything of value in return or exchange for the sexual activities. Such an argument will destroy or seriously undermine the govt’s arguments in the RICO and Sex trafficking counts, namely, that Cassie was induced by force, threat of force, fraud or coercion to engage in the sexual activities. It does not make sense to argue in the RICO and sex trafficking counts that Cassie was improperly induced (by force, threat of force, fraud or coercion) and then argue on the other hand that Cassie engaged in these sexual activities in exchange for or in return for money (or things of value). Also, given that there were 100’s of freak offs, but no evidence that Cassie engaged in prostitution, it is implausible to argue that Diddy’s specific intent for the transportation was for Cassie to engage in prostitution when that intent was never realized or actualized in any single instant. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that Cassie actually engaged in prostitution in these 100s of freak offs. Accordingly, Diddy’s intent could not have been to transport Cassie across state lines for Cassie to engage in prostitution, as the indictment charges. Although Diddy was also charged under the theory of aiding and abetting, the same conclusion applies since Cassie did not engage in prostitution. The fact that Cassie did not engage in prostitution is important for another reason. The indictment also stated that Diddy “willfully caused the same,” meaning that Diddy willfully caused Cassie to engage in prostitution or caused Cassie to be transported across state lines to engage in prostitution. In either formulation, the fact that Cassie did not engage in prostitution is a fatal blow to Count 3. The discussion above would apply to any other victim of the Mann Act in this case if that alleged victim was Diddy’s girlfriend or friend who was not paid in return or exchange for engaging in sexual activities. If there was no completed act of prostitution and there is little to no evidence that Diddy’s SPECIFIC INTENT for transporting the girlfriends or friends was for them to engage in prostitution, then Diddy cannot be found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). *** In a different context, the federal govt defines prostitution as follows: 22 CFR § 40.24(b) (b) Prostitution defined. The term “prostitution” means engaging in promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. A finding that an alien has “engaged” in prostitution must be based on elements of continuity and regularity, indicating a pattern of behavior or deliberate course of conduct entered into primarily for financial gain or for other considerations of material value as distinguished from the commission of casual or isolated acts. Even under this federal definition, prostitution is sex for hire for financial gain or for other considerations of material value. In this case about Diddy, in my view, the evidence did not show that Cassie engaged in sexual intercourse FOR HIRE because she was not paid FOR the sexual intercourse. Further, there is no evidence that Diddy specifically intended for Cassie to engage in sexual intercourse FOR hire.

@Lawyeredup1 Absence of a receipt—literal or figurative—doesn’t mean there wasn’t a transaction. And it does nothing to weaken the overwhelming plausibility of coercion, control, and the exchange of safety for compliance in this setting.

@Lawyeredup1 I don't think anyone in that courtroom will need to see a text exchange where diddy says "Have a freakoff with me or else I will beat the crap out of you" to believe it.

@Lawyeredup1 Excessive testimonial and hard evidence of a pattern of behavior that within the larger context makes coercion more plausible than not is far more than a gut feeling...

@Lawyeredup1 Diddy controlled access to the basic need of safety and material stability, all transactional in their relationship and based on sexual compliance

@Lawyeredup1 The clear lack thereof - the ample evidence that she got the crap beat out of her by Diddy???

@Lawyeredup1 Sure, regardless of who owned those items, they were things of value. There is certainly a lot of indirect evidence that those things were withheld. But the most direct evidence is the exchange of physical security for sexual compliance.

@Tzvia_P Not her phone, or her car. Those things didn't belong to her; they belonged to BBR. Also, there is no evidence that anything was taken away or was given in exchange for engage for a specific act of prostitution.

@Lawyeredup1 So his investment in her career was a loss because she had sex with someone else?

@Tzvia_P Recoup losses incurred by Bad Boy Records for investing in her careers. Money was wired to BBR account

@Lawyeredup1 He withheld things of value, not money exactly - her phone, car, freedom to go out, and physical security

@Tzvia_P 20k demand was not when she left a freak off, but when she dumped him for Kid Cudi. If I don't owe you money, me withholding my money from you proves what? That I forced you? Please.

I am SO excited to join @PennRadiology as a diagnostic radiology resident in the research track!! Philly here I come!!

Super excited to read this!

@neurrito Thank you frand!!! U better be there!!

Woohoo that's my friend! Go Tzvia!

@BrandonLBradfor Somehow get away with stealing some nice clothes and go all Anna delvey on the world

Periodic question: If you woke up homeless, hungry, with $20 to your name, and had none of the connections you have now, how would you get off the streets?

@DhananjayHuilg1 @WUSTLneurosci @KepecsLab @WUSTLdbbs @WUSTLmstp I don't even have one Dr. yet 😂 But thank you!!

@Tzvia_P @WUSTLneurosci @KepecsLab @WUSTLdbbs @WUSTLmstp Hey! Congratulations and good luck Dr. Dr. Pinkhasov :)

It's happening!! 😬 #thesisdefense @WUSTLneurosci @KepecsLab @WUSTLdbbs @WUSTLmstp

@dr_alexharris @WUSTLneurosci @KepecsLab @WUSTLdbbs @WUSTLmstp Yes, I hope you can tune in!

@Tzvia_P @WUSTLneurosci @KepecsLab @WUSTLdbbs @WUSTLmstp Exciting!

@UjuAnya Being 1st gen and growing up in NY, this was a way to get to know pple and their backgrounds. Sure, I'm from NY but I don't consider my parents' homeland "home", yet it makes up a huge part of who I am. I can tell when someone is genuinely curious vs confused and "othering me"

No matter how sweetly you ask it, “Where are you from?” is not a polite question.

@achristensen56 You don't really learn that in psychiatry 😬 it's more about identifying symptoms listed in the dsm and knowing which meds to give. Psychology programs though you'd focus on that, and each program will have a different philosophy/approach. Some u can do even part time!

I’m obviously kidding my 7 years of gradschool were more than enough school for my lifetime, but I find the idea of learning more about what it’s like to be inside other peoples heads, the patterns, the exceptions, very appealing

Listened to @KarlDeisseroth narration of projections on my drive to CO. Really well done! I have to admit I spent at least a few minutes considering how ridiculous it would be for me to go to medschool and get a psychiatry degree, uh, on the late nights and weekends 🤣