When Colmes didn't get his way, he was violent and subjected victims to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so that they would participate in the freak offs.

The freak off, a term that has now not only become synonymous with Shawn Diddy Combs, is at the center of his federal sex crimes case.

We're going to explain some of the major accusations and details surrounding the freak offs and what this could mean for the indicted rapper.

Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law&Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. There is one term that has gone viral since the indictment of Shawn Diddy Combs more than anything else.

You've heard it here on Sidebar; you've heard it amplified in the media. It is called a freak off—this alleged sexual performance that is at the center of this criminal case facing the rapper and producer, Shawn Diddy Combs.

I'm going to go over some of the details of these freak off sessions as laid out in the government's indictment and in their subsequent letters that they filed with the court when they argued against Colmes' bail, which by the way was denied twice.

Now he's currently locked up in the Brooklyn Detention Center. Combs is facing charges of racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

We've mentioned it before, but he could be looking at 15 years to life in prison.

That's how serious these charges are. But the main theme here, the main allegation, is that Combs led a criminal enterprise and the goal of this criminal enterprise, other than to operate a global media and entertainment business, was to engage in the abuse of women, sex trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and the distribution of drugs, using violence and threats to commit crimes like kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice to carry out their goals and missions, all the while making sure to satisfy the sexual desires of Shawn Colmes.

One of those desires, as alleged by the government, by prosecutors, and also alleged by several of Colmes' accusers in separate civil lawsuits that they filed against him, was the commission of freak offs.

So with that in mind, now we're going to get into these shocking details surrounding these freak offs.

I guess we should start by saying, what are freak offs? Well, let's go to the indictment. It says, quote: 'Colmes and other members and associates of the Colmes Enterprise wielded the power and prestige of Colmes' role at the Colmes business to intimidate threaten, and lure female victims into Colmes' orbit, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship.

Colmes then used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers that Colmes referred to as, among other things, freak offs.

Freak offs were elaborate and produced sex performances that Colmes arranged, directed, and during which he often electronically recorded himself.

Now, while this indictment came down, I said at the time this may be a term that is foreign to anyone who was not familiar with Shawn Colmes, but for me, who's been following this whole saga for what, a year now, I have heard this term multiple times.

Because in the Cassandra Ventura lawsuit, Colmes' ex-girlfriend and Rodney 'Little Rod' Jones lawsuit, who is Colmes' former producer, they discussed the freak offs in their sexual assault lawsuits.

Now, Ventura alleged, among other things, that Colmes would demand her participation in freak offs and that she would have to be forced to hire the male sex workers and that this could happen at any random moment.

Jones alleged, among other things, that Combs' son Justin, along with DJ and record producer Stevie J, would engage in freak-offs.

Now, to be clear, those specific allegations, those names, those details were not mentioned as part of the criminal case. I will tell you though that the idea of this freak-off, now that it is officially part of the criminal case and mentioned multiple times, makes me wonder two things from a legal point of view.

Number one, it is such a wild concept and phraseology that it's hard to believe that this is something that was just made up by Combs' accusers.

And when I say Combs' accusers, could that be Ventura? Yes. Could that be Jones?

Yes. Perhaps the government got this information, this idea of the freak-offs, originally from them. And by the way, when I say Combs' accusers it could be Ventura or it could be Jones.

Perhaps the government got this idea of the freak-offs from them originally, but we don't know. To be clear, we do not know for sure who the accusers are, who the victims are in this criminal case, or who the government's witnesses are—whoever those people may be—because we don't know for sure who is cooperating with the government right now.

But the bottom line is the idea of the freak-off; there's enough there to substantiate it that the government is moving forward with this.

And again, it is so wild—it's such a wild concept to come up with that I wonder if an argument will be made that, look jury, this has to be true; no one can honestly make something like this up.

And as you'll see, it doesn't appear it was just witness testimony that corroborates the idea of the freak-offs happening—the existence of these freak-offs.

But there's more, and I'll get to that, but this also leads me to a secondary point that, based on what we are already seeing from Combs' defense counsel during bail arguments, they may not deny that these freak-offs happened or even that Combs called them freak-offs.

They may say, "Yeah, you know what? He engaged in freak-offs; that's what he called them, but they were consensual." That's the idea: they were consensual.

This is not a crime. Talking about Combs and these allegations, does it not show you just how scary the world can be, how unpredictable the world can be?

And you know what? You know what one of the most unpredictable things can be in life?

Something that is truly terrifying that comes out of nowhere: if you get injured, right? That comes out of nowhere. But it's important to realize that, at those moments, what your rights are and whether you could be compensated for your injury.

Well, that's where our sponsor and proud partner of Sidebar, Morgan and Morgan, comes in.

