Speaker 1: Oh,

Speaker 2: How cool is that?

Speaker 3: You

Speaker 4: I found love in you, and I've learned to love me too. Never have I felt that I could be all that you see. It's like our hearts have intertwined into the perfect harmony.

Speaker 5: This is why I love you, ooh, this is why I love you, because you love me, you love me. ♪ This is why I love you ♪ ♪ Ooh, this is why I love you ♪ ♪ Because you love me ♪ ♪ You love me ♪

Speaker 6: ♪ I found love in you ♪ And no other love will do.

Speaker 7: Every moment that you smile chases all the pain away.

Speaker 6: Forever and a while, in my heart is where you'll stay.

Speaker 5: ♪ This is why I love you ♪ ♪ Ooh, this is why I love you ♪ ♪ Because you love me ♪ ♪ You love me ♪ ♪ This is why I love you ♪ ♪ Oh, this is why I love you ♪ ♪ Because you love me ♪

Speaker 6: ♪ You love me ♪ ♪ The stars have all aligned and right now is a perfect time to say ♪ ♪ I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you, I do ♪

Speaker 5: ♪ Oh, this is why I love you ♪ ♪ This is why I love you, because you love me. You love me. This is why I love you. Oh. This is why I love you, because you love me. Me.

Speaker 4: ♪ I fell in love in you ♪ ♪ And no other love will do ♪

Speaker 5: ♪ That's why I love you ♪

Speaker 2: Man, that's my song right there, y'all. Man, I can't hit them notes like that, but you know what I'm saying? I can fake it a little bit. What up, y'all? How y'all doing? How y'all doing? How y'all doing? Man, listen. Listen. ♪ Listen to the sound of them haters ♪ ♪ They are so mad at us because we won ♪ Listen. Listen. And Dana J cry. They really don't know if they're coming or going. Oh, the time has come for them jail doors to be shut. Let me stop. Let me stop. I'm silly. I'm silly. I'm tripping. All right, y'all, check this out. Listen, what else can the other side do but be mad? Like, they can't win emotion. They can't get his sentence. What else can they do but throw insults or get mad Golden a channels in oh F you seek up forget our OCO be in Really Is that gonna help our Kelly get out? Is that is that gonna help? Help him. Is that gonna they gonna give him an appeal to do that. Does that make you feel better? I mean, I guess you I guess if you could talk to canakin them You know, you'll be able to release all that energy right you be able to just go crazy on can it what did y'all do? Why the hell was you talking about twerking? Y'all listen sometimes I just go on those channels just to have fun. I'll be bored. Yeah, sometimes be bored sometimes I be bored sometimes I don't even like really want to like engage in conversation I just let's come on just to be like bro like what's you need a hug you need a hug like you need a bro hug darling you you need one of those man it's gonna be all right man it's gonna be all right it's gonna be all right it's gonna be all right look it it is what it is. Like, he did it to himself. At the end of the day, at the end of the day, our Kellis supporters, this is a public service announcement from me to you. From me to you. The thing that y'all should be the most angry about I'm gonna ask to give y'all a nugget right now. I'm gonna give y'all a little bit of credit right now The thing that y'all should be the most angry about You ready? I'm gonna tell you what y'all should be angry about Y'all should be angry about the fact if a C T The fact That he did that shit He Did that shit I Can't make this shit up y'all he did that Shit, that's why y'all should be mad. Don't get mad at us because we reading transcripts and reading the facts under oath He did it So if you're gonna be mad at anybody you should be writing him like man, why would you do that? We are here fighting for you. We are here doing all this. We up here arguing with bloggers We up here setting people cars on fire. We appear trying to And you did that shit Did it he did it Nobody fabricated nothing against him He did it So if you want to be mad at anybody Be mad at R. Kelly for doing it Now people talk they say oh Why don't y'all say nothing about Larry when he did his thing when Larry did what he did Larry got on here himself and said I did that shit So R. Kelly need to get all that I didn't do this stuff Really? So, everybody lying. The dogs lying. The paperclip lying. The highlighters lying. The gavel lying. The necks, the flies, the birds, the clouds. Everybody line on our kill Right, is that what it come down to y'all everybody line, okay What's up James Harris, what's up, bro, bro, I saw you over there man It ain't even now. Here's the thing. I called in on Dana Channel Trying to have some friendly dialogue And ask him bro is your cage you off your medicine or what the hell? Why would you get on your live? You want to talk about Lizette? You want to talk about Larry? You want to talk about OC or be like have you lost? your mind Obviously he Missed his prescription. I don't know what the hell wrong with Dana Jay But at the end of the day, I never knew that the losing team Keeps coming after the champs like that. I mean, I I know you try to compete but if you You can't win you can't win bro, like just concede like go follow something else like like like do the the the the the gabby uh, uh case like or talk about Uh, amard. Aubrey is something that maybe you might you know, start over you ever push the reset button bro start over You ain't gonna get this R. Kelly thing not like you want it You know, he did it. That's the bottom line. He did it so You know, he should yeah Exactly. He should have he should have just like like West Coast Bell say should have just played guilty Should have just caught the plea got about what five six seven years and been out No, he want to go to trial. He want to bring it all out He wants to see if he still has the control over these women if they sit right in front of him Are they gonna ask you say in front of their face that yes, he did these things You know, you got videotapes out there. You know, you got iPads full of Pornography and children and you have a sex with kids and you You Force

Speaker 5: the information to be released. You forced the prosecution's hand. They didn't have a choice.

Speaker 2: Just saying. Just saying. Y'all know what? I don't see how he not gonna get a life sentence. I don't see how he not 25 years is like we all that don't know 25 years is like He gonna get that Combined with the Chicago and all that Yeah Don't get mad at us because we read in the we read in the facts. That's it. Don't get mad at us Why are we gonna argue with y'all and it's all the cases? He's been convicted already like, we didn't have to fight with y'all this hard before the man got convicted. Why now after all the evidence is out, we talking about the evidence, We reading the evidence, we reading what was said under oath, now, now you got a problem with OCOB. Now you got a problem with Atmos Love because Atmos over here reading facts. Well, let me know how that work out for you. Because the facts of this, you can't knock us off our square. We have a bunch of very extremely smart people over here on this team. that have been studying this thing that know if I'm ever wrong on something people be sending me stuff like at least you said this wrong at miss you wrong I don't listen let me let me help y'all out I don't know everything about this case y'all I don't sometimes I might say some shit so I'm like oh at least that was wrong oh my bad I misspoke okay I make mistakes I'm human forgive me okay but when I am corrected I will come on and say you know what y'all I made a mistake this what I meant to say okay so let me clear that up I don't always say the right stuff I'm not I don't I'm not a walking dictionary I don't know all the laws right but one thing I do know let me tell you what I do know I know how to read now that's one thing I do know how to do and so what we gonna do today is we gonna read read read read matter of fact let me I'm gonna play a little gift for y'all right quick cuz y'all this is one area what what Atmos did did pretty good in school okay I got something hold up

Speaker 5: Take a look, it's in a book, a bleeding rainbow, I can't go anywhere, I can't go anywhere, Friends to know, a place to grow, a breathing rainbow. I can be anything. Take a look, it's in our book, a breathing rainbow. Breathing rainbow. ♪ Rainbow ♪ Ooh

Speaker 2: ♪ Ooh Read a rainbow. We read over here. That's what we do. Okay. So before we get to our reading y'all, somebody sent this to me and I think it was pretty, pretty interesting. So I'm gonna let y'all see it too. Let me share this with y'all. Atmosphere clown a little bit too y'all. I like to have some fun sometimes. It ain't just straight reading transcripts. Now, we have a little bit of fun over here too. Y'all check this out.

Speaker 8: When R. Kelly won an acquittal on child pornography charges back in 2008, he was guilty as hell, according to the lawyer who defended him back then. The lawyer, Ed Jensen, says he was so convinced of Kelly's guilt, he made him take drugs to suppress his sex drive before the trial. He was guilty as hell. I'll tell you a secret. I had him go to a doctor to get libido killing shots. That's why he didn't get arrested for anything else. Jensen is now 77 and gravely ill. He spoke to Chicago Sun-Times reporter, Neil Steinberg. He was basically dying and wanted to talk to someone. And I prompted him, I said, guilty as hell. And he said, yeah, he was guilty as hell. People betrayed me and I'll keep on giving them. There are more shocking moments from Gayle King's now famous interview with Kelly. Watch what happened when the CBS This Morning host asked him about his former girlfriend, Dominique Gardner. She and her mother were featured in the documentary, Surviving R. Kelly.

Speaker 9: She had to rescue her daughter. Rescue? Oh, really? She said she had to rescue her daughter, yes. Be careful, Gail. And that Dominique was held against her will. Be careful. I'm just telling you that these are the allegations. No, but you're not just telling me this. You're saying this, Gail. You're breaking my heart. You're saying this like you believe it.

Speaker 8: Michael Avenatti, the attorney for the family of current girlfriend, Asriel Clary, claims Kelly had a suicide pact with a number of women.

Speaker 10: Prior victims of Mr. Kelly have independently told me within the last two weeks that there was a suicide pact that existed when they were in his inner circle. Namely, that if Mr. Kelly told them to take their lives, they would have done it.

Speaker 8: Yao King appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last night talking about Kelly's shocking meltdown.

Speaker 9: It became very troubling to me to see him really just fall apart. I thought we were witnessing the self-destruction of a man having a breakdown. And that's never a good thing to see. Never.

Speaker 2: That lawyer said he was guilty as hell. Dism. It makes me wonder what Linda Mitch would have said over state. Something tells me there's some foul play with that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Do I have any readers up in here? Up in here. Let me see. Let me put this in here for y'all. Put this in here. Let me paste this. If I have any readers up in here that wanna help me, please hit the link. I will share the link. I'll pin the message, the link to the top of the chat. If you wanna come up in here and help your brother read, please feel free. Please feel free, y'all. Please feel free. We're gonna get into this today, y'all. We're gonna get into this today. Let me Yeah, English girl. How are you? How you doing? You're on mute. What's up, Quay?

Speaker 11: Hey.

Speaker 2: How you doing?

Speaker 12: Good, I didn't think you was coming on this early.

Speaker 2: Yeah, man, you know, I like to do little pop-ups every now and then.

Speaker 12: Oh, well, well, that's fine.

Speaker 2: I know it's been a while since I've been through live,

Speaker 7: so I'm just calling for you. I'm calling you right now. Get out of my way, get out of my way, get out of my way.

