Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
Speaker 1: will be your host today Emily Simpson with my sidekick
Speaker 1: Jane Just Shane. We want to give you a little
Speaker 1: update first of all, on the Lively and Baldoni case.
Speaker 1: We haven't talked about it for a while because it
Speaker 1: hasn't had a lot going on. You know, they go
Speaker 1: to trial in March of twenty twenty six. However, there
Speaker 1: have been some interesting things that have happened lately. So
Speaker 1: Blake Lively has dropped the emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni.
Speaker 1: So I was reading about this yesterday and it was
Speaker 1: actually kind of difficult to follow for me to actually
Speaker 1: put a timeline together of what happened. But here's the
Speaker 1: way I understand it. A few days ago, there was
Speaker 1: a teleconference between both sides, which is normal when you're
Speaker 1: in active litigation. Right, So you've got both sides, You've
Speaker 1: got Baldoni's team, You've got Blake Lively's team, they have
Speaker 1: a teleconference. I guess there was a conversation that had
Speaker 1: to do with these emotional distress claims. There's an intentional
Speaker 1: infliction of emotional distress and a negligent emotional distress claim
Speaker 1: on Blake Lively's side against Justin Baldoni. And apparently during
Speaker 1: this teleconference there was a conversation where Lively's attorneys had
Speaker 1: suggested that they were going to drop those claims now
Speaker 1: after Apparently immediately after this conference between the attorneys, Justin
Speaker 1: Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman files emotion to compel her like
Speaker 1: therapy notes or doctors against who against Blake Lively. Basically,
Speaker 1: the way I understand it is they're like, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to.
Speaker 2: Drop these claims of distress.
Speaker 1: So she's going to drop the claims of distress. Brian
Speaker 1: Friedman then files a motion to compel basically stating that
Speaker 1: she's dropping those claims in order to not comply with
Speaker 1: their discovery requests of medical records or therapy notes.
Speaker 2: A medical records. That's my guess. My guess is Lively's
Speaker 2: team was like, oh, we're going to have to provide
Speaker 2: all these medical records or conversations or anything to.
Speaker 1: Show that there was some type of emotional distress distress.
Speaker 2: And then they're and they're like, okay, Lively, can can
Speaker 2: you start forwarding those documents? And then She's like, I
Speaker 2: never went to the doctor. I didn't do anything because
Speaker 2: I was not Yeah, I have some texts with Taylor
Speaker 2: Swift where I was complaining, but I don't have anything else.
Speaker 2: So they were probably like, then you don't have a
Speaker 2: defense or a complaint. You can't you know, succeed on
Speaker 2: this claim.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, then so the judge dismisses the motion to
Speaker 1: compel because the judge is like, look, they said they're
Speaker 1: going to drop these claims, and they did dismiss them,
Speaker 1: and so why are you filing a motion to compel?
Speaker 1: And then obviously Blake Lively's team says the only reason
Speaker 1: that Brian Friedman filed a motion to compel was for
Speaker 1: what reason?
Speaker 2: Well, it would be probably to get her to not
Speaker 2: comply and then maybe publicly it would look bad.
Speaker 1: Right he did. They claim it's a press stunt, you know,
Speaker 1: sounds like a dumb press seeking another round of press coverage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know about that. That sounds because he's
Speaker 2: clearly experienced where if the claim is dropped, why would
Speaker 2: you want to pursue discovery at a claim that's dropped.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess his thinking was, Okay, they're just trying
Speaker 1: to avoid our discovery requests, so let's do a motion
Speaker 1: to compel. But really, you know Brian Friedman's He's excellent
Speaker 1: at working the.
Speaker 2: No I know, so I'm putting my trust in him.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, seeing the order of events, it sounds
Speaker 2: like it was poorly executed, but time will tell, and
Speaker 2: I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Speaker 1: So Baldoni's side argued that Lively couldn't have it both
Speaker 1: ways by making claims of emotional harm while also withholding
Speaker 1: supporting records like medical records. In response, Lively's attorneys dismissed
Speaker 1: the request as a publicity stunt, as reported, and this
Speaker 1: was an entertainment weekly. Actually it was an entertainment weekly.
Speaker 1: But then I read several other articles because everybody jumps
Speaker 1: on and starts writing about it. Also, I thought it
Speaker 1: was really interesting that Blake Lively's side consistently argues that
Speaker 1: everything Brian Friedman does as a publicity stunt. But let's
Speaker 1: not forget about the facts.
Speaker 2: Let's not forget about Lively and Reynolds and their lifestyle
Speaker 2: as we.
Speaker 1: Go back in time. If you remember, the original complaint
Speaker 1: filed by Blake Lively's team was on December twentieth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, and The New York Times published a report
Speaker 1: and published the filing on December twenty first, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So it was it's very I mean, it's easy to
Speaker 1: see that they colluded with the New York Times, So it.
Speaker 2: Wasn't everything they do with publicity stunt, I believe.
Speaker 1: So. So anyway, I also found it interesting that the
Speaker 1: judge who is to judge Lewis J. Lyman, formally ruled
Speaker 1: that Lively's emotional distress claims were no longer part of
Speaker 1: the lawsuit. Baldoni's motion to compel was denied on the
Speaker 1: grounds that Lively had already agreed to withdraw the claims.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, I know, yeah, he meant to drop the claims.
Speaker 2: Was informal.
Speaker 1: It was on that it was on the teleconference, so
Speaker 1: it was an.
Speaker 2: Informal right, So he probably thought, I'm going to file
Speaker 2: the motion and compel, and I'm going to keep pursuing
Speaker 2: my defense until you actually drop it. Yeah, So he
Speaker 2: probably filed the motion to compel to keep the momentum
Speaker 2: and to make.
Speaker 1: Sure that they actually dismissed the claim.
