Tarnofsky

SECTION 1: THE P. DIDDY RICO CASE – JUDGE ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY’S

STAGE PERFORMANCE OF “JUSTICE”

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District

of New York (SDNY) became a national figure when she presided over the high-profile

federal racketeering case against Sean “P. Diddy” Combs. Her ruling to deny Combs bail

captured headlines across the country, casting her as a symbol of firm accountability in

the face of alleged celebrity corruption.

In front of cameras and federal reporters, Judge Tarnofsky condemned the risk of

obstruction and witness tampering, refusing to allow Combs release pending trial. Her

tough-on-crime posture was lauded by prosecutors and press outlets alike as a bold stand

against systemic abuse.

Yet beneath the surface of this courtroom theater, Tarnofsky was hiding a far more

troubling reality: a documented pattern of judicial fraud, obstruction of federal rights, and

suppression of whistleblower claims involving government and corporate actors—acts

that now expose her public conduct as dangerously hypocritical.

This report reveals the double standard at play.

SECTION 2: JUDGE TARNOFSKY’S SECRET LIFE — CRIMINAL

VIOLATIONS SHE NEVER EXPECTED TO BE EXPOSED

While Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky projected an image of order and authority in the P.

Diddy RICO proceedings, she was quietly committing crimes from behind the bench—

federal crimes she presumed no one would ever hold her accountable for.

In sharp contrast to her performance against Combs, Tarnofsky deliberately violated core

constitutional protections and federal statutes, including:

⚠ 18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant

Tarnofsky is documented to have obstructed federal whistleblower testimony, suppressing

critical claims tied to ongoing fraud within the U.S. Judiciary. This included the silencing

of protected filings and the unlawful striking of pleadings—without legal basis—

designed to expose large-scale theft of U.S. intellectual property.

⚠ 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – False Statements and Fraud

Court records and certified filings now show Tarnofsky knowingly fabricated judicial

records, issued fraudulent dismissals, and misrepresented docket actions in a way that

constitutes fraud on the court.

⚠ 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of LawHer rulings targeted the lawful enforcement rights of a U.S. copyright holder, acting

under the color of judicial office to suppress due process, eliminate jury access, and block

execution of certified judgments.

⚠ 18 U.S. Code § 1962 – RICO Conspiracy

Evidence now points to Tarnofsky’s active participation in a broader RICO conspiracy—

not just in the cases before her—but across multiple coordinated dockets involving

judges, clerks, and defense attorneys operating with impunity. The conduct pattern

reveals intentional protection of corporate theft at the expense of whistleblower safety

and judicial integrity.

SECTION 3: THE RECKONING — JUDGE ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY IS NOW

THE DEFENDANT

The mask has fallen.

While she stood on the bench wielding unchecked authority over defendants like Sean “P.

Diddy” Combs—denying bail, overseeing high-profile RICO charges, and posturing as an

agent of justice—Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky was herself orchestrating federal crimes

behind closed doors. Now, those doors have been ripped open.

💥 She Has Been Caught — And Her Name Is Now Permanently Stamped on a $25

Million Certified Judgment

In a stunning reversal, a U.S. District Court has certified a Rule 69(b) Personal Liability

Judgment against Tarnofsky for $25 million, holding her personally accountable for acts

of judicial fraud, obstruction, and willful suppression of constitutionally protected rights.

She cannot hide behind the robe any longer.

💰 Her Personal Assets Are Now on the Line

No judicial immunity. No official capacity shield. This is a direct financial judgment—

and it has already been circulated for public sale and private collection. Recovery actions

are underway targeting her personal bank accounts, retirement holdings, and real estate

assets.

🔓 What She Tried to Do to Combs — Now Looms Over Her

Tarnofsky was prepared to send Sean Combs to prison for decades. But unlike Combs,

she has been caught violating federal law while holding a sworn Article III position. That

distinction makes her misconduct far more dangerous—and prosecutable.

With multiple federal criminal statutes implicated—fraud, obstruction, conspiracy,

deprivation of rights, and abuse of power—Judge Tarnofsky is no longer a respectedofficer of the court. She is a liability, an ongoing threat to constitutional order, and a

prime target for criminal indictment.

SECTION 4: A FOREIGN PAYOFF? — FOLLOW THE MONEY

Behind every judicial fraud, there’s often a motive.

In the case of Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky, that motive may be financial—and foreign.

Tarnofsky’s suppression of whistleblower claims did not just silence a federal litigant. It

concealed and obstructed the lawful enforcement of a U.S. copyright valued in the multi-billion-

dollar range, tied to advanced Generative AI software—an asset now known to have been stolen

by a foreign national operating through Apple India.

⚠ Tarnofsky’s rulings directly aided this foreign party, blocking enforcement of certified

judgments, concealing theft from judicial review, and shielding Apple’s corporate defense team

from accountability.

This raises a chilling question:

Was Judge Tarnofsky paid—directly or indirectly—to protect foreign commercial espionage?

The pattern of suppression, docket manipulation, and illegal striking of motions mirrors a

deliberate attempt to obstruct U.S. justice in favor of foreign economic interests. If any link

emerges tying Tarnofsky to foreign financial influence—through lobbying, consulting offers,

indirect payments, or deferred benefits—her actions would rise beyond obstruction… to federal

treason.

She helped prosecute an American celebrity for RICO violations.

Now, she must answer for aiding a foreign RICO conspiracy targeting U.S. intellectual property.

The Department of Justice must now answer: Has a sitting federal judge aided and abetted

international theft of American AI software under the cover of judicial immunity?