Speaker 2: I'm a genuine person, like, if I love you, I love you.

Speaker 13: Hey, English girl. Hello, good evening. Sorry, I've been playing around with this mic.

Speaker 2: Hey, Mary. Hey. Mary Jane is in the building. How you doing?

Speaker 14: I'm in love with Mary Jane.

Speaker 2: Hey, okay, okay.

Speaker 5: Do, you want me to marry Jane? Oh, no, no, no, you want me to play this song, see? Do,

Speaker 13: Can I make a little speech? Yes. Lovely singing, you need to get a little mini Oscar for yesterday, the parts you were playing. You tripped up though, I was waiting for you to trip up and you did, but you were fantastic. And there was a comment from SK that keeping me up, I'm fine, I work from home, my time is my own. And just to say, thank you guys for having me. Listen, I want all of you.

Speaker 2: Thank you so much. All of you. Thank you so much. We appreciate you. You have definitely brought a whole different like flavor to this whole thing. Like, wow, like it's amazing. So y'all today we have on the stand, Mr. Julius Darrington. Julius Darrington, this is R. Kelly's like, you know, I guess like one of his right hand man, okay. And so we're going to be reading today and this also starts, this also starts the government's closing. So we about to get into it, okay. So if we could, obviously we would love for you to state a judge, if you would, Ms. English.

Speaker 13: Yes, please.

Speaker 2: Mary, if you wouldn't mind, join the government. Oh. Is it OK with you? Absolutely. Awesome. Quay, you know what to do?

Speaker 12: Yeah, which one of these emails do I pull up, the 923 or 927?

Speaker 2: Pull up 920. Do you have 922?

Speaker 12: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Pull that one up. That's day 21.

Speaker 12: All right.

Speaker 2: OK. And let me, oh, I didn't even shout nobody out in the chat. I am tripping. Hold on, y'all. What's up, T-Bam? How you doing? A2L underscore 908. Hello, I'm McQueen Newton. Just Videos. What's up, Just Videos? How you doing? West Coast Bells in the building. Tyra, Terry, thank you so much for that blessing. I appreciate it. Boom, boom, boom. Let me see. Both of the West Coast Bells is in here. Okay, okay, okay Boom boom, let me Robinson. Hello team truth warrior. I'm sorry true strong warriors in the building How you doing Shaw baby? What's going on? Say at miss you are a mess, but I love you. Hope you're doing good Keep up. Oh, thank you so much shot, baby. Appreciate you Indigo. What's going on Indigo Indigo? How you doing? Hold on. Let me see y'all. I want to miss nobody James Harris, what's up, bro, bro? Haha, what's up, brother? How you doing? And these doggone? Hold on. All right question here. Hey fake berries. How are you? How you doing? How you doing? Let me see. Let me see Hey, I just shot a how you doing? What's going on? Welcome in here. Welcome in Let me see Who else up in here Karen Johnson, hello DJ amazing You're on mute, brother. DJ Amazing, you there, brother? Let me see. Atmos asked a question on the page about R. Kelly defense team. Oh, my God. Trina Peehive went behind everyone's comments saying the most uninformed, ignorant stuff. I know. It'd be crazy. You're on mute, DJ Amazing, if you want to speak, brother. What's up, Spartan? What up, what up, what up, what up? How you doing, man? I'm blessed, bro, blessed. Awesome, hey, you want to help me read today? Hey, man, look, I'm just, you know what, fuck it, I'll do it. Yes, please. Awesome, man, I'm going to have you be Julius Darrington. He the first one to come up, so that'd be perfect, bro.

Speaker 13: Oh, I got the men on for you, didn't I? Yes, you did. You used to get ass with a man, come on.

Speaker 2: Yes. Y'all, we got DJ Amazing in the building. Go ahead and introduce yourself, brother. DJ Amazing. Hey, D Grand.

Speaker 12: Go DJ.

Speaker 2: Go DJ, it's your birthday. What's up, Tameka Stocks? Hey, Lana Stinson, hello. Okay, y'all. Hey, Ashley Colick. My first time seeing you here. Welcome to the channel. Mary Ann green. How you doing queen? How you doing? How you doing? How you doing? All right sk what up sk All right. Hold on. He back. Oh dj amazing I think it's two of you up here So i'm gonna take one of these off All right, you just came in up under another one so Okay, y'all let's get into this. Let's get into this DJ amazing is here. He said you're gonna help me read. So that's awesome. Hey, what's going on Bridget Brooks? How you doing? Welcome to the channel. Welcome to the channel If you like what you hear, please subscribe. We appreciate your sister still going. Oh cov was good I'm going back to the bushes on the laptop. That's okay. Thank you for coming over. Hi D grand. Okay, let's get it Alright, here we go. So First things first, we pull this up, open the proceedings, the courtroom, deputy says, is everybody ready? All right. So Mary, this is your first time on here. So whatever it says, so you're going to be doing a cross-examination on Julius Darrington. So whatever it says, like government or to say Q, like for question. got you. This is always okay. All right. So and you'll probably be talking a lot right now because you're talking back and forth with the judge, but we about to get into this.

Speaker 13: So I'll start it off. All rise. Everybody can have a seat. Okay, just a few things before we start. I got Mr. scholar submissions on the jury charge, and also in response to the government's application to admit Mr Smith's grand jury testimony. I think that the hang-up here is which statute was in existence at the time the government is talking about. I think that's what's happened. I think that's what's changed. What Mr Scholar requests I don't think was in the statute at the time that we're talking about. so do you want to double-check that Mr. Scholar? I will judge. Okay but I'm pretty sure that's correct. With respect to the application to admit the grand jury testimony I'm denying the application. I don't really even think the testimony is inconsistent which is one of the requirements and the cases that permit this as well as the rule require require that it be inconsistent now that's you

Speaker 2: Mary whoever says miss Cruz Melendez and miss Gettysham okay your honor so I'm

Speaker 13: not permitting it and I don't want to discuss it anymore okay so what else do

Speaker 2: we have to discuss this morning your honor we would like to make further the argument on the requested charge. Mr Farinella has some more authority for the court's consideration. On what topic? Your Honour, the email that the government has sent with regard to the additional language. What language? It's a very long charge. Well, there was an email sent by the government on Tuesday, September 21st, with regard to the enterprise and adding additional language to the jury charge to include additional language on the jury's instructions with regard to the definition of enterprise. Okay. Do you object to that? The language they're seeking to add, your honor, they are in the case that they that they cite and the language that it comes from are cases where there are conspirator and co-conspirator defendants?

Speaker 13: Um, I don't think that matters, but go ahead. Well? You're saying that given the charge hinges on whether there are other people that are also charged?

Speaker 2: Well, yes, I think that the cases that I real deal with co-defendants, co-conspirators who had knew of the illicit activity that they were engaging in. There are the other acts though that may have taken place and they're trying to assert that they were unaware of those other acts.

Speaker 13: No, I don't understand that to be the case. I think the law says that in an enterprise I don't think all of the people that make up the enterprise have to be aware. Well, maybe I'm wrong about that. Let me ask the government. I'm pretty sure that's right, but...

Speaker 14: Yes, that's right. The government's position is, as set forth in the language we propose, that every member of the enterprise does not need to know everything that the enterprise is doing. And importantly, that the critical question for the jury is that the defendant had the requisite criminal intent. It makes no difference whether other members of the enterprise had criminal intent. And the reason for that is simple, that the law recognized that an enterprise allows someone to become much more powerful. And under racketeering, I'm sorry, um, and under racketeering, it states that a defendant can use a legitimate enterprise to commit a pattern of racketeering acts. And that makes him guilty of racketeering. it is irrelevant that the other members of the enterprise, what criminal, if any criminal intent they had. And I think that the language as proposed just reflects that basic black letter law that is frankly reflected as a language in the statute itself.

Speaker 2: Your honor, in the first case, they cite which is USA versus Rustelly. The court says basically that the knowledge of the enterprise can be inferred from eminence of close association or other co-conspirators with the required knowledge and from participation with members of the enterprise. So what they're saying is that these are co-conspirators who engage in illicit illegal activity. And in this case, it's distinguishable because this would be an association of fact. Technically the enterprise that's an association of fact and I think that there is a distinction and I think that this charge this additional language and Definition would cause confusion for the jurors

Speaker 13: But I just don't understand the opposite I just sorry where am I but I just don't understand the opposite of what you're saying is That everybody has to know about it. Is that your position?

Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that, for example, in a conspiracy RICO case, for example, organized crime where there are members who are engaged in illegal gambling, loan sharking, while they all don't know the other's entire activities, they are all acting together for an illicit means, a financial gain, reward at the end, and in the ambient that they want to assert, that they didn't realize that someone else in the enterprise is going to be, would commit murder or other acts. They can't, and they can't allege the ignorance to those issues. And I think that what these cases are discussing, because they were all, the cases in which all sided deal with the with co-conspirators who all were engaged in the illicit illegal activity that they knew. And so.

Speaker 13: Well that's one kind of racketeering case. I mean there are those kind of classic racketeering cases where the enterprise itself is illegal. But the law is equally clear that the enterprise can be a not illegal enterprise. So that's just a different kind of case. I don't think you are going to find any case that says that every person who makes up the enterprise has to know about every single thing that's going on. I'm quite certain that's not the law.

Speaker 2: Well, when you're building an association effect, they have to have some understanding of the underlying language that's charged in the incident.

Speaker 13: I would love to see a case that says that, but I don't think that's what I think the statuette itself says, something quite different.

Speaker 2: Again, Your Honor, based upon my reviewing of the cases that the government cited, they were not cases from association of fact cases. They were co-conspirators who were alleging that they weren't aware of certain activity. Now that activity was actually intertwined because they knew they were engaging in some illegal activity for illegal, that was illegal for financial reward.

Speaker 13: I don't have the cases at my fingertips, but what charge did the judge give in that case?

Speaker 2: The charge said that for the co-conspirators who are engaging in illicit, illegal activity for financial reward can't say that they're not part of this enterprise.

Speaker 13: Because they don't know every piece of it.

Speaker 2: Correct.