Speaker 2: I told you, I trust him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's a good attorney. I told you anytime, if
Speaker 1: I'm ever in trouble, who's the first call. It's quite
Speaker 1: Brian Friedman, It's my first call. Judge Lyman also directed
Speaker 1: both parties to reach This is where it's going to
Speaker 1: get interesting. He directed both parties to reach a mutual
Speaker 1: agreement together on whether the dismissed claims would be permanent
Speaker 1: with prejudice or allow for possible refiling later, which is
Speaker 1: without prejudice. Regardless, the judgement clear that Lively would not
Speaker 1: be allowed to introduce any evidence related to emotional distress
Speaker 1: going forward because the claims have been officially dropped from
Speaker 1: her filing. Lively's team responded to the ruling by calling
Speaker 1: Baldoni's motion completely unnecessary and framing the court's decision as
Speaker 1: a favorable outcome for their site. They always do that.
Speaker 1: They always take every decision this judge makes and they
Speaker 1: turn it around into some favorable like some big win
Speaker 1: for them. So it's it's always.
Speaker 2: Like, so, what was this big win was that it's
Speaker 2: dropped without prejudice?
Speaker 1: No, it's he did he didn't. He told them that
Speaker 1: they have to figure out together whether the claims are dropped.
Speaker 1: With prejudice or without. So what do you think is
Speaker 1: going to happen there? You think they're going to happen.
Speaker 2: Oh, they're not going to agree. Neither party is going
Speaker 2: to Neither.
Speaker 1: Party is going to agree to that.
Speaker 2: Let's explain what with prejudice and without prejudice means.
Speaker 1: Okay, so both of the emotional emotional distress claims have
Speaker 1: been dropped. However, Lively's team is going to want them
Speaker 1: dropped without prejudice. Now you explain what that means.
Speaker 2: I don't know what it means. I'm just kidding you too.
Speaker 2: Know what it means. If it's dropped with prejudice, that's
Speaker 2: the equivalent or close to a judgment in favor of
Speaker 2: right or it's it's as if the judge ruled on
Speaker 2: it and they're it cannot be brought up. It cannot
Speaker 2: be brought up without prejudice means it's just a procedural thing.
Speaker 2: We dropped it, but you can still pursue it at
Speaker 2: a later date if you wish exactly so, then with
Speaker 2: that case, Baldoni would want it with prejudice, so that
Speaker 2: way it cannot be brought up again. And then of
Speaker 2: course Likely's team will want it without prejudice, and I
Speaker 2: think it should be without without knowing much more, it
Speaker 2: should be without prejudice because the judge didn't review anything
Speaker 2: really not in detail.
Speaker 1: No, but I mean that's where I mean. The judge
Speaker 1: is basically like, Okay, you guys work it out together
Speaker 1: and figure out if it's with prejudice or without, and
Speaker 1: you think these two sides are going to be able.
Speaker 1: That's very black and white. This isn't a gray area
Speaker 1: where they can compromise and come up with something. There's
Speaker 1: no middle ground on this. So I good luck with
Speaker 1: those two deciding with or without prejudice.
Speaker 2: So it'll allow for another update next week.
Speaker 1: It'll allow for more letters from Brian Friedman and more
Speaker 1: updates from US and more updates from US. All right,
Speaker 1: let's move on to Ditty Diddy. I thought it was
Speaker 1: interesting that there was some testimony and Diddy that was
Speaker 1: interesting this week. First of all, they called Eddie Garcia
Speaker 1: to the stand, who was a security supervisor at the
Speaker 1: La hotel where Combs attacked Cassie back in twenty sixteen. Now,
Speaker 1: Eddie Garcia receives complete immunity to testify because when you
Speaker 1: hear his testimony he clearly was involved in bribery an
Speaker 1: obstruction of.
Speaker 2: Justice, so he was offered immunity because you're thinking, well,
Speaker 2: witness should just testify if but he committed crimes right
Speaker 2: by taking a bribery and whatnot. Yeah, I mean, so
Speaker 2: he didn't.
Speaker 1: He's going to perjure himself in the federal court.
Speaker 2: So he would just plead the fifth which is I'm
Speaker 2: not going to be able to answer these questions because
Speaker 2: it would be self incriminating. So they're saying, well, we
Speaker 2: want his testimony because we want to go for the
Speaker 2: bigger fish exactly, and so we'll grant you immunity and
Speaker 2: then you can freely speak as to what took place
Speaker 2: and keep your money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, keep your money. So Eddie Garcia takes a stand
Speaker 1: and testifies that he and two other employees at the
Speaker 1: hotel received a lump sum of one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: in cash from Combs to keep the video surveillance under wraps.
Speaker 1: So this is how it worked out. First of all,
Speaker 1: he gets a phone call I think the evening after
Speaker 1: this incident happened on his work phone, and it was
Speaker 1: Ditty's assistant. Her name is Christina Korum and she reaches
Speaker 1: out to Eddie Garcia and says, hey, like, we would
Speaker 1: like the video, and he basically tells her the only
Speaker 1: way you can get it is you have to speak
Speaker 1: to higher than me or you have to subpoena. So
Speaker 1: she gets nowhere. Then she makes a personal visit to
Speaker 1: him at the hotel and she wants the video. And
Speaker 1: this is all clearly under the direction of Ditty and
Speaker 1: she makes it.
Speaker 2: So she goes to the hotel she wants she wants
Speaker 2: like the original copy to destroy it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So she goes to the hotel.
Speaker 2: Like this guy didn't make copies on his phone and
Speaker 2: show his friend and so I don't know it until
Speaker 2: you can pull it out.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So she makes a personal visit at the hotel,
Speaker 1: speaks with Eddie Garcia, doesn't get anywhere again, and then
Speaker 1: I guess off the record. He tells her that the
Speaker 1: video is pretty bad. So then she goes back and
Speaker 1: then later on he gets a third phone call on
Speaker 1: his personal cell phone. I don't know how they got
Speaker 1: a cell phone number, but they got a cell phone
Speaker 1: number somehow. She gets on the phone with him again.
Speaker 1: She puts Ditty on the phone this time and he
Speaker 1: testifies that Ditty is nervous during this phone call. He's stuttering.
Speaker 1: He's saying, hey, man, you know I'll take care of you.
