Singer absolutely terrified of Diddy, lawyer says

Dawn Richard, a talented singer who was part of two well-known music groups, has expressed that she is 'absolutely terrified' of Sean 'Diddy' Combs, as stated by her lawyer. According to the allegations, Diddy has threatened her life and subjected her to years of inhumane working conditions, which included inappropriate touching, assault, and even false imprisonment. Dawn Richard was a member of the groups Danity Kane and Diddy - Dirty Money, and she is one of over two dozen individuals who have filed lawsuits against Diddy. In addition to these civil suits, he is also facing serious criminal charges related to racketeering and sex trafficking. Diddy has denied all charges, and his lawyer has labeled Dawn's claims as 'manufactured' and 'false. ' On Thursday, attorney Lisa Bloom revealed that Dawn has accused Diddy of groping her and sexually assaulting her. She claims that not only did he fail to pay her the money he promised, but he also prevented her from eating and sleeping during the years she worked for him, treating her in a very cruel manner. Furthermore, Ms. Bloom stated that Dawn witnessed severe acts of violence committed by Diddy against his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and other women. When Dawn attempted to speak out about these incidents, she alleges that she was threatened with further physical violence. Dawn described Diddy as having a vicious temper, which only added to her fear of him. Cassie Ventura, who is also a singer, filed a lawsuit against Diddy a year ago, accusing him of rape and sex trafficking, but she settled the case just one day later. A video later surfaced showing Diddy attacking Cassie in a hotel corridor back in 2016. In her lawsuit, Dawn claimed that she witnessed Diddy brutally beating Cassie and tried to intervene on multiple occasions, encouraging Cassie to leave him. Each time Diddy found out about Dawn's efforts to help Cassie, he became enraged and threatened Dawn's life. He allegedly warned her that 'there will be consequences' if she spoke to anyone about what she had seen and ominously stated that 'people go missing. ' Dawn's lawyer emphasized that the environment created by Diddy was one of violence and turmoil. Diddy's lawyer, Erica Wolff, expressed that the rapper was 'shocked and disappointed' by Dawn's lawsuit, claiming that she had fabricated a series of false allegations in hopes of obtaining a financial payout. Diddy is confident in his innocence and looks forward to proving his case in court. On Thursday, Lisa Bloom also mentioned that she has another client who is preparing to come forward with allegations related to parties hosted by Diddy, which were referred to as 'freak-offs. ' Many individuals have already come forward with claims that attendees were drugged and coerced into sexual activities in exchange for business deals with Diddy. Diddy is scheduled to return to court on Friday to make a new request for bail in his criminal case. Judges have previously denied his bail requests, citing concerns that he might tamper with witnesses. Recently, prosecutors alleged that Diddy violated prison rules by contacting potential witnesses through the phone accounts of other inmates. They are particularly focused on a witness named Kalenna Harper, who was the third member of Diddy - Dirty Money alongside Diddy and Dawn. Prosecutors claim that Diddy had 128 phone contacts with Kalenna shortly after Dawn filed her lawsuit. Kalenna released a statement saying that Dawn's allegations do not reflect her own experiences and do not align with her truth. During a news segment, Lisa Bloom did not name Kalenna but mentioned that there was a woman who had worked with Dawn who publicly labeled her a liar. Lisa suggested that it seemed as though Diddy might have influenced this woman to make those statements, which could be considered witness tampering. The judge agreed with this assessment, leading to Diddy's bail being denied. However, Diddy's legal team argued that Kalenna's statement was not an act of witness obstruction but rather a case of two witnesses having differing recollections of similar events.