Speaker 13: Are you saying that every member of enterprise has to be, I guess, indictable? Indictable? Is that what you're saying, that they have to know that the enterprise is criminal? I don't think-

Speaker 2: Well, that's the question, your honor. So a CEO, for example, who is using his staff to funnel in women or whatever to engage in some sort of activity, that staff doesn't know what's happening. You know, it begs the question as to whether or not, you know, there's an enterprise. I mean the fact remains that in the instance if the court's going to Contemplate this charge then I think it should be made clear that the enterprise itself Can't be just one person the person the defendant himself and the enterprise

Speaker 13: I think it says that The enterprise that's what the child says So it's always helpful to me The reason why I send out the charge in advance is so I can get feedback and time to fit it in. I'm not sure I understand what you want me to do. I don't think that you'll find a case that requires that every member of the enterprise acts with the same criminal intent as the person who's been charged. I just don't think that's the law. What's required is the existence of the structure that enables the defendant or whoever's been charged to carry out what the illegal activity is. I think I have that right and I don't think there's any additional requirement that every single person who makes up that enterprise has to also act with the same criminal intent. If you have a case that says otherwise I will certainly look at it, but I think the language the government submitted is a correct statement of the law. I'm just curious. I know Rainier hasn't been appealed yet, but I'm sure this was the same charge that Judge Garraffi gave in Rainier.

Speaker 14: Certainly, the submission that we offered to the court was drawn from the court's charge in Rainier. I don't know that every last word is the same, but...

Speaker 13: Well, I have the Rainier charge, I haven't compared them, but the RICO charge was similar. But I think that there was a RICO conspiracy charge in that case too. But in any event, if you have a case and you want to submit it, you can do that. I just like to make sure that everybody has what the charge is going to be before they sum up. I'm not inclined to change it.

Speaker 2: I appreciate that, Your Honor, and this came as a separate email suggestion, so it wasn't in the original charge. This is an additional charge that the government has.

Speaker 13: I know that, and that's fine.

Speaker 2: By the way, y'all, I seriously double, triple, million percent doubt that Azriel will actually be on Choke No Jokes' actual channel. I think what he'll probably do is talk about it and let people call in and talk like they did before. But I don't see her going on his channel. I could be wrong, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. So that's just, we'll see, I guess. All right. I appreciate that your honor. And, and this same, this came as a separate email suggestion. So it wasn't an original charge. This is an additional charge that the government has.

Speaker 13: I know that, that's fine.

Speaker 2: I would appreciate if the court would just give me...

Speaker 13: Well, the summation's going to start today, so it's time we're wasting. All right, anything else? Hold on, yeah. I understand you're not calling the expert, is that correct?

Speaker 2: Okay, Mr. Scholar, where'd you stop at, correct?

Speaker 13: Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker 2: That is correct, Your Honor.

Speaker 13: OK, so we just have the one witness.

Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. We have one witness, Your Honor, and we have some stipulations that are being worked out on. Unfortunately, we don't get home before 5 o'clock, and we have to put them together. And we've got to coordinate with our staff.

Speaker 13: I haven't gotten mad or anything.

Speaker 2: Well, I've gotten a lot of chatter.

Speaker 13: Whoa.

Speaker 14: The government is a bit upset because we have not seen any of these proposed stipulations, despite that council has been speaking about them for some time now. So we're obviously not going to enter into a stipulation until we've had an opportunity to review the proposed stipulation and compare the language to what we understand the evidence to be. But we're talking about things we haven't seen, so it's difficult to predict how much time we might need. How many are there?

Speaker 2: Probably about, in terms of probably inconsistent statements, probably about 20 to 25.

Speaker 13: You know, I've got to say, now we really have talked about this for a while, I'm not taking two hours to sit down and figure it out. We've been talking about this for a couple of weeks, I think.

Speaker 2: your honor the stipulations of the witnesses were confronted I know what it

Speaker 13: says I'm not quarreling with the topic I'm just quarreling with the timing because this is not news so someone on the defense team should draft the stipulations give them to the government and it should and it should happen before lunch and it should happen before lunch it will it will okay all right one On other topics, since I'm talking about things that make me impatient, what steps has the government taken to deal with the question of those recordings?

Speaker 14: Some of our tech people have been able to convert most of the videos into straight audio files. I believe there are two outstanding that require redactions and taking a little bit longer. We're hoping that we'll be able to have those finished around lunchtime. We will need an opportunity just to give it a listen to make sure that the redactions were properly done, and then it should be done by this afternoon.

Speaker 13: Okay, all right, now your witness is here. That's my understanding. We'll take the witness's testimony, we'll break to get these. Stipulations. Stipulations done, and then we'll, I guess, we can begin summations this morning. Do you have a preference for that? I want us to use our time as wisely as we can.

Speaker 14: The government is prepared to move forward with closing. We'll need a short break just to set everything up. My concern is the 20 to 25 prior inconsistent statements that we may be presented with at some point, and I honestly don't know how long that's going to take, but I'm prepared

Speaker 13: to give my closing. I think maybe it makes sense to take the lunch break before you start, then just to be, even if we have to go earlier for lunch. All right, why don't we get the witness and can get the jury. Just before we get the jury, let me just see the lawyers at the side for just a second. We don't need the reporter.

Speaker 2: Quay? Quay is not here. Hold on. Quay? Hello? Okay. You ready?

Speaker 12: Yeah. Go ahead. Say witness. I was talking. Witness takes the stand. Discussion held off the record at sidebar with the court reporter.

Speaker 2: All rise.

Speaker 13: rise. Jury enters. You may be seated. All right, Mr. Scholar, first of all, good morning everybody. Sorry about that. I'm trying to get things moving here. We are ready to proceed with the trial. Mr. Scholar, do you want to call your next witness?

Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honour. Julius Darrington. Please stand and raise your right hand.

Speaker 13: Witness warned.

Speaker 2: Thank you. You may be seated.

Speaker 13: Just a couple of things before we begin.

Speaker 2: Uh, where did DJ Amazing leave? Yeah, he bailed out. He bailed out, doggone. That's okay. I can handle it. Okay.

Speaker 13: Just a couple of things before we begin. Witness?

Speaker 2: Yes, okay, yes.

Speaker 13: Yes, I want to make sure everybody can hear you. So make sure you use the microphone. And if you want, you can always take it out of the stand if that becomes easier for you.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 13: The other thing is, please don't speak too quickly. Our court reporter takes down everything you say.

Speaker 2: OK.

Speaker 13: And if you speak too fast, it makes her job harder. For the same reason, let whichever lawyer is asking you questions to finish talking before you start talking. That way, we don't have cross-talk. If there's a question that isn't clear or you want to have repeated, let me know and I will have the lawyer clarify. And just do your best to answer only the question that you are being asked, OK? okay? Yes, your honor. Okay, great. Go ahead. Thank you, your honor.

Speaker 12: Continue on the next page. Oh, no. Oh, yeah. Continue on the next page. Julius Darrington,

Speaker 2: called as a witness having been first duly sworn and affirmed, was examined and testifies as follows. What do you do for a living? Music consultant. Have you ever worked in the A.L. A&R department? Yes. What is A&R? A&R stands for Artists and Records Department. And what do you do in the A&R? Well, A&R facilitates the music production as a specific album, production and engineering, mix, mastering. Pretty much the late liaison between the artists and the record company is A&R. And what labels have you worked for? Well I was A&R consultant for RCA. Any other labels? Um I did some consulting for a numbers or numerous independent labels but only major label was RCA. Do you know Robert Kelly? Yes. How do you know him? Um I worked as an A&R on his last project that he worked on over the last few years. And who introduced you to Mr. Kelly? D.J. Williams. D.J. Wayne Williams. And who is Wayne Williams? Wayne Williams is the senior, was a senior vice president at A&R and ACA Records. And what were you brought in to do? Well, I was actually brought in. Hey, CJ.

Speaker 7: Hi.

Speaker 2: All right, go on mute, CJ, because I hear you. I think you're driving, right?

Speaker 15: OK, give me one second. I need my AirPods anyway.

Speaker 2: OK, all right. OK, here we go. And what were you brought in to do? I was brought in to pretty much assist Wayne Williams with the A&R process of Mr. Kelly's album, Robert's album. Did you ever meet Mr. Kelly? Yes. And did you ever travel to Chicago? Y'all hold real quick. OK, I'm back. All right, hold on. All right. And did you ever travel to Chicago? Yes. How many times have you been in his presence? Years, a few years, every day almost. How many years did you provide A&R service for him? It was about four years, four years. And do you see him in the courtroom today, Mr. Kelly? Yes. Can you identify him by article of clothing that he's wearing? The white mask with the blue blazer.

Speaker 13: indicating the defendant.

Speaker 2: Now, when you were brought in, was there a specific project that you worked on? Not a specific project, just his music in general. The project actually hasn't and didn't form yet, but just facilitating records and ideas for a couple of possible albums.

Speaker 13: What year was this? I'm sorry, what year did you start working for him?

Speaker 2: I would say 2016.

Speaker 13: Okay, go ahead.