This is America's largest injury law firm. They have an army of over a thousand attorneys who will fight for what you deserve.

They have the track record to prove it. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan won verdicts like $12 million in Florida, $26 million in Philadelphia, $6.8 million in New York, and mind you, these are all considerably higher than the highest insurance offers in these cases.

Truly, your case could be worth millions of dollars, and even if it's not, why not start a claim and get the money that you do deserve?

Seeing if you have a case can be done in eight clicks or less.

Also, totally free. It's absolutely free unless you win. They're only getting paid if you get paid.

So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com or LC Sidebar.

You can click the link in the description and pinned in the comments. I want to explore that a little bit more; let's explore a little bit more.

Details of these freak offs: the indictment continues, quote, 'freak offs occurred regularly, sometimes lasted multiple days, and often involved multiple commercial sex workers.' During freak offs, Colmes distributed a variety of controlled substances to victims, in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant, sometimes unbeknownst to the victims.

Colmes kept videos he filmed of victims engaging in sex acts with commercial sex workers.

After freak offs, Colmes and the victims typically received IV fluids to recover from the physical exertion and drug use that occurred.

The government would allege that these freak offs have been happening since 2009, and that those drugs consisted of ketamine, GHB, and ecstasy. Now, in terms of the defense of consent, the defense could argue that these people knowingly and voluntarily took drugs.

But if it's true that Colmes kept videos that these participants didn't know about, that could be problematic for him, especially since we learned the government may have the evidence to back all of this up.

In their bail letter to the judge, they write, quote, 'the evidence against the defendant, which would be made public at trial, includes substantial evidence that is highly sensitive and has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the defendant's reputation.' For example, dozens of video recordings created by the defendant of freak offs with victims.

I mean, we wondered what was collected by federal authorities after they raided Colmes' homes in LA and Miami back in March.

There were reports that they collected digital evidence. In fact, further on in the government's letter, prosecutors write, quote, 'setting aside devices seized...' in connection with the defendant's arrest, the government has obtained over 90 cell phones, laptops, cloud storage accounts, as well as over 30 other electronic storage devices such as hard drives, thumb drives, cameras, and a surveillance system.

The government also wrote victim testimony regarding freak offs, which is at times corroborated by other witness testimony, communications with the defendant, and commercial sex workers, travel records, hotel records, videos of the freak offs, and records reflecting or indicating payment.

By the way, you're talking about evidence of freak offs. Prosecutors revealed one other way that they can prove that these freak off events happened because in the government's bail letter, it states the defendant arranged freak offs with the assistance of members and associates of the enterprise, including employees of his business and the hotel rooms where they were staged often sustained significant damages.

So the prosecution's letter goes on to state that, for example, in approximately 2012 in Manhattan, the defendant paid over $46,000 to cover damages to a penthouse hotel room following a freak off.

Yeah, now I imagine the government plans to produce receipts, some documentation, or witness testimony to corroborate that account, because it'll be tough for the defense to say why else that hotel room sustained allegedly $46,000 worth of damages if it wasn't for this wild sexual performance event.

But again, you could see why the government is putting that evidence forward to suggest that these freak offs occurred.

Now, going back to that idea of consent, this defense of consent, I couple that with something else that I've been hearing.

I've seen people say, why are these freak offs a crime? Right? You might be wild sexual encounters, but why is this sex trafficking? Why is this racketeering, well as laid out in the indictment.

But also, this was articulated by Damen Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Here's what he had to say in a press conference after the unsealing of this indictment: As alleged, Combs used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sexual performances with male commercial sex workers, some of whom he transported or caused to be transported over state lines.

When Combs didn't get his way, he was violent and subjected victims to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so that they would participate in the freak-offs.

Combs hit, kicked, threw objects at, and dragged victims at times by their hair. On one occasion in March of 2016, that conduct was captured on video and later reported in the media.

Specifically, Combs kicked, dragged, and threw a vase at a victim in a Los Angeles hotel when the victim was attempting to flee.

As alleged, these assaults often resulted in injuries to the victims which took days or weeks to heal. In addition to the violence, the indictment alleges that Combs threatened and coerced victims to get them to participate in the freak-offs.

He used the embarrassing and sensitive recordings he made of the freak-offs as collateral against the victims.

And that's the key: it's using power, violence, threats, coercion, and force to get people to participate in sexual activity that is illegal.

Sex trafficking is when you use such methods for the purposes of commercial sex, usually over state lines.

Commercial sex is when money is offered for sexual services or something else of value. One of the things that the indictment mentions is how Combs would allegedly dangle promises of career opportunities or threaten to withhold financial support to get people to do what he wanted.

Now, you heard Damen Williams mention that 2016 incident, so even if you hadn't been following the Colmes legal saga for the past year, everyone saw that video published by CNN of Colmes allegedly beating Cassandra Ventura back in 2016 at the Intercontinental Hotel in LA, all while wearing a robe.