Speaker 1: How can I get a copy of this video I
Speaker 1: need to destroy. It's going to ruin my life. And
Speaker 1: you know I'll take care of you, which he testifies
Speaker 1: that he understands that I'll take care of you. Is
Speaker 1: you know I'll hook you up, I'll get you.
Speaker 2: You're on the party list, but you're gonna you are
Speaker 2: now a lifetime supply baby oil.
Speaker 1: For you, sir, Yes, you get a Costco membership baby oil.
Speaker 2: Costco doesn't sell baby oil. It's for freak out.
Speaker 1: Oh that's right, that's right, that's right. We established that.
Speaker 1: So then they meet at so I guess. So he
Speaker 1: agrees to it, right, I guess. He goes back to
Speaker 1: his boss, who security his boss and says the boss says, okay,
Speaker 1: ask him for fifty grand. So he tells Ditty, okay,
Speaker 1: I'll give you the tape for fifty grand. He shows
Speaker 1: up at some building to meet Ditty and his assistant
Speaker 1: in security. Security takes him up to a room. They
Speaker 1: make him sign an NDA, a confidentiality agreement, basically stating
Speaker 1: that there's no other videos that it's been destroyed, that
Speaker 1: he is the only one. He's handing it over.
Speaker 2: Clearly, Okay, keep going.
Speaker 1: And if he breaches this agreement, this NDA that he's signing,
Speaker 1: that he's gonna, you know, be in breach for a million.
Speaker 2: Dollars up and he might kill right.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's any in writing, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: that's implied in the contract. But what is in writing
Speaker 1: is that he would owe a million dollars back. So
Speaker 1: basically it's I mean, the guy makes ten dollars an hour,
Speaker 1: ten to fifty an.
Speaker 2: Hour, so he making that up? Are you really no?
Speaker 1: I read that. I read that he made that he
Speaker 1: was a security guard. He was making ten dollars and
Speaker 1: fifty cents an hour. This is back in twenty sixteen, and.
Speaker 2: That so how did the tape because obviously it wasn't
Speaker 2: the only copy.
Speaker 1: Well, let's just finish this. So he goes to the hotel,
Speaker 1: he hands over the video that he has, He signs
Speaker 1: the NDA, the confidentiality a confidentiality agreement. Combs comes out,
Speaker 1: brings him one hundred thousand dollars in cash. Actually, he
Speaker 1: counts the money on a money counter at first.
Speaker 2: Because that's what that's what criminals do. Yeah, they have
Speaker 2: money counters, Yeah they do.
Speaker 1: They have I don't have one. Do you have one?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: I don't either. So he brings out a money counter,
Speaker 1: he cash. He counts one hundred thousand in cash in
Speaker 1: front of him. He says, do you want to count it?
Speaker 1: And he's like no, you know, I trust the money counter.
Speaker 1: So he puts one hundred thousand dollars in a bag
Speaker 1: and gives it to him. He leaves, He goes back.
Speaker 1: He gives fifty grand to his boss, He gives twenty
Speaker 1: to another security guard that also witnessed the tape, and
Speaker 1: he gives thirty thousand to himself.
Speaker 2: This guy's too honest. He should have well, first of all,
Speaker 2: he should have said I only got fifty like you asked,
Speaker 2: and then he keeps the fifty for himself and then
Speaker 2: he just the other fifty, right.
Speaker 1: But so anyway, well he's an honest man.
Speaker 2: He's an honest recipient of bribes.
Speaker 1: Yes, so he ends up. Oh and also did he
Speaker 1: tells him like, don't go make a big purchase, right,
Speaker 1: So he's warning at like, you know, avoid tax fraud
Speaker 1: and everything else. He uses a thirty thousand to buy
Speaker 1: himself a used car in cash. So I guess it
Speaker 1: doesn't ever show up anywhere. It doesn't look suspicious.
Speaker 2: Apparently, why did he did he give him a tip of.
Speaker 1: I probably because he's just so happy the guys show.
Speaker 1: I mean, the guy's a billionaire. One hundred thousand's like
Speaker 1: if I found a quarter in my pocket, So I
Speaker 1: think he's or a nickel thank you. I think he's
Speaker 1: just it's just so he's so happy as static. This
Speaker 1: guy showed up in hands over the video, right. So anyway,
Speaker 1: apparently there was another security guard that worked that night
Speaker 1: that ended up making a video on his phone so
Speaker 1: he can show it to his wife. I couldn't find
Speaker 1: I looked for articles or anything that connected it to
Speaker 1: being in the footage that was eventually that CNN got
Speaker 1: ahold of. So I'm assuming that's where the breach took place.
Speaker 2: But I mean, clearly, if he could have sold it
Speaker 2: more to the media. For more to the media, I
Speaker 2: don't know what media pays well, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know, but here's where he went wrong. He could
Speaker 1: have gotten way more than one hundred thousand dollars from Diddy.
Speaker 2: Like this guy, I don't know, because if it's too
Speaker 2: if he was being too greedy, then his car might
Speaker 2: have blown up. And oh, so you're saying he just
Speaker 2: didn't negotiate with mobs and murderers.
Speaker 1: I think you don't know. All right, Well, then I
Speaker 1: thought it was interesting that he testified that. Then Shawn
Speaker 1: Combs called him on Easter to wish him a happy
Speaker 1: Easter and call him an angel and tell him that
Speaker 1: he was like a good guy and that good things
Speaker 1: were going to happen to him.
Speaker 2: And you know, the way I.
Speaker 1: Interpreted that, I feel like Sean Combs was being like, hey, oh.
Speaker 2: He was really checking in. I don't like we're buddies.
Speaker 1: Hey, happy Easter.
Speaker 2: So wait, when did the deal take place? That was
Speaker 2: Easter of the very next holiday? Like how much time
Speaker 2: had passed it?
Speaker 1: Well, this was like March of twenty sixteen. Maybe, yeah,
Speaker 1: But I thought it was interesting that it was like,
Speaker 1: that's a good Friday, happy Easter. In also there was
Speaker 1: So there's also another victim that is scheduled to testify
Speaker 1: that's actually today. Her name is Jane, and Jane is
Speaker 1: a pseudonym. And we didn't talk about this on this podcast,
Speaker 1: but I did have a conversation with Aubrey o Day
Speaker 1: last week, so if you want to listen to that podcast,
Speaker 1: you can find hers where we talked about. There was
Speaker 1: another victim that testified last week and her name was Mia,
Speaker 1: which was a pseudonym. Her real name isn't Mia, And
Speaker 1: I was saying, I understand that these witnesses come forward.