Speaker 2: And what duties did you have with respect to A&R for Mr. Kelly? Well I would bring him ideas, production ideas, song ideas, connecting with different, you know, mixing engineers. I worked side by side with him on the creative process of his album. And where would all these meetings take place with Mr. Kelly? Meetings as in what meetings that what do you mean? When you would discuss the A&R side of the project, where would you meet Mr. Kelly? We would meet at the studio, you know, we would meet at cigar lounges, but mainly the studio. How many hours would you be with Mr. Kelly? on average during the week I would probably be with him about about you know 10 to 12 hours a day or longer. And you can describe a typical day with respect to the A&R process with Mr. Kelly? Yeah pretty much a typical day was you know he would wake up about 5 or 6 p.m. in the evening give me a call text message and say yo come to the studio about, you know, seven o'clock, you know, eight o'clock, you know, I met him at the studio. We would go to the basketball gym. He would work out, play basketball. After basketball, we would pretty much go and go to the studio and work through the whole night. And the studio, well, don't you sound good? Yeah. And the studio that was your familiar, Oh, and the studio that you familiar with was on Justine. Yes, sir. And when you started working with Mr. Kelly, were you based in Chicago? I was actually based in Los Angeles. Did you move to Chicago? No, I didn't move to Chicago, but I was there a lot. And can you describe for the jury what the process was, and how did you go from Los Angeles to Chicago? Well, he would request me to come, And so, you know, they will book me a flight and a hotel to come stay in Chicago at the home, uh, Homewood Suites. And there I will stay and commute from the hotel to the studio and work. But sometimes it would be a couple of months at a time, three months at a time, maybe a couple of weeks. Did you ever spend a night at the studio and Justine? Well, we wouldn't start until like the morning. So yeah, technically. And when, Justine, would you stay, when you stayed there? You know, a couple of times I would just crash and sleep on the couch in the lounge area for a couple of hours or go back to my room. And where was the lounge area in relation to the studio area? When you talk, when you walk in the door, you open the door and there's a area with a bar, chairs, and a couch, a kitchen and a bathroom. And as soon as you walk into the studio, you know, you walk into the studio, there's one door, then you open up to a second door, and that's the lounge area. And where is the studio where the recording would be in relation to, you know, this room that you're talking about? Well, the recording studio was in, it was in a room behind the lounge area. So, you know, you will open up the door, open up another door, walk down the hallway, and you will, you know, be in a recording studio area. Oh, and when you observed these rooms, did you see any locks on the outside of the doors of these rooms? No. And during the time that you was with Mr. Kelly, providing A&R service, did you ever see any woman locked in the bed in these rooms? No. Did you ever hear any woman crying in their rooms? No. Did you ever hear Mr. Kelly striking or hitting anyone? No. Did you see him strike or hit anyone? No. Do you ever see Mr. Kelly's girlfriends? Yeah. And where would you see his girlfriends? I mean, I would see them outside of the truck, you know, coming in from various stores, you know, leaving back and forth. And were they carrying anything when you saw them? Shopping bags, mainly, from my observation. Were they by themselves? Yes, I would say, you know, yes. Now, were you ever with Mr. Kelly's girlfriends in the same room? Yeah. And when you enter the room where Mr. Kelly's girlfriends were, did you, or did they have to look, did they have to look at, well, did they have to look at a wall? No. And if one of Mr. Kelly's girlfriends entered a room where you were, did you leave, did you have to leave? No, I was never told to leave a room. Did you ever travel with Mr. Kelly? Yes. Where'd you travel to? Multiple places, man. Like specifically, I remember Phoenix, Arizona, and Dallas, St. Louis, South Charlotte, Charlotte. All right, hold on. All right, and where were these tours? of awardees or events? They were events. I would say events, spot dates, so to speak. And can you tell the jury what the distinction is between a tour and a spot date? Well, my distinction of a tour is a tour is usually about 10 to 10 or more concerts lined up back to back. A spot date is when you have one or two events, maybe three. I wouldn't consider that a tour. And when you travel with Mr. Kelly, were you going to a specific place? Yes. And what happens when you got to a place, when you go to a place where Mr. Kelly performed? Okay, everybody here, okay, good. Yes, he will perform, yes. Would you also attend the concerts? Yes. or what was the part, or what part of your, what was that part of your duties as an A&R? No. Why would you, why would you attend the concerts? Just to support him. And when Mr. Kelly traveled, would you, how would you travel? I would travel in the Sprinter van. And would you ride the Sprinter van with Mr. Kelly? Yeah. And would you also be in the presence of his girlfriends in the Sprinter van? No, I would be in the front. And as you rolled in the front, could you hear any woman screaming? No. Could you hear any other woman banging? No. Could you hear Mr. Kelly striking anybody? No. Did you hear any yelling? No. Did you ever go shopping with Mr. Kelly? Yes. How many times? A lot. Did you ever go shopping with Mr. Kelly and his girlfriend? Yes. What, if anything, did you see when went shopping with Mr. Kelly and his girlfriends? Repeat the question. When you went shopping with Mr. Kelly and his girlfriends? Yes. What did they do? Man, they looked at clothes and you know, I mean, Mr. Kelly would interact with people who noticed him, fans, take pictures, but mainly just look at clothes and, you know, shop. And when you observed Mr. Kelly's girlfriends during the entire time they were with him. How were they dressed? Man, just normal. I mean, normal clothes, nothing significant that I recall. And when you was at the studio, did you become familiar with the people that worked in the studio? Yes. Do you know a person named Donnie? Donnie, Danny, Deny? Deny? Yes, I think he had a nickname, El DeBarge. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And how about Jeff Meeks? Did you know Jeff Meeks? Yes. Are you still in the music industry today? Yes, I am. And what types of music are you doing? Music consulting and I own my own record label. Thank you. I have nothing further.

Speaker 13: All right, cross-examination.

Speaker 14: Yes, your honor. Good morning.

Speaker 2: Good morning.

Speaker 14: Mr. Darrington, you're from Toledo, Ohio, correct?

Speaker 2: Correct.

Speaker 14: And you didn't grow up with a defendant, right?

Speaker 2: Nope.

Speaker 14: And before meeting the defendant, you were a fan of him, of his, is that correct? Is that right?

Speaker 6: Yes.

Speaker 14: And working with him was kind of how you established yourself. The first time you established yourself with a major recording artist, correct?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: And you first met the defendant around in 2016, I think you said.

Speaker 11: Yes.

Speaker 14: And while you worked for the defendant or with the defendant, you were based in Los Angeles, correct?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: And he was not based in Los Angeles, correct? Correct. At that time, he was based in Chicago and sometimes Atlanta. Is that right?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: And so you weren't with him all the time, correct? Correct. In fact, there were times when the defendant wanted you to travel from LA to Chicago, and you didn't because you didn't have the funds at the time, correct? Not that I can recall. I'm showing this to the witness only. Do you see the text in blue on your screen?

Speaker 6: Yes.

Speaker 14: And these are texts you wrote to another individual, correct?

Speaker 2: Those are my texts, yes.

Speaker 14: And in these texts, you state, Rob asked me to fly out today or tomorrow and he will reimburse me, but I don't have 400 something right now for a flight. Just pay my rent, which is 2,300. And I paid rent for July ahead of time, so I'm flat. Does that refresh your recollection that there were times when the defendant wanted you to come from LA and you didn't have the funds?

Speaker 2: Well, that does refresh my memory about that particular time, yes.

Speaker 14: And that's what I'm asking you about, okay?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 14: Okay. Now, I assume you were never present when the defendant was engaged in sexual activity, correct? Correct, sir?

Speaker 3: Correct.

Speaker 14: And you were never present when the defendant filmed that sexual activity, correct? Correct. or any other activity that he filmed with his female guests and girlfriends, correct?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: And you had never seen any of those videos, correct?

Speaker 2: Objection, your, objection, your honor. Objection, your honor.

Speaker 13: Sorry, overruled.

Speaker 14: You can answer.

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: and you have no idea what's on them, correct?

Speaker 2: Objection.

Speaker 14: Well, sustained as to form. In fact, you have no knowledge of what the defendant did behind closed doors when you weren't there, correct?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: Now, I think you said you spent some time in the studio on Justine Street, right?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: And I think you said several hours each time, is that right?

Speaker 11: Correct.

Speaker 14: ever see an accountant there?

Speaker 11: Yes.

Speaker 14: And that was while you were in the studio recording with the defendant?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 14: So is it fair to say you spent, I think you testified on direct examination, you will show up around 7 or 8, go play basketball, and then spend hours and hours at the studio recording, correct?

Speaker 2: That's correct. So can you repeat?

Speaker 14: I'm sorry. There's no question pending, sir. Now, you testify you met certain people that a defendant worked with while you were present, correct? Correct. And I'm showing you what's in evidence, and this can go to everyone. Government Exhibit 14, you met this person, correct? Correct. Donnell Russell, correct? Correct. You met him through the defendant?

Speaker 2: I met him around the defendant, yes, but not through the defendant.

Speaker 14: Nothing further. Any read all right?

Speaker 2: Yes, briefly.

Speaker 14: OK.

Speaker 2: Do you know a person named John Holder? Yes. Who is John Holder? That's Mr. Kelly's former accountant. Did you see John Holder when you go to the studio? Yes, John Holder was in the studio before, yes. And why was John Holder there? usually holding meetings. Nothing further, thank you.

Speaker 13: Anything else? No, your honor. Can I see the parties at the sidebar a minute, please? Just about scheduling. Sorry, sir. Sorry, sir, you can step down.

Speaker 12: Witness excused. Continue on the next page. The following- Sidebar.

Speaker 3: Okay, go ahead.

Speaker 12: The following occurred at Sybar.

Speaker 13: Is the defendant going to testify?

Speaker 2: No, Your Honor, he is not going to testify.

Speaker 13: Well, I'm going to excuse the jury so I can have you put that on the record. What is our timing with regard to stipulations?

Speaker 2: What time is it now?

Speaker 13: 10.30.

Speaker 2: Be back by 11.15.

Speaker 13: I think that's fine. What is the, what about motions? Are you, you are going to rest?

Speaker 2: I was thinking since we only have summations lined up that I would just do a brief motion. I wasn't going to go into that now.

Speaker 13: You can actually make, you can make the motion and I'm going, I'm probably going to deny it and then let it go to the jury, all right. So I'll send the jury out and I'll have Mr. Kelly put on the record that he does not wish to testify. And then I'll have them come back here at 1130. Let's see.

Speaker 14: We still have not seen any of those 20 to 25.

Speaker 13: I know.

Speaker 14: In fact, it depends in part on when we will actually receive them.

Speaker 2: What we'll do, I guess I think the majority of them have been prepared. So we can get to go back and we'll send them at least 50% of them. I just need my office to finish typing them up.

Speaker 13: So the issue is, as I said, I might have mentioned this just in passing to Mr. Scholar and Ms. Shahita, that there may be some question about whether there actually is. I would imagine that the language for the most part would be similar and you just have a list of what's to be seen by the jurors. Let me just, if they're not going to stipulate, then what?

Speaker 2: Then we'll call the agent again.

Speaker 14: Again, not knowing what these are about, I don't know. I'm confident we will. I'm sorry. He may not have done the interview.

Speaker 2: But, I mean, he's staff. I mean, he's the case agent and he reviewed all these reports.

Speaker 14: Look, we're not going to make you call the agent if, Sorry, you were moving the screen. If what's, if the agent, if we know the agent had testified as to what you wanted in the stipulation, but I just can't say it enough that this is really frustrating that you have not had, that you've had these for so long and we kept being promised them and we don't have them. I would like to close today.

Speaker 13: Yes, you're right. We're going to close today. Everybody take the temperature down a little bit. You say that to me? It goes to me too. I mean everybody. The temperature has been pretty good so far.

Speaker 2: Thank you.

Speaker 13: There's no point in looking back now. We can sit here and have a fight about it, but then it's not getting done. So let's get it done. I'm going to send the jury out. I'm going to tell them noon. Do you know how long you're going to be?

Speaker 14: 228 pages.

Speaker 13: All right, the only thing that I'm going to suggest is that maybe we'll do it when we bring them back and have the long awaited stipulations. Are we going to read them all into the record?