This is something that Ventura alleged had happened when she filed her lawsuit back in November of 2023.

But when that video was released, we all saw with our own eyes what apparently transpired, and we know Shan Colmes issued an apology on Instagram two days after the release of that tape.

But how this ties to the freak-off? Well, the allegation was the reason he was in a towel, the reason she was allegedly running away, and the reason he allegedly beat her was because she was trying to escape a freak-off.

And as Ventura alleged, prosecutor SE Holmes tried to cover up this event.

In the bail letter, prosecutors write, quote, when a member of hotel security staff intervened, the defendant attempted to offer the hotel security officer a stack of cash to ensure his silence.

After the security guard refused the defendant's bribe and after coordination between the defendant and his employees, the defendant's staff contacted other members of hotel security.

At the same time, staff members were in close communication with the victim of the assault as well, all in an effort to cover up the defendant's assault and to prevent the incident from being publicly disclosed.

Within days of the incident, the surveillance video disappeared from the hotel's server. By the way, that brings me to another point about the freak-offs: how many people allegedly helped Combs do this?

As the indictment reads, quote, members and associates of the Combs enterprise including high-ranking supervisors, security staff, household staff, personal assistants, and other business employees facilitated the freak offs by, among other things, booking hotel rooms for the freak offs, stocking the hotel rooms in advance with the required freak off supplies, including controlled substances, baby oil, lubricant, and extra linens and lighting, cleaning the hotel rooms after the freak offs to try to mitigate room damage, arranging for travel for victims, commercial sex workers and Combs to and from freak offs, re-supplying Combs with requested supplies, delivering large sums of cash to Combs to pay the commercial sex workers, and scheduling the delivery of IV fluids.

In or about March 2024, during searches of Combs' residences in Miami, Florida, and Los Angeles, California, law enforcement seized various freak off supplies, including narcotics and more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant.

Wow, so assuming the government did in fact call all of this evidence, again I don't think there's a great defense for why someone would have that much baby oil and lubricant.

So the defense will probably be like, yeah, my client engaged in these sexual sessions, but hey, that's not illegal on its face. Everyone agreed to it; it's all consensual.

But here's the larger point: first, you can see how this supports the racketeering conspiracy charge that Combs faces, right?

The idea that there was an agreement to create and further a criminal enterprise. Combs can't do this alone; prosecutors need to prove he conspired with others in this criminal enterprise to break the law.

So you see this alleged coordination between multiple people at his behest but this also helps explain potential witnesses that may be working with the government—those people that used to work for Combs, associated with Combs help facilitate these alleged freak-offs that may now be key witnesses at a future trial.

After all, what did the prosecution write in their letter to the judge?

The government has conducted interviews with over 50 victims and witnesses, many of whom saw or experienced the defendant's abuse. Many of these witnesses corroborate one another, and their accounts are similarly consistent with the other types of evidence discussed below.

The government only expects that number to continue to grow given that the investigation, which is now public, is ongoing.

We did another sidebar on the potential that people will come forward or take deals to cooperate with the government.

You can check it out on our Law&Crime YouTube page. But if you thought that all of that wasn't shocking enough when it comes to the freak-offs, I want to leave you with one final allegation regarding these freak-offs, and this is something that prosecutors mentioned in their second letter regarding bail.

So let's not forget, Colmes was first denied bail by a magistrate judge. He appealed that decision to a district court judge, and that judge is supposed to review this with fresh eyes and doesn't have to provide necessarily deference to what this other judge did.

So the government doubled down to show how much of a danger Sha Colmes is, how he can't be trusted on the outside, and how he needs to be detained pending trial.

In their second letter, they write, quote, indeed, since at least in or about January 2024, when the defendant was unquestionably aware of the criminal investigation, the evidence shows that he has engaged in multiple freak-offs, some involving the interstate transportation of individuals to participate, has continued to use narcotics, and has contacted multiple witnesses.

So if true, the government is saying these freak-offs are not years old; they are Essentially, it's still happening.

This was after he had already been sued and after the idea of the 'Freak Off' had become publicized through those lawsuits. People were talking about it in the media, and he still allegedly engaged in this behavior.

That's huge for prosecutors, and of course, here we know that Colmes was denied bail again by that secondary judge.

So there you have it: a full breakdown of the 'Freak Off' allegations and how they tie into the larger overall case.

To be clear, I'm sure this is not the last time we will hear this term, or we will hear more details surrounding the 'Freak Offs.

' That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us, and as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Jesse Weber; I'll speak to you next time.

9 Most Shocking P. Diddy 'Freak Off' Party Details Revealed in Indictment

Scripts