Why NDA's Like The One Cassie Signed Are Meaningless In Criminal Court

NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, will not protect Sean "Diddy" Combs in his criminal trial because NDAs are primarily civil agreements designed to prevent parties from disclosing certain information publicly. However, they do not shield individuals from testifying in criminal cases. Criminal law supersedes any private agreements, as the government has a vested interest in prosecuting crimes and ensuring justice. Therefore, if someone has relevant knowledge about criminal activities, they can still be compelled to testify, even if they have signed an NDA.In the case of Cassie Ventura, although she signed an NDA as part of her settlement with Diddy, this does not prevent her from being called to testify in a criminal trial. NDAs cannot override a subpoena or prevent someone from providing testimony if it pertains to criminal conduct. The court can compel Ventura to testify about any relevant events, even if they were covered by the terms of the NDA, as the pursuit of justice in criminal cases takes precedence over any civil agreement. Thus, despite the NDA, Cassie can be legally obligated to provide testimony in the ongoing criminal proceedings against Diddy.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:[email protected]:Cassie may be called to testify at Diddy trial despite signing NDA, lawyer says | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.