Speaker 2: No, we're going to use them for summation purposes.

Speaker 13: And then we'll have you rest in front of the jury and then break for lunch and then start afterwards.

Speaker 14: Okay.

Speaker 13: You want to formally rest who?

Speaker 14: I think we rested.

Speaker 13: They have to rest after you.

Speaker 14: And I will say, depending on what the stips are, there could be a rebuttal stip, but let's see what it is.

Speaker 12: All right. Sidebar conference ends. Let's see your next page.

Speaker 2: Y'all, he got a dumb ass defense, I'm sorry.

Speaker 14: Stop what he's done. The judge is hilarious. She's like, I'm going to deny it, but you can submit it anyway.

Speaker 13: What was the point in putting Darrington on?

Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out what relevance to the case. You know what I think? I think they couldn't find nobody. Exactly. When they had to put somebody up there, just go up there and be nice.

Speaker 14: Exactly, that's why they couldn't find their witnesses yesterday. It's insane.

Speaker 12: Yeah, and then he keeps asking them somewhat the same question about like, did you ever hear Mr. Kelly beat anybody? Did you hear that same question?

Speaker 2: Same question. All right, judge.

Speaker 13: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to excuse you probably until noon. There's some legal matters that we have to address. My expectation is that we will have a few little matters before you. Then we'll break for lunch. And then we'll begin closing arguments this afternoon. don't talk about the case as I said I do apologize for the stops and starts but it happens in every trial so please don't talk about the case at all and we'll see you in a little bit. Do you have access? Already I mean I think that means all right everybody can have a seat I understand from council that Mr Kelly does not wish to testify so Mr Kelly I'm just asking you You can take your mask off if you want. Have you had a chance to discuss the decision of whether to testify with your lawyers?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, ma'am, your honor.

Speaker 13: And is it your wish not to testify?

Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am.

Speaker 13: Okay, and that's a decision that you've made freely. And that's what you want to do. You don't. Sorry, you don't want to testify, correct?

Speaker 6: Yes.

Speaker 13: You can have a seat. So we talked at the sidebar about these stipulations and let's get to it. Thank you. Is there anything else that we have to do before that? All right?

Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honour.

Speaker 13: Okay, so I just need to see Miss Cruz Melendez and Mr. Kanika's sidebar for two seconds. Discussion off the record. so we will be in recess until 1130 in the meantime mr. Farinella if you want to send me any cases on that subject that you raised I'll consider it okay

Speaker 12: thank you your honor thank you recess taken continue on the next page in open

Speaker 13: Court. Jury not present. Parties present. All rise. Okay, the stipulations all taken care of?

Speaker 14: No, Your Honour. Do you have them? We received them 14 minutes ago. How much time do you need to go over them? Some time. There are several of them. I think we're going to need at least an hour.

Speaker 13: All right, nothing. Let me just ask. All right, I'm just trying to figure out the schedule here. it. Again, you know, I'm not a big believer in looking backwards. I am more than a little annoyed this was not done before, because we discussed it on several occasions, but it is what it is. I think what still has to be done in front of the jury is for the defence to rest, and I guess we cannot do that until after we sort this out. So I think that I should probably bring the jury out and tell them we probably won't have them back until after two because their lunches do not come closer do not come until until closer to one o'clock and it is too late now to change the time on that and then to the extent that I have got to hear any kind of disagreement between the two sides about what should be stipulated to and what should not and I do not think any of this is the key to the case. I think that you know witnesses were cross-examined about statements, they gave in pre-trial interviews. All of the interviews say at the top it is not a verbatim transcript and with each and every one the same questions were asked. So the question about whether something is inconsistent I think is probably going to be the only point of contention. So how many of these are, how many of them are there?

Speaker 14: It looks like there are about 24 inconsistencies, plus we were given at least two other, yeah, two other proposed stipulations that we're reviewing.

Speaker 13: Okay, anything else besides this that we have to resolve?

Speaker 2: Your Honor, I'm uncertain as to, you know, whether or not defense exhibits A, B and C were admitted into evidence. I just wanted to confirm.

Speaker 13: I think they probably were. I think they were, but... I don't.

Speaker 2: Oh, you know what happened? Initially, I started offering them. I offered as one, two, and three, and then the court reminded me it's A, B, and C. So that's probably why.

Speaker 13: They are in, I think, right? Yes. I'm just checking with Ms. Green. A or Ms. Green? A, B, C, D, N, E. Okay, okay, thank you. So I think I'm going to tell the jury that we will start at 1.30 because Ms. Green, we can do everything, has already tried to get their lunch here a little earlier and I think that makes some sense. So I think what I will do is bring them in and tell them that we will see them back here at 1.30, all right?

Speaker 2: Sorry, my cat is meowing. I heard the cat meowing at lunch, I can't stop the meowing. All rise.

Speaker 13: Jury enters the courtroom. You may be seated. All right, jurors, again in the interest of making the best use of your time and ours, I think it makes sense for us to get your lunch here a little bit early and so I'm going to shoot for getting us all back together at 1.30 and obviously if your lunches do not get here in time we'll have to think, we'll have to tinker with that a little bit but I'm going to excuse you until 1.30. I appreciate your patience, this is fairly common in trials so please do not talk about the case at all but we will see you back here in a little bit. Thanks so much. All rise. Jury exits the courtroom. You may be seated. Okay anything else before we break break for

Speaker 12: whatever this is? No. Okay all right. Lunch and recess taken. Continued on the next page.

Speaker 13: All rise. Everybody can sit down. Defendant enters the courtroom. Okay, just before I hear from you on this question of stipulations, with respect to the charge, I did review Boyle v. United States, which is a case that Mr. Farinelli submitted. doesn't stand for the proposition that every member of the enterprise has to participate or know about its activities. But one thing I will say about the government's proposed charge, which is on a really entirely separate matter, is that I think the first two sentences, moreover, it is not necessary to prove that every member of the enterprise participated in or knew about all its activities. Rather, it is sufficient that the defendant know the general nature of the enterprise and know that the enterprise extends beyond his individual role. The next two sentences are, well I mean the next two sentences are really not appropriate for a case like this. It may be appropriate some other case but the language that is not necessary to prove that the enterprise or its members acted with criminal intent is I don't think is appropriate in this case so I'm not going to give that. The other thing that I noticed just looking through the charge is that there's no charge currently in the charge about I think it's Lewis who has an agreement with the government and I assume you want that in the charge, correct? Yes, Your Honor. So there's some language. We probably have it. But if somebody can submit that language to me, and then to the extent that there should be a charge of Mr. Smith, who I think was given immunity, I don't know if there needs to be a charge for him. Those are the only two that I can recall. Your Honor, with respect to Your Honor's ruling about those second two sentences, I thought I could go through that so quickly that you would forget about it. Not so.

Speaker 14: Not so, Your Honor. We anticipate that the defense is going to argue that there was nothing illegal about the enterprise. And we're not saying that there was something illegal about the enterprise. And so that is why we wanted additional language to make clear that they, the jury, only needs to find that defendant acted with criminal intent. not that anyone else acted with criminal intent. Because I think that's going to be a significant

Speaker 13: focus of defense's closing. Well, I mean, I think that's an accurate statement of the law, but I don't think the sentence that the enterprise, I think the rest of the charge adequately conveys that. But that one sentence I don't think does. Obviously, the defendant has to act with the requisite intent. I don't think anybody will quarrel with that. I think I say that in other places in the charge but I will add that sentence again. I'm just not going to put under the circumstance of this case. I think it would be confusing to say that the enterprise doesn't when the person who is the head of enterprise is the defendant under the government theory so I mean maybe there's a different way to phrase it but when you look at it it's confusing and I think as applied to these facts the rest of the charge actually does have all of that so I mean if there's an argument that I mean I don't think it's a matter of dispute at least it shouldn't be that enterprise can take all kinds of forms the charge goes on at some length about that but i don't think that that one sentence is appropriate and so if something comes up during the summation that makes me change my mind we can revisit that then so just with respect to the charge then the charge with respect to i think it's cooperation agreement with respect to lewis and then with respect to mr smith i assume the defense has no objection to that is that correct No Jan. Okay and then what are we doing about stipulations? So we have reached

Speaker 14: agreement as to some, but with respect to certain of the stipulations of prior statements, the government does oppose the omission of some prior statements because we don't believe they were inconsistent. In several instances, and I can address them one by one, but in several... Do it slowly whatever you do. In several instances on cross-examination the witness was asked whether or not they recall making a particular statement and their answer was no they didn't recall it and they were not asked specifically whether that statement was true or not and so simply saying that you don't recall making a statement it's not inconsistent with the substance of the statement and so I don't think that those particular prior statements should be omitted because they're just not consistent with anything.

Speaker 13: Do you have a list? I do. Maybe it's easier for me to look at it.

Speaker 14: Yes. So I'm going to talk first with, about Jane. Lewis and Alice, how do you pronounce her name?

Speaker 2: Alice, uh, uh, um.

Speaker 14: Alizé.

Speaker 2: Yeah, Alizé, yeah.

Speaker 14: Alizé, if that's okay.

Speaker 13: Sure. Is this an extra copy? I just want to make sure you do it in the microphone.

Speaker 14: I might have just given you my copy. Sorry. That's okay. So with respect to number four, where Jane was asked about whether the defendant, whether she said that the defendant masturbated in front of her while she was singing, her response to the court was, I don't recall. Right. And so as far as I can see, there's not an inconsistent statement. She wasn't asked, was he masturbating in the room while you were singing?

Speaker 13: So what's your response?

Speaker 2: Okay, hold on. Hey, Tanya.

Speaker 16: Hey, everyone. I just got home, I saw you were live, so I thought I'd pop in. You probably don't need me, but.

Speaker 2: Hold on, hold on. I just might, because it's a lot. Like, but English, you are doing such a, I know you said you had a cold. Yeah. And I can hear it. Are you okay? You want to take a, why don't we sub you out for a little bit and let-

Speaker 13: Yeah, and then you guys, I'm gonna make some honey and lemon. Okay. All right, thank you. Yeah. All right.

Speaker 2: Okay. You're gonna take over, I don't know if you know where we are right now.

Speaker 16: I don't, I just need to know the number of the line.

Speaker 2: We're on line 15, which is Canik, which is page 4243.

Speaker 16: And I'm the court, right?

Speaker 2: You are the court, yes. All right. I'm gonna start at 15, Mr. Canik.

Speaker 16: Perfect.