Speaker 1: She talked about sexual assault, sexual abuse. She was Ditty's
Speaker 1: assistant for a long time, and there were all these
Speaker 1: incidents of sexual abuse and assault that she talked.
Speaker 2: About against her or that she was.
Speaker 1: Her personally, So she had a pseudonym in Core And
Speaker 1: I was saying, I understand that she wants to keep
Speaker 1: her identity on the download, but she's testifying in front
Speaker 1: of them, and testifying in court and testifying in front.
Speaker 2: Of the gym. The dangers people already know who she is.
Speaker 2: That's p Diddy here knows he's not gonna.
Speaker 1: Be like well, apparently she was trying to she was
Speaker 1: testifying under a pseudonym to keep her name out of
Speaker 1: the media.
Speaker 2: I understand.
Speaker 1: I mean, he clearly knows who she is.
Speaker 2: Oh, I guess there's no cameras in the court room either,
Speaker 2: So those crummy paintings.
Speaker 1: Right, But what happened is, of course someone finds out
Speaker 1: her identity and there's a YouTuber.
Speaker 2: Okay, so hold on before you get any further. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I was already thinking this. When people always give a
Speaker 2: fake name and they say not their real name, they
Speaker 2: should just pretend that that's her real name, because if
Speaker 2: she said my name is Mia, and she didn't say
Speaker 2: that's my pseudonym or whatever, then this whoever would try
Speaker 2: to search for her would keep searching for Mia and
Speaker 2: they would never come up with her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're saying they should just create a whole
Speaker 1: false identity instead of instead of just declaring them, they're
Speaker 1: testifying under a pseudonym because they want to protect their identity. Well,
Speaker 1: so what happened was the pseudonym and this whole, this
Speaker 1: whole confidentiality that the court's trying to maintain in order
Speaker 1: to keep her identity under wraps did not work because
Speaker 1: a YouTuber who was like live streaming and like talking
Speaker 1: about the trial somehow knew her identity and released it.
Speaker 1: And then there was a news outlet that posted her
Speaker 1: identity on x So the prosecution was upset. They said
Speaker 1: that Jane who is someone that's also using a pseudonym,
Speaker 1: is scheduled to testify today, and that she was nervous
Speaker 1: about testifying because it had already been breached with this
Speaker 1: whole mia pseudonym. Now, I tried to look for it.
Speaker 1: I couldn't find it, would you I was trying.
Speaker 2: To find it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I looked. Yeah, I was looking for her real
Speaker 1: identity because it had been breached, but apparently they'd scrubbed
Speaker 1: it pretty well. But the judge asked the prosecution to
Speaker 1: draft a possible court order to bar the news outlet
Speaker 1: from court. So there was a news outlet that released
Speaker 1: her name on X and then.
Speaker 2: That was the need to do that. That's so stupid, I.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know, especially when the judge made
Speaker 1: it clear that this woman was testifying, you know, under
Speaker 1: and then then the judge the the YouTuber got kicked
Speaker 1: out of court, like they're not allowed to come back,
Speaker 1: but the news outlet is allowed to still be there
Speaker 1: even though they released the name on X. And then
Speaker 1: the judge asked the prosecution to draft a possible court
Speaker 1: order to bar the news outlet. I guess if they
Speaker 1: draft this court order and then he rules on it,
Speaker 1: maybe he'll bar them from court. But anyway, that's people
Speaker 1: not following. And also there was some I don't know
Speaker 1: if you read this, but there was also some woman
Speaker 1: that uh uh went she went a little crazy. She
Speaker 1: was inside the courtroom yesterday. Apparently she's been at court
Speaker 1: every single day. Outside of the courtroom. Then she was
Speaker 1: in the holding area. I think she's just she's not
Speaker 1: a news report or anything.
Speaker 2: She's just someone.
Speaker 1: Yes, she ended up in the courtroom yesterday and apparently
Speaker 1: she started screaming.
Speaker 2: And yelling and in whose defense.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I tried to read what she said.
Speaker 1: None of it really, I couldn't tell if she was
Speaker 1: a fan of Ditty or she was a nut. She
Speaker 1: was a nut.
Speaker 2: She's probably at the Michael Jackson trial too.
Speaker 1: Probably, And they removed her from the courtroom, but they
Speaker 1: did not bar her from court. She's still allowed to
Speaker 1: be in the holding area. So I didn't I was like,
Speaker 1: I didn't really understand that. But anyway, that is Ditty.
Speaker 1: So that is an update on Blakelee, Blakely, Blakely, Blake
Speaker 1: Lively and Justin Baldoni, and an update on the testimony
Speaker 1: that's going on in Ditty. And I will say on
Speaker 1: track of what happens with Jane, because I want to
Speaker 1: see what she testifies too. But well, one more thing
Speaker 1: on Ditty. I was thinking this whole entire time we've
Speaker 1: been talking about Ditty, how he's basically being tried not
Speaker 1: only for well, he's being tried for RICO, which again, why.
Speaker 2: She tells what RICO means, I mean what it stands for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what is RICO samsor.
Speaker 2: Stands for a racketeering, influence corrupt organization.
Speaker 1: Exactly, there's a party for you, if you're standing in
Speaker 1: line to pick up your kids, you can tell everyone
Speaker 1: about the Didny trial and that he's being tried under
Speaker 1: the federal statue to Rico, which was enacted for mobsters
Speaker 1: because those guys at the top never actually commit any crime,
Speaker 1: like al.
Speaker 2: Capone to get him on tax fraud before Rico, right,
Speaker 2: but before Rico.
Speaker 1: So now that there's Rico, you just have to establish
Speaker 1: that there's two criminal acts within a ten year time period,
Speaker 1: that there was a criminal enterprise, and.
Speaker 2: The enterprise was designed to carry out the crimes.
Speaker 1: And they're acting hard and they're acting on behalf of
Speaker 1: or for a unified goal. Anyway, I was thinking in
Speaker 1: this Ditty trial. So far, we have a lot of violence,
Speaker 1: and we know that he's a violent man, but are
Speaker 1: we really is the prosecution doing a good job of
Speaker 1: establishing that this is a criminal enterprise? And I think
Speaker 1: the testimony of Mia, who was under a pseudonym, was
Speaker 1: not a girlfriend.
Speaker 2: Oh she was an assistant? Was she?
Speaker 1: She was an assistant? And now we have the security
Speaker 1: guard with the hotel, with the bribery, So I feel
Speaker 1: like the prosecution is now honing it.
Speaker 2: It's becoming less of a domestic case and more of
Speaker 2: organized or sophisticated cover ups and carry out, carrying out
Speaker 2: further crimes, exactly paying off right, exactly.
Speaker 1: At the direction of Diddy. So I think they're they're
Speaker 1: doing better of establishing.
Speaker 2: You from needing a money counter being in a cell.
Speaker 2: That sucks.
Speaker 1: That's all right, So let's go into the chrystalies. This
Speaker 1: has been all over the news lately, so I feel
Speaker 1: like we have to go down this road and talk
Speaker 1: about it. So, first of all, how did Todd Julie
Speaker 1: Crisly first rise to fame? We know that they have
Speaker 1: reality show, but I had to do some deep digging
Speaker 1: because I've only seen one episode of the show. And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna guess you've never seen them never.
Speaker 2: Never. I've seen them in headlines all over the place
Speaker 2: years ago and then now again. But I don't know them.
Speaker 2: And I was surprised they were married. Yes, yes, he
Speaker 2: does not look like he would be married.
Speaker 1: He doesn't look like the marrying type.
Speaker 2: No, let's leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Todd Chrisly and his real estate empire. So Todd Chrislely
Speaker 1: originally built his wealth in the early two thousands through
Speaker 1: real estate investment and development. He ran a company called
Speaker 1: Chrisly Asset Management, which claimed to manage and liquidate distress properties.
Speaker 1: During the housing boom, Todd made millions by flipping homes
Speaker 1: and investing and property. He projected an image of financial success,
Speaker 1: frequently referencing lavish spending, designer clothing, upscale homes, and at
Speaker 1: their peak, the Chrystlies lived in a thirty thousand square
Speaker 1: foot mansion Geez and traveled extensively. In twenty fourteen, they
Speaker 1: launched They Have a Counter. I'm sure they have a
Speaker 1: money Counter. In twenty fourteen, they launched Chrisly No's Best
Speaker 1: on the USA Network. It was a reality show portraying
Speaker 1: them as wealthy, outspoken Southern family navigating parenting, business, and faith.
Speaker 1: It became a hit, known for Todd's dramatic personality and
Speaker 1: strict parenting. Success from the show led to spinoffs and endorsements,
Speaker 1: and the family made hundreds of thousands per season. Todd
Speaker 1: and Julia used their fame to their benefit, conducting brand deals,
Speaker 1: public appearances, and even podcasting with their show Christly Confessions
Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen. But along the way, there were
Speaker 1: always some red flags with his family.
Speaker 2: So the show is what put them in the spotlight.
Speaker 1: Yes, there were nobody's normies. Normies, yes, we now know
Speaker 1: the term Norman.
Speaker 2: Yes, ormies.
Speaker 1: Okay, So there's some red flags throughout these years where
Speaker 1: they're building this real estate empire, and I put empire
Speaker 1: in quotations, enterprise, criminal, enterprise. Yes, well, so Todd filed
Speaker 1: for Chapter seven bankruptcy back in twenty twelve. According to
Speaker 1: court records from his bankruptcy filing, he had claimed to
Speaker 1: have forty nine point four million in debt. He reported
Speaker 1: just four point two million in assets and listed only
Speaker 1: fifty five dollars in a checking account and one hundred
Speaker 1: dollars in cash. His monthly expenses were more than fifty thousand,
Speaker 1: including twelve thousand on clothing, six thousand on food, and
Speaker 1: seventeen thousand mortgage and written other household costs. He also
Speaker 1: owed twelve million to Regions Bank and millions more to
Speaker 1: other lenders.
Speaker 2: Wait, he owed twelve million, Yeah too, he found only
Speaker 2: be four and a half million in debt.
Speaker 1: No, forty nine point four million.
Speaker 2: Forty nine million.
Speaker 1: Yeah, did you miss that? That was the first thing
Speaker 1: I said.
Speaker 2: I thought you said four million.
Speaker 1: Forty nine point four million in debt. Fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in debt.
Speaker 2: What did he do for income before his TV show? Well,
Speaker 2: I just told you that he Yeah, tell me again
Speaker 2: now that it's forty nine Millionay, I want to know
Speaker 2: what he did for work.
Speaker 1: He was flipping homes, he was building, He building a
Speaker 1: real estate home. Well, that's what he claims.
Speaker 2: He opened off the banking industry, is what he was doing.
Speaker 1: Ran a company called Christly Asset Management where they managed
Speaker 1: and liquidated distress properties, and apparently allegedly he made millions
Speaker 1: by flipping homes and investing in property. Then he files
Speaker 1: for bankruptcy and he has forty nine point.
Speaker 2: Four million million dollars.
Speaker 1: Yes, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2: I mean he spent fifty million dollars or maybe more so.
Speaker 1: During the bankruptcy process, there were allegations.
Speaker 2: What would he spent fifty million dollars clothing? I know
Speaker 2: it's one hundred and forty four thousand year clothing.
Speaker 1: He said, cars, trips, lavish. I could spend fifty million
Speaker 1: a year.
Speaker 2: Like that, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: Yes, So during the bankruptcy process there were allegations of
Speaker 1: concealed assets. Todd was accused of hiding income and failing
Speaker 1: to disclose assets, including trust and property possibly put into
Speaker 1: his wife's name. Prosecutors later alleged that Todd and Julie
Speaker 1: used Julie's bank accounts and other people's names to avoid
Speaker 1: revealing income to the bankruptcy court and to the irs.