Speaker 2: I think I don't recall if the basis for the introduction of a prior inconsistent statement.

Speaker 16: I actually don't recall if it is.

Speaker 2: Look, I think it is, Your Honor.

Speaker 16: The basis, if someone says they don't remember something, whether they told them that. But they... Wait, did she tell them or did she not tell them?

Speaker 14: She was asked whether she remembered telling the government. Right. that particular event happening, whether she was not asked was the defendant, isn't it true that the defendant was in the room masturbating? She wasn't asked that. Because if she was asked that, then her statement, and if she said no, then her statement where she said that she was in the room while the defendant was masturbating would be of course inconsistent.

Speaker 16: But I don't think that it's so much the question of inconsistency. If someone testifies to something on their direct testimony, And then they're asked, basically, you never told that to the government. Isn't that the question or is it something different?

Speaker 14: No, because on direct examination, she testified about some events that had happened. She didn't say whether or not the defendant was masturbating or not masturbating. It just wasn't part of the testimony. And what defense counsel would have done was said, isn't it true that the defendant was masturbating?

Speaker 16: Well, I'm still confused here Because is it the fact that she, why would the defense bring out that she said that in her statement? So I thought that the issue was that she testified about that. I mean, and I have no recollection, I must say, what she said about it, but.

Speaker 2: Your honor, my recollection.

Speaker 16: I will tell you the other reason why this is so annoying is that this should have been done before and it's not. I shouldn't have to be sitting here waiting for a jury looking at this stuff, and there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 disputed statements, and I'm not happy about it. This is not the way this should have been done. This was brought up some time ago, and doing it at this last minute like this is not the way things should be happening. Let me ask this. Is any of this, I guess you've got to get the evidence in before the summations start. I just don't, I'm not prepared to make the jury wait. So

Speaker 2: if you want. I saw you, Ms. Gannis. Sorry, I was on mute. Your Honor, I'm prepared to

Speaker 14: close. I don't need a resolution as to these particular... Ooh. Your Honor, I'm prepared to close. I don't need a resolution as to these particular matters prior to my closing. I'm not going to be referencing any of these statements and we could deal with this after that if the defense wants to close subject to.

Speaker 16: Well, I can decide it. I don't imagine that Mr. Kandik is going to start today, so I can decide it after the government summations. But what I want is, and I want this from the defense, and there are four lawyers sitting at that table, so what I want is where this is in the testimony. Why it's an inconsistency and whatever the rule is about when a witness says the person doesn't remember. There's no reason with four lawyers on a case that somebody can't get that done. And I want it by the end of the day. So that's what we'll do. And I'm sorry that I'm losing my temper a little bit, but I'm not happy about that at all. One additional matter

Speaker 14: is that defense did propose a prior inconsistent statement by faith. And we, I think we've agreed upon what can be included with respect to that particular statement. But in rebuttal, we would would like to introduce a prior consistent statement by faith and and they've advised that we're not going to consent to that that they're not going to consent to that I'm assuming that it's an argument question and if your honor rules that is admissible as a prior consistent statement that that too could be introduced in the government's rebuttal case subject after I close because again I'm not referencing it in my closing all right hold one minute

Speaker 2: Hold one moment. You've been floating through this, Maryann. Are you, do you need me, CJ, to tag in?

Speaker 14: I'm OK. But CJ, if you want to read, that's fine.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, if you're good, you're good. I'm good. By the way, oh, girl, oh.

Speaker 12: It's a lot of words.

Speaker 2: You're killing it. You can read very well. Dang. Thank you. Dang. Yeah, OK. Do your thing. Go ahead.

Speaker 16: Is it something from the 3,500 material? Yes. Why wouldn't they be able to offer a prior consistent statement if you're saying that there's an inconsistency?

Speaker 2: Because we don't think it's a prior consistent statement. It's a situation here.

Speaker 16: Sorry to cut you off. We will deal with this then when we deal with everything else. So add that to the list of things that I would like an answer to As to why it's not in a consistency. I don't want to have to be searching through the transcript myself All right, anything else before we bring the jury in? I just want to set up the podium in our board Okay, and actually we are just going to take five minutes because I forgot one thing back in my chamber So we'll take five minutes and then your honor

Speaker 14: I assume the defense will formally rest in front of the jury and then I will begin

Speaker 16: Yes, all right, so we are in recess for just a minute

Speaker 12: A recess in the proceeding was taken.

Speaker 16: All rise. Everyone can have a seat. All right. I think we can get the jury. Oh, wait. What else did we have to do? Never mind. The defense has to rest. Since this is my first trial in a year and a half or two years, are you going to rest again too? I don't think you have to. I just don't remember. No?

Speaker 2: Okay. All rise. Jury answers.

Speaker 16: You may be seated. Everybody can sit down. Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to continue. Does the defense wish to put on any additional evidence?

Speaker 2: No, Your Honor. Subject to the court's rulings, we would rest at this time.

Speaker 16: All right, ladies and gentlemen, that means we are ready to move on to the next phase of the trial in which the lawyers have the opportunity to address you in summations. As I told you when you were selected in the case and at the beginning of the trial, what any lawyer says during the course of his or her summation, or for that matter, at any point in the trial is not evidence. The evidence, as I told you before, comes in the form of testimony, physical evidence, and any stipulations. But this is the lawyer's opportunity to speak to you about the evidence and what conclusions they want you to draw from the evidence. Under our system, the government sums up first, and then, excuse me, then the defense sums up, and then the government will address you again. So with that, we will begin with summations by the government. Ms. Geddes, go ahead. Thank you. So just so y'all know, this is the closing

Speaker 2: arguments by the government. Isn't this like six hours? Yeah, we're gonna have, yeah, you

Speaker 14: know, yeah, they went ham. I'll tag team if you need me to, that's wild. Yeah, we're gonna tag team. All right, just let me know when it's time to trade out. No, no, no, you let

Speaker 2: Let me know when, because what we'll do, we'll probably go for, we're going to just keep going until we get tired. So we've been on here now for about, what time did we come on here, y'all, 4.30?

Speaker 16: It was about an hour and 20 minutes when I popped in.

Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, yeah. Okay, so let's roll. Let's just roll out. We'll stop when we need to.

Speaker 14: Thank you. Good afternoon. Can we publish what's on our video onto the screens, please?

Speaker 16: As soon as Miss Green returns, which will be in just a second. All right. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. I could start. She will be here in just a minute. She's getting me some water, sorry. She'll be here in a minute. Oh my goodness, Miss Lawian got it to work, so. Fabulous. No, it's still not working. Well, just a second then. Now it works, oh, okay, thank you so much. All right, go ahead.

Speaker 14: Thank you. At the beginning of this case, my colleague told you that for over 25 years, the defendant, Robert Sylvester Kelly, used his fame, his popularity, and the network of people at his disposal to target, groom, and exploit girls, boys, and young women for his sexual gratification. He used lies, manipulation, threats, and physical abuse to dominate his victims. He uses money and his public persona to hide his crimes in plain sight. Over the past six weeks, you have heard from more than 45 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits showing you that he did just that. The defendant is charged with racketeering and eight other counts. Count one charges racketeering and includes 14 different predicate racketeering acts. And those relate to Aaliyah, Stephanie, Sonya, Joronda, Jane, and Faith. The eight other counts in the indictment are also charged as racketeering counts. And since counts two through nine are essentially the same as certain racketeering acts, I'll talk about those standalone counts, counts two through nine, when I talk about their corresponding racketeering act. Now, I just mentioned the six women who are listed in the indictment and who are the subject of those charges. You heard from five of those victims. The sixth one, Aaliyah, is of course now deceased. And I will spend a lot of time talking to you today in detail about their testimony and how it supports a particular charge. But you also heard from several others, Angela, Aidy, Alexis, Louis, and Alex, all of whom met the defendant when they were under 18 years old. And you heard from two other victims of the defendant, Kate and Anna, who met the defendant when they were in their 20s. Now, the defendant is not charged in any specific racketeering act related to those other individuals. But I will still talk about their testimony because it constitutes proof of the racketeering charge and the indictment. I want to start by talking about count one, racketeering. The law recognizes that when someone commits a crime as part of a group, he's more powerful, more dangerous. Put simply, racketeering means that the defendant was part of a group of people who were working toward a common goal. Under the law, we call that, we say that he was part of an enterprise. And as part of his involvement in that enterprise, he committed crime. And as you saw and heard during this trial, The defendant was more than just a part of the enterprise. He was its leader. And he used his others members to achieve his criminal goals. Now, Judge Donnelly will instruct you later. And if at any time during my closing remarks I say anything that is different than what Judge Donnelly tells you, it is her instruction that will control. But I anticipate that for count one, the racketeering count, she's going to tell you that the government has to prove five different elements beyond a reasonable doubt. And later on, you will get copies of the charge and you will have access to all of the exhibits that have been admitted in this case. Throughout my presentation today, I'm going to show you some of these exhibits on a slideshow. You are not going to get those, but if you note down a particular exhibit, you will have access to that. I will also be mentioning some transcription sites and you will have access to all of those transcription sites as well. All right. So in terms of the elements of racketeering, and again, Judge Donnelly will be instructing you on this, so you don't need to write any of these down unless you really want to. The first element is that an enterprise as described in the indictment existed on or about the time alleged in the indictment. Second, is that the enterprise engaged in or its activities affected interstate or foreign comrades. Third, that the defendant was employed by or was associated with the enterprise. Fourth, that the defendant knowingly conducted or participated either directly or indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise. And then the fifth is a really long count. And I'm gonna talk about it in a moment. So we'll just flip through that. I'm going to talk about the fifth element, the enterprise. Now, the enterprise that you've learned about over the past several weeks consists of the defendant's inner circle. You've heard all about his inner circle, his business managers, his accountants, his personal assistants, the runners, the drivers, security, and members of his entourage. Now, over the past three decades, the names of those individuals have changed, but their roles have remained the same. And since the beginning, the defendant has always been the leader of that enterprise. And over on my right, you can see the defendant's inner circle, his enterprise. Shown here, where you have the defendant in the middle, you have some of his closest advisors around, and then up and to the right, there are some of his personal assistants. Below are some of the individuals you heard served as his drivers, Terry, Joe, Allen, Top Gun. At the bottom left, you see some of the individuals who testified before you and served as runners for the defendant, Nick Williams and Anthony Navarro. Above there are some of the individuals who served as security for the defendant, Candy, Big John, Ronald Hartley. Above there, you have some individuals who served as his engineers. And then in that inner circle, you see some of the defendant's closest advisors who you heard a lot about during this trial, and I will talk more about, but for your reference, we'll have this board so you can put a face to some of these names. There's not a face for every single name that I'll report today, but some of them are there. Now, defense counsel, please scroll back up.