Speaker 1: This is all leading up to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
Speaker 1: So this is all going on right. Here's the way
Speaker 1: I understand it, and this is what I was trying
Speaker 1: to read and decipher. It was, basically, from my understanding,
Speaker 1: a Ponzi scheme that had to do with loans. So
Speaker 1: they were taking out loans and then getting more loans
Speaker 1: to pay back the.
Speaker 2: Place, as you're saying, instead of getting investors to some
Speaker 2: supposed snake oil, they were getting loans, helped pay back
Speaker 2: other loans and then have more money, and they just
Speaker 2: kept robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Speaker 1: Exactly allegedly, well not allegedly, I mean they were prosecuted
Speaker 1: for it. So this leads to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors charged the Chrislies with one bank fraud, submitting falsified
Speaker 1: documents to banks to obtain large loans. So that was
Speaker 1: the first part of this Ponzi scheme as I understand it.
Speaker 1: First of all, in order to get all these loans,
Speaker 1: they had to falsified documents to make it look like
Speaker 1: they have more income or more assets than they do
Speaker 1: in order to get the loans.
Speaker 2: Second, this is why the world hates us, because people
Speaker 2: go and get loans and spend all kinds of money
Speaker 2: on clothes, then file bankruptcy and then thinking is walk
Speaker 2: away right.
Speaker 1: Second, wire fraud using fake emails and bank records to
Speaker 1: qualify for funding. Third, tax evasion not paying federal taxes
Speaker 1: or filing returns for multiple years, and for a conspiracy
Speaker 1: to defraud the United States. They pled not guilty and
Speaker 1: claimed that they were being framed by a former employee.
Speaker 1: And this former employee also when they went to trial.
Speaker 1: I think he was convicted of three years. He was
Speaker 1: like a financial advisor or something, which you told me
Speaker 1: when I was telling you about this. You get sick
Speaker 1: of people blaming their financial advisors.
Speaker 2: I do as stupid. It's because they still have to
Speaker 2: sign everything and they still need to be responsible. You
Speaker 2: can't just hire a financial advisor to alleviate yourself and
Speaker 2: create some veil where it's like, oh, I didn't know
Speaker 2: he did it, not me, fifty million. You were stuck
Speaker 2: on that fifty Yeah, I had no idea it was
Speaker 2: fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: So then COVID comes along and delays their trial proceedings
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty to twenty one.
Speaker 2: Flip homes and make that kind of money, so.
Speaker 1: You think so you think, well, he's no. Well he
Speaker 1: might have. He might have flipped a couple, or he
Speaker 1: might have.
Speaker 2: A couple couple, but not enough to.
Speaker 1: Have fifty million dollars in debt, not unless.
Speaker 2: You falsify the loan documents.
Speaker 1: Well that's what they claim, and that's what they were
Speaker 1: convicted of. Was falsifying loan documents. In June of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, their trial began. The prosecution's main evidence was
Speaker 1: fake bank and financial documents. Julie Crisley allegedly created fake
Speaker 1: fake financial documents, including falsified bank statements, fake credit reports,
Speaker 1: and altered financial audit letters. These were used to apply
Speaker 1: for and receive over thirty million dollars in loans from
Speaker 1: community and regional banks between two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2: And they they got addicted. It was easy money, yeah,
Speaker 2: and they just wanted more and more and more.
Speaker 1: There's so other evidences, emails and text messages. Federal agents
Speaker 1: recovered emails and text messages between the Chrystalies and co
Speaker 1: conspirators that revealed that Julie allegedly emailed fake financial statements
Speaker 1: to third parties who submitted them to lenders, and Todd
Speaker 1: and other co conspirators discussed how to trick banks into
Speaker 1: approving their loans golly.
Speaker 2: And then when I go get like a loan for
Speaker 2: a car, it seems like amount of paperwork, and I'm
Speaker 2: like trying to state my case and make it like
Speaker 2: I could afford it, and then these people just go
Speaker 2: and get fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: And loans and then file for bankruptcy and not pay
Speaker 1: back the loans and then get more. Sorry, I think
Speaker 1: they probably get more loans to pay back as many
Speaker 1: loans as they can. But then when they start to
Speaker 1: get to the point where it's like loans, then you
Speaker 1: just file for bankruptcy and you just start over, and.
Speaker 2: You say it's a Ponzi scheme. You know, it's called
Speaker 2: the Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know the history on the guy's name was Ponzi, Yeah, Charles,
Speaker 1: Charles Ponzi.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in the twenties, and he was making a fortune.
Speaker 1: What was what was his Ponzi?
Speaker 2: His original business idea was valid?
Speaker 1: Okay, what was this? This is the twenties, the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2: In the twenties, he he it was there was international
Speaker 2: stamps posted stamps that could be used to mail internationally
Speaker 2: to other countries. Like countries got together and agreed that
Speaker 2: this was a universal stamp. It was cheaper in Italy
Speaker 2: the stamps. Why then, I don't know, exchange rate or something.
Speaker 2: So he was like, hey, I'll buy the stamps there,
Speaker 2: I'll bring him to the States and I'll resell and
Speaker 2: it'll be cheaper for the buyers, and I'll make a profit.
Speaker 2: Totally valid.
Speaker 1: That's a legitimate business plan.
Speaker 2: Legitimate business plan. Okay, it got out of control and
Speaker 2: then he then he just ended up going into a
Speaker 2: Ponzi scheme where now he couldn't keep up with the
Speaker 2: demand and he was just getting investors and he wasn't
Speaker 2: actually buying the stamps, and he was paying people back
Speaker 2: and he was then it turned into a true Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1: So a true Ponzi scheme is when you have people
Speaker 1: invest in something and then you just use that money
Speaker 1: to pay back some of your investors at the top,
Speaker 1: and then you just get more people and sometimes usually.
Speaker 2: Just pay a little bit like so, then then a
Speaker 2: newspaper came and wrote a complaint about him that it
Speaker 2: was a Ponzi scheme. Of course they labeled back then,
Speaker 2: but they said it was fraud. He sued the newspaper defamation, yes,
Speaker 2: and won five hundred thousand dollars in the twenties ties,
Speaker 2: even though he was a crook and in that time prior,
Speaker 2: I think, when the media came out and said he
Speaker 2: was a scam, he opened up his doors and said,
Speaker 2: I will pay all my investors back and they came
Speaker 2: and he would pay him back with a little bit
Speaker 2: of interest or whatever the agreement was. And then he'd
Speaker 2: be like, see, I have money, are you sure you
Speaker 2: wanted it back? And then they eventual he said no, no, no,
Speaker 2: keep it, keep it, keep investing in. Yeah, and then
Speaker 2: he won five hundred thousand dollars. And he had like
Speaker 2: a heated pool for his mom in like the twenties
Speaker 2: and all this like fancy home and electricity and cars,
Speaker 2: and I think he had a permanent cabin on some
Speaker 2: yacht for his mom that would go across the seas.
Speaker 2: He was out of control. And then he got busted.
Speaker 1: How did he finally get caught?
Speaker 2: That I can't remember. Oh yeah, I can't remember.
Speaker 1: So that's the end of the story.
Speaker 2: I didn't finish the book. But he didn't get caught.
Speaker 2: He got extradited to Italy. And then Italy is supposedly
Speaker 2: just like slapped him on the rest and said, yeah.
Speaker 1: You're the bad boy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, don't do that again next time, don't get caught.
Speaker 1: Right, here's some pasta all right. So other further evidence
Speaker 1: in their original trial was testimony from a former business associate,
Speaker 1: a former employee Mark Braddock testified against the Chrystlies in
Speaker 1: exchange for immunity. He claimed he helped Todd commit fraud
Speaker 1: for years and was involved in faking documents, forging signatures,
Speaker 1: and submitting false applications. He also claimed they paid off
Speaker 1: banks using newly fraudulently obtained loans, operating almost like a
Speaker 1: Ponzi scheme, which is what we talked about. And then
Speaker 1: there's also evidence of spending beyond their actual income. Despite
Speaker 1: claiming little to know income on taxes and bankruptcy forms,
Speaker 1: the Chrystlies spent tens of thousands monthly on luxury items,
Speaker 1: paid for designer clothing, private school tuition, luxury cars, and
Speaker 1: rent for multimillion dollar homes. The prosecution highlighted this to
Speaker 1: show that the Chrystlies were not simply bad with money,
Speaker 1: that they were intentionally living beyond their means while lying
Speaker 1: to banks and to the government. And lastly, there was
Speaker 1: a pattern of concealing the income. The Chrystlies use various
Speaker 1: strategies to avoid detection, including routing income through a production
Speaker 1: company controlled by Julie to shield it from the IRS,
Speaker 1: and claiming to have little personal income while receiving thousands
Speaker 1: per month via other entities.
Speaker 2: Losers.
Speaker 1: The conviction and sentencing, the jury found them both guilty
Speaker 1: on all counts in November of twenty twenty two. Todd
Speaker 1: was sentenced to twelve years, Julie was sent in to
Speaker 1: sentence to seven years, and both were also given sixteen
Speaker 1: months of probation following their following release.
Speaker 2: Well, he had twelve years and so he got seven.
Speaker 2: So they spent three years. Give her take what do
Speaker 2: you mean?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, less than three years?
Speaker 1: Yes, So in January of twenty twenty three, they report
Speaker 1: to prison. Todd reports to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, Florida,
Speaker 1: and Julie reports to Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
Speaker 1: So what happened to the children. At twenty five years old,
Speaker 1: Savannah Chrisley became the legal guardian and family spokesperson. She
Speaker 1: took custody of her younger brother, Grayson, who's sixteen, and
Speaker 1: niece Chloe, who was ten. And this was Todd and
Speaker 1: Julie's adopted granddaughter. Because Todd had two children from a
Speaker 1: previous marriage, he was married before, so he's been married twice,
Speaker 1: so he has two. He has two children from his
Speaker 1: first marriage. He had a falling out I believe with
Speaker 1: the daughter, and she was kind of a strange from
Speaker 1: the family. I don't think she was part of the
Speaker 1: reality show or anything, but I think she did offer
Speaker 1: support for them publicly when they went to press.
Speaker 2: To be fair, we won't judge the family affairs because
Speaker 2: we don't really know any Yeah, but the stealing money
Speaker 2: is a problem, Okay, and then I'll judge all day long.
Speaker 1: That you're going to judge. And he also had a
Speaker 1: son from his first marriage who had Chloe, who is
Speaker 1: the granddaughter. And then I believe the son had some
Speaker 1: substance abuse issues, so Todd and Julie adopted the granddaughter.
Speaker 2: So they prior to going to prison.
Speaker 1: Prior to going to prison. Yes, she became the public
Speaker 1: so we're talking about Savannah. Savannah became the public face
Speaker 1: of the family, frequently speaking out in interviews and on
Speaker 1: her podcast Unlocked with Savannah Chrisly about the injustice she
Speaker 1: believed her parents faced. She continually expressed being overwhelmed. I mean,
Speaker 1: she is taking care of the kids, so I get that,
Speaker 1: but was committed to keeping the family together. Quote, I'm
Speaker 1: helping raise two children while also dealing with the loss
Speaker 1: of my parents being in a way, she said in
Speaker 1: a twenty twenty three interview. Savannah's older brother, Chase, did
Speaker 1: not become a legal guardian. However, he did support Savannah
Speaker 1: and helping with the two younger ones, Grayson and Chloe.
Speaker 1: So Savannah has been the one that's been working tirelessly
Speaker 1: to have her parents pardon. Let's just talk about pardon
Speaker 1: power so that we know where that comes from. So
Speaker 1: the president's power to grant pardons comes from. It's outlined
Speaker 1: in article yes the Constitution, Article two, Section two, Clause
Speaker 1: one of the Constitution. I like to give you guys
Speaker 1: this little bits of like interesting legal to me, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I love the Constitution. I actually had a small pocket
Speaker 1: version of the Constitution that I just had in my purse.