Speaker 2: Oh, okay.

Speaker 14: Now, defense counsel has suggested to you in opening statements and in their cross-examination that there's nothing abnormal about the defendant, a successful R&B singer and performer having an inner circle, such as the one shown on the board, and that's right, that's absolutely correct. The enterprise charge in the indictment is not a criminal one, but I just told you that the law recognizes that an individual becomes more powerful when he's backed by a group, and that is exactly what happened here. The defendant was able to carry out the racketeering acts relating to the six women, Aaliyah, Stephanie, Sonya, Jeronda, Jane, and Faith, because he had the Enterprise, the one shown on the board, at his disposal to help him do it. And while the Enterprise on his own was not necessarily a criminal one, having sat through the past six weeks of testimony, you know that working for the defendant was not like a normal job. Remember Anthony Navarro? He's shown in the bottom corner. He was once a runner for the defendant. And he testified during the first week of trial, describing his employment with the defendant as the Twilight Zone. Nick Williams, another one of the government's last witnesses, he described working there as a hostile working environment. The defendant set rules, lots of them, and he demanded absolute obedience. And you heard that he set these rules for the girls and women around him, but he also set them for the members of his enterprise. You heard from Anthony Navarro, his longtime studio manager. Tom Arnold, he's in that inner circle there. His loyal, personal, and then executive assistant, Diana Copeland. And you heard from Suzette Mayweather about how each of them were fined by the defendant for their perceived violations, often when they violated one of the defendant's rules. And those fines were among the means by which the defendant kept his inner circle in line, kept that enterprise in line. And as part of the defendant's leadership of the enterprise, the defendant made his inner circle, when I say inner circle, I'm referring to that enterprise, not to the smaller inner circle. He made his inner circle sign confidentiality statements. And he refused to let anyone take photographs, Anyone photograph the inner workings of his world and for many, many years, what happened in the defendant's world stayed in the defendant's world, but no longer. Over the past several weeks, oops. Oh, over the past several weeks, you've learned that the defendant's inner circle worked together to promote the defendant's music and brand, but his inner circle also served as enablers for his criminal conduct. Some, like Demetrius Smith and Daryl McDavid, actively assisted with overtly criminal acts. Others turned a blind eye as they recruited women and girls for the defendant's sexual gratification and stood watch over the defendant's girlfriends and female guests. But without his inner circle, the defendant could not have carried out the crimes that he carried out for as long as he did. In fact, the fines and other measures of controls imposed by the defendant helped to keep the enterprise running and to ensure that its members did everything the defendant directed without hesitation, without question. And you know, and we'll talk about it today, that those directives, sometimes explicit, other times implied, those directives allow the defendant to commit the racketeering acts that he's charged with. You also learned that the defendant's inner circle, it didn't function like other inner circles. And you know that because the defendants' drivers did much more than drive around the defendants, the defendant and the members of his entourage. They transported girls and young women the defendant recruited. You heard Alexis, the young woman from Jacksonville, who testified. She told you that the defendant's bus driver, Terry, once drove her from Jacksonville to see the defendant in Miami, an hour-long drive. And you know that because the runners did more than just get coffee and supplies for the defendants and others at his studio. They picked up the defendants guests from airports, trains, train stations, and their homes and brought them to nearby hotels. You heard Jeffries just testify about that, one of the defense witnesses. They escorted them to rooms within the studio where the individual women stayed for long periods of time. and Tom Arnold told you all of that, and you saw emails confirming that they did just that. And on your screen, you see two emails that were recovered from a computer within the defendant's storage facility. This is government exhibit 468, and one is an email referring to arranging for Alexis to be picked up. And again, that's when Alexis was 17. There's another email below that from June of 2009 asking, mentioning that another individual needs to be picked up. And we'll talk more about how you know this, that that individual was Dominique, the one you've heard a lot about. And she too was just 17 at the time that email was sent. Now, to accommodate the defendant's rule that women in his orbit have no contact with men, including runners picking them up, you heard Tom Arnold tell you that he would put the rearview mirror up, sacrificing everyone's safety since he could no longer fully or easily see what was behind him. You know I'm talking about why his inner circle was different than others. You know that the personal assistants did much more at the concerts than coordinate after parties and manage the defendant's wardrobe. The personal assistants, along with the runners, distributed little pieces of paper with the defendant's phone number to girls and young women. And you know this because Tom Arnold and Anthony Navarro told you that they distributed the defendant's numbers to females at concerts, malls, at their parties, and other events. And you saw those typewritten numbers that were found in the defendant's storage facility. And this is shown in Government Exhibit 401. Those are three little slips of paper with a phone number ending in 7283. And you can see from Government Exhibit 117A that that phone number, it was subscribed to by the defendant's business, RSK Enterprises. And it was also saved in someone's phone as a phone number for the defendant. It was actually saved in a couple of the individual's phones, and those are shown on the screen. And so that's just one small example of how you know that the defendant's runners and personal assistance were distributing his phone numbers. Now, you know that the defendant's assistants also did much more than just make sure he was on time for business meetings with record executives. They also made travel arrangements for the girls and young women to fly across the country. You know this because Diana Copeland told you that she made travel arrangements for females to travel around the United States. So did his studio manager Tom Arnold and his personal assistants Cheryl Mack and the Mayweather sisters, all of whom testified at this trial. You know that the defendant's male personal assistants, that's some of the group that is in the circle around the defendant, They did much more than drive the sprinter vans and carry his luggage. Like the others in his inner circle, they contributed to the success of the defendant's crimes. They carried that backpack that stored the defendant's many iPads that he used to record girls and young women engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Diana Copeland told you that the defendant's male personal assistance, and I'm using that distinction because you've you've heard many witnesses talk about the female assistants and the male assistants. So Diana Copeland told you that his male personal assistants carried the backpack that stored his iPads. Special Agent Cabot from the Department of Homeland Security told you that the day before the defendant was arrested he actually saw George Kelly, who is also known as Junebug, he is over there in that circle around the defendant carrying a book bag that the defendant had been carrying a few minutes earlier. And you also know that his assistant's picked up the defendant's prescriptions to treat his herpes. In evidence are Walgreens records, and I'm going to talk about a lot of evidence, some of which you just heard the government omitting a particular exhibit number, but we didn't put it on the screen. So I'm going to be talking about some pieces of evidence that you will be seeing for the first time today but again you will have access to all of this in your deliberations. So in evidence are Walgreens records and it's shown on this screen now and you can see that the records show that there was a prescription for the medicine for herpes. Yeah herpes. That's one of the medications used to treat herpes as Dr. McGrath told you. And this is just as one example where you can see that on a particular occasion, a, I'm sorry, a Jay Brown picked up that prescription. And you know that because Jay Brown's Walgreens loyalty card was used to pick it up and pay for the prescription. And Jay Brown is, of course, June Brown, and he's shown in that inner circle. And there is another exhibit and evidence showing that Jay Brown, Junebug, lived at that same address that's shown on the screen right now. The defendants' engineers, you heard a little bit about them. You heard from Jeff Meeks as part of the defense case, another one of the defendants' engineers. They didn't just set up and operate sound equipment in the recording studio. They too helped the defendant. They helped the defendant carry out his surveillance efforts and to and maintains some of the digital collateral, another technique that you have heard, and we'll talk about, that the defendant used to control his victims. Now, Jane, and I'm going to, by the way, refer to the names that these individuals testified here at trial. You, of course, have an evidence and have seen their true first and last names, but remember that Jane told you that the defendant told her Those engineers could access an iCloud account, could access the iCloud to find out who she had been speaking with. And she told you that's in the transcript in 1027. The engineers also helped the defendant dig up surveillance video and keep his digital collateral. And you'll recall a couple of days ago during Special Agent Cabot's testimony that we played that audio recording. is in evidence as Government Exhibit 485. And on the recording, the defendant accused a young woman, we'll call her Kyla for today, he accused a young woman of stealing a Rolex watch. And you heard, and we'll talk about some of the threats that the defendant made during that, but at the end of the recording, and we didn't play this for you, but it's in evidence. But at the end of the recording, you can hear the defendant's engineers joking about how they think they should have the defendant should have strip-searched Kyla, and again showing that the engineers were around for this. And in that recording, the defendant mentions that his engineers have dubbed up the videotapes, the video surveillance that purportedly showed Kyla taking the Rolex watch. Now, in more recent years, the defendants also relied on his personal assistance to ensure that his female guests and his living girlfriends complied with the defendant's many, many rules. You heard that from his female assistants, Diana Copeland, Cheryl Mack, and the Mayweather sisters, who all told you how they helped the defendant manage his female guests and live-in girlfriends. They told you how they accompanied those women on public outings, and the defendant relied on his assistants to, you know, make sure that they didn't leave. Now, no one is saying in this particular assistant that they were under lock and key. But you will recall Diana Copeland talked about a conversation that surprised her, where the defendant was upset with her for letting Anna escape and said to her that she should have let Lili handle it. And Lili is also shown up on this board. The defendant also relied on his assistants to make sure that his girlfriends didn't get off the bus. And you heard some testimony about that at this trial. And again, one of the Mayweathers talked about a time when Joy was let off the bus and the defendant was upset. Why would you let her off the bus? That's what he said. Similarly, similarly, he relied on his assistants to make sure that these individuals, these women, didn't get off his prayer van without receiving permission from him. Now, each of these individuals in his inner circle enabled the defendant in various ways, And without them at his service, the defendant could not have carried out the pattern of crime that he committed for almost three decades. So you know that the purposes of the enterprise include legitimate things like promoting R. Kelly's music and his brand. But you also know that the enterprise led by the defendant had other purposes too. Those purposes, as mentioned earlier, included recruiting girls and women to engage in illegal sexual activity with the defendant, to reduce pornography, including child pornography. Now, to be clear, this does not mean that all of the other enterprise members necessarily wanted any of these things to happen or were happy about it happening, but that's not what the law requires. As you saw and heard through this trial, the network of people that the defendant had at his disposal, they carried out the defendant's directives. They didn't ask questions and they effectively enforced the defendant's rule. They enabled his crimes and those crimes occurred over and over again. During the past several weeks, you've also learned about how the defendant led and participated in the enterprise for his criminal acts. And that is why we're here today, because of what the defendant did. He groomed girls and boys for sexual activity, despite that they were too young to consent to any of that sexual activity. And you heard from Angela, Aidy, Stephanie, Louis, Alex, Jeronda, and James, each of whom told you that the defendant initiated contact with them when they were under 18 years old. In evidence, our phone records showing telephone calls between the defendant with Alexis, Louis, Alex, Jeronda, and Jane, all when they were under 18 years old. And you can see on the board, in very small type, our government exhibits 153 and 154. And 154 shows a summary of telephone calls between the defendant and Louis. And these are calls between the defendant's number, and Lewis testified to you, and you saw in other evidence as well, what the defendant's number was back then, that 630-220-1166 number. And then, on the right, you also see a summary, that's in Evidence Exhibit 153. You see a summary of telephone contact between the defendant and Alex, that's the individual that other witnesses testified as nephew. And again, you see that context when Alex, within the first few months of 2017, and Alex was just 17 years old. Again, just as he testified in court to you. And I'm going to talk in more detail later, but government exhibits 149 and 157, those show telephone calls between the defendant and Geronda. That's in Government Exhibit 149. And then Government Exhibit 157 shows a summary of calls between the defendant and Jane. And those calls shown in those two summary charts are all shown, all show contact with Jane when she was just 17 years old, and telephone contact with Jeronda when she was just 16 years old. Phone records and evidence also show contact between the defendant and Alexis when she was was just 15 years old. And that's consistent with her testimony before you that she met the defendant at the concert in Jacksonville on March 26, 2006, and then went the following day to the Avenues Mall in Jacksonville. And in evidence are phone records showing communication between the phone number that Alexis identified as hers and the defendant's phone number. The defense also argued, I'm sorry, The defendant also arranged for girls and women to meet him for the purpose of sexual activity without telling him that he had this incurable, sexually transmitted disease. And you heard from Kate, Joronda, Faith, and Jane, who each told you that the defendant exposed them to herpes during unprotected sexual intercourse and never told any of them about the fact that he had herpes. The defendant also produced child pornography. You heard Stephanie, Jeronda and Jane tell you that. He recorded each of them engaging in sexually explicit conduct when they were each under 18 years old. And you learned how the defendants use a plethora of tactics to keep total control over his employees. These individuals and his victims. First, I want to talk about those letters. And I'm gonna talk about more than some of the letters, I'm gonna talk more about some of the letters later on. But just briefly, recall that you heard from Geronda and Jane. And remember, Geronda was the government's first witness. She was very, very pregnant, and she came here to testify. And Jane started the following Monday, so both of them were much earlier in the trial. But remember that both Geronda and Jane told you that the defendant directed them to write letters containing false and embarrassing allegations purportedly about their own conduct and the conduct of their families. And you saw several of those letters. And I'm going to show you those letters later today. That they told you that they wrote at the defendant's direction. I think I'll just do a couple more pages of this in the next page. And Jane told you that they wrote at the defendant's direction. And Jane told you that she wasn't the only one. That the defendant's other girlfriends wrote the same letters at the defendant's direction. And you saw some of those letters as well. And you heard the same thing from Lewis and Nephew. Those were, I call him Nephew here, but he also testified as Alex in this trial. And remember, Lewis and Alex were best friends before Lewis introduced Alex to the defendant. But both of them told you that they too wrote letters that were false at the defendant's direction. And you heard about how and where the defendant kept those letters in a safe, in a storage facility, ready for his retrieval. Should a day like this ever come? A day where he is charged with very serious crimes. And you even heard and saw how the defendant stored those letters. Not all of them, but some of them were stored in those plastic document protectors.