Speaker 1: I mean along with yeah, I would like to read
Speaker 1: it along with like snacks and you know, sandwiches. I
Speaker 1: also have a copy of the Constitution.
Speaker 2: Okay. I never knew that this.
Speaker 1: Power is broad but not limitless, and it allows the
Speaker 1: president to offer forgiveness and restore rights to individuals convicted
Speaker 1: of federal crimes. Pardon power is explicitly limited to federal
Speaker 1: offenses only, not state offenses, and this means the president
Speaker 1: cannot pardon individuals for crimes committed under state or local laws.
Speaker 1: So on May twenty seven, twenty twenty five, the presidential
Speaker 1: pardon is granted. President Donald Trump issues full pardons to
Speaker 1: both Todd and Julie Chrislely. The pardon cites claims of
Speaker 1: unfair prosecution and procedural irregularities and the trial. The couple
Speaker 1: is released from prison having served roughly two years. All right,
Speaker 1: first of all, what is your thoughts. I know we
Speaker 1: were having this conversation, but you were saying you didn't
Speaker 1: think that they should be pardoned. If anything, you felt
Speaker 1: like their sentence should have been commuted.
Speaker 2: Right, because a pardon pretty much says you didn't do
Speaker 2: the crime right, or you were unfairly prosecuted and you
Speaker 2: know you shouldn't have been found guilty, or something to
Speaker 2: that effect. I don't know. If there's there's paper trails,
Speaker 2: it's a crime not of testimony, but of just like
Speaker 2: their own signing documents. And I disagree based on what
Speaker 2: I know, I disagree with the pardon. If anything, commuting
Speaker 2: the sentence would have been better, because then it'd be
Speaker 2: like Okay, you know what, that's more like, you did
Speaker 2: the crime, You did enough time. Your sense was harsh.
Speaker 2: This is enough. You're not a risk of society. If anything,
Speaker 2: can be more productive, and we don't have to pay
Speaker 2: for you to sit in jail, so you sent them out.
Speaker 2: I think a pardon was not a good idea. I
Speaker 2: disagree with that, and I think, and now that it's
Speaker 2: fifty million dollars, I definitely think they should be in jail.
Speaker 1: Still in jail. Do you think two years was not
Speaker 1: enough time?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, you know what.
Speaker 2: The the should be an eye for an eye. It
Speaker 2: should be like you're not allowed to have more than
Speaker 2: five hundred dollars in your pocket at any given time.
Speaker 2: You cannot be rich anymore because your phony. So you're
Speaker 2: saying they lived a life or luxury and now they
Speaker 2: should suffer.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, if someone commits fraud to live extravagant
Speaker 1: life style, they should never be able to live in
Speaker 1: extravagant lifestyle again, even if they earned it legitimately after
Speaker 1: they came out of prison. You're just not allowed to
Speaker 1: ever be rich again. That's your punishment.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: In other news, Savannah Christly addresses rumors about her parents' pardons.
Speaker 1: Days after Todd Christly and Julie Chrisly were released from prison,
Speaker 1: their daughter addressed conspiracy theories about her year's long efforts
Speaker 1: to free her parents from behind bars.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: Obviously, the biggest misconception right now is that I either
Speaker 1: paid for a pardon or I slept for a pardon,
Speaker 1: Savannah told the media.
Speaker 2: A lot.
Speaker 1: You Well, she's very attractive.
Speaker 2: She looks like him. He is pretty. He is pretty.
Speaker 1: Okay, she's pretty. They're both pretty. Savannah told the media
Speaker 1: alongside Todd during a May thirtieth press conference.
Speaker 2: I just have very little sympathy for people that take
Speaker 2: other people's money knowingly. This isn't This isn't like a
Speaker 2: business venture that went bad or they kept throwing good
Speaker 2: money after bad because they were.
Speaker 1: They were trying to have something.
Speaker 2: Authornically, they were genuinely trying something, even if it was
Speaker 2: poor decision, they should have known better. Yeah, this is.
Speaker 1: Like intentional fraudulent. They were big fifty million dollars that
Speaker 1: are doctored. Here's the argument, and this is where I
Speaker 1: think people like when you talk about Menendez, there's clearly
Speaker 1: victims and brutality. When you talk about a crime like this,
Speaker 1: there isn't. I think people look at it people, but
Speaker 1: I don't think people see it that way. I think
Speaker 1: people see it as a victimless crime.
Speaker 2: It's not I don't I never really understood victim. I
Speaker 2: guess meaning there's no individual person harmed, and I think
Speaker 2: it's still a crime.
Speaker 1: I think also people I have a problem with capitalism
Speaker 1: a lot, and they feel like people like this are
Speaker 1: just sticking it to like the you know, banks and
Speaker 1: you know, the like there's no there's there's no actual victim.
Speaker 1: You know, when people don't pay their car payments and
Speaker 1: they're like, so what so land Rover doesn't get my money?
Speaker 2: Or well, well that would that would be okay. If
Speaker 2: the person was fell flat, flat on flat on their
Speaker 2: fees at the term and they had no money and
Speaker 2: they couldn't pay, then it's not a it's not criminal.
Speaker 2: It's just a financial situation. This is criminal. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: but you take fifty million dollars or more so, you
Speaker 2: because you think you should live a certain lifestyle. Screw them.
Speaker 1: She also states during a press conference that if people
Speaker 1: knew the countless hours and money in time I spent
Speaker 1: going to d C literally with not a meeting scheduled,
Speaker 1: and I just got on a plane and went and said,
Speaker 1: I'm going to be in the right room and the
Speaker 1: right time, I meet the right people. So basically, I
Speaker 1: know she spoke during the RNC and I think she
Speaker 1: her She alleges that her parents were unfairly prosecuted and
Speaker 1: gone after because they were supporters of Trump, so that
Speaker 1: it was a political She was wrong.
Speaker 2: They were going after them because because they committed crimes
Speaker 2: and owed fifty million dollars. She forgot that part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he claims in his press conference that they are
Speaker 1: completely innocent.