Speaker 2: All right, Mary, thank you so much. You are amazing.

Speaker 12: Amazing.

Speaker 2: Thank you. Amazing. Great job. Unbelievable. CJ, you want to jump in?

Speaker 15: Yep, I'll jump in. What line are we on?

Speaker 2: Go ahead. We're right there. You watching the screen?

Speaker 15: Yes.

Speaker 2: Mary, thank you so much. I appreciate you. Please come back. My pleasure. Awesome.

Speaker 15: Great job, Mary.

Speaker 2: Go ahead. Go ahead and start right there, CJ.

Speaker 15: Some of them had reinforced plastic around the holes of loose-leaf paper, and you know why he kept them at the ready and in pristine condition? He kept those letters that way because he intended to use the letters in the future and they wouldn't serve any value, any purpose, if their contents were no longer available. You can no longer see what was written on those letters. You also heard that the defendant directed some of his employees to do the same. You saw the letter that Diana Copeland wrote at the defendant's direction, purportedly confessing to stealing from the defendant and feeling terrible about it. And you saw the letters that Cheryl Mack told you that she wrote, again, at the defendant's direction, where she purportedly confessed to wrongfully accepting money. ways to control that the defendant used to control folks. He used those settlement agreements and you heard how the defendant used his attorneys to negotiate settlement agreements to ensure that any of his victims who he had lost control over, so someone who went and potentially was going to speak publicly about what the defendant had done to them, he had his attorneys that negotiate settlement agreements to ensure that they remain silent. And you saw three of those settlement agreements. They're in evidence for Kate, Jeronda, and Precious. And again, in those agreements, which are in evidence, the defendant agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for those individuals' silence. Third, you heard, you heard, should any of the of his employees or girls or young women that the defendant had recruited cross him, he used his henchmen to lodge threats and exact revenge. You heard the defendant threatened Kyla in government exhibit 45. I spoke about this a a moment ago. She was one who he believed took that Rolex watch. And you heard him say, and I'm going to play the audio in a moment. But you heard him say that people get murdered for doing shit like this. Those are the defendant's words, and I'll play it. Can you go back up a little bit. All right. Line 12. Okay. All right. It's okay. You can take off your headphones. I can just read it. But you see on the screen that in that particular recording, the defendant said, it says unintelligible, but murdered for doing, doing shit like this. And it says, up. Shut the fuck up. You're going to do this shit fucking right. These are his words. You're going to gain my trust because you owe me that. You hear me? You understand me? You think I'm going to walk around with all these people and not videotape my house? And then he continues and he says, you're going to do what I tell you to do to gain my trust and loyalty. And you got to do that now. And he continues from that and he says, you better not ever in your life, take for me again, or I will be in Florida and something will happen to you. You understand what I'm telling you? And ladies and gentlemen, I submit that you understand what I'm, what he was telling them. Wait, can you go back up? That was a threat. Cheryl Mack, she told you that the defendant told her she had to quote, pick a team and made clear that if she picked the wrong team, people go missing. Not very different from what he said to Kyla in Government Exhibit 485. And then you saw that together with Donnell Russell, he's up there, and you just heard from the defendant's last witness, Julius Barrington, talk that he met Donnell Russell when he was at places with the defendant. So you saw that together with Donnell Russell and Russell's mother, June Barrett, the defendant sent that threatening letter to Faith's attorney. And that letter was sent right here in Brooklyn. And you recall, it's Government Exhibit 231A. And we'll talk more about this later. But in that, she threatened to release, I said, she. I meant that in that letter, the defendant threatened to release sexually explicit and embarrassing photos of Faith if Faith didn't drop her lawsuit against the defendant. And when that didn't work, when Faith didn't drop the lawsuit and she went on to participate in the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries, she testified about that. Another individual, Cash Jones, his bodyguard who had a gun, summoned Faith to an Applebee's in Manhattan. This happened again right here in New York and showed Faith some of the nude photographs that would be released if they didn't stop.

Speaker 2: time. Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Ladies, amazing job once again. If y'all could please come back tomorrow. We are going to, I do want to see what's going to happen on Choke, No Joke, thanks for the night. Like I said, I don't think as we all going to be on the station, Somebody sent me a message that it might be her father. I don't know. But it'll be interesting to see. You want some entertainment, I would say, yeah, I would go check that out.

Speaker 15: And do we know what time that is at night?

Speaker 2: 7 o'clock. I just seen a notification for 7 o'clock Eastern. So it's 30 minutes. So pretty soon.

Speaker 15: And then what time tomorrow?

Speaker 2: Say it again?

Speaker 15: What time did you want to meet for this tomorrow?

Speaker 2: You know what, tomorrow, I'm thinking, And what time work spent, did y'all like today, like five o'clock, 4.30, did that work good for everybody?

Speaker 15: I'm good. I'm on PTO this week, so I'm kicking it.

Speaker 16: Oh, cool, you're kicking it, awesome. Okay. I'll probably be a little late, but I can jump in a little late.

Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay. I'm good. Let's do it tomorrow, let's do it tomorrow. I'm gonna ask the chat, let me ask the chat. Do y'all wanna do tomorrow at, let's say five o'clock or six o'clock tomorrow? What's tomorrow, tomorrow Thursday, tomorrow's Wednesday.

Speaker 15: Wednesday.

Speaker 2: Okay, five or six o'clock tomorrow, y'all, majority wins. Five or six o'clock. Five, five, six. I'm just trying to see. Five, five, five, five, five, five, five. Six. Six, six, six, six, six. 6, 6, 6. Y'all be cracking me up. You know what? Let's do 6 o'clock. I think that's, let's do 6 o'clock. That gives everybody time to come home, just relax, kick their feet up, get dinner started.

Speaker 15: What time zone is that? I'm in Kelly.

Speaker 2: I'm in, so that'll be 3 o'clock your time.

Speaker 15: OK.

Speaker 2: Because I'm Eastern, OK? All right, y'all, so I'll see y'all tomorrow at 6 o'clock. Ladies, y'all did amazing. Mary, oh my gosh, Mary, off the chain. CJ, great job. Miss English, unbelievable. Thank you so much. Kwesha, thank you. You're the most consistent. Oh my god, you awesome girl. And thank you so much, Tanya. I love it. You got the kids, and you still came in here to help me out. Thank you so much. Ladies, I will see y'all tomorrow. Y'all have a blessed night. I'll be on tomorrow morning for the morning show. Make sure y'all tune in. If y'all didn't see this morning's morning show, it was incredible. Please do me a favor and hit the like button on the way out. I would greatly appreciate it. Y'all are amazing. God bless y'all. I will see y'all tomorrow at six o'clock Eastern Standard Time, okay?

Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Bye y'all. See y'all later.

Speaker 12: Bye. Bye.

Speaker 1: I'm a genuine person, like if I love you, I love you.

Speaker 2: If I don't mess with you, I don't mess with you, it's as simple as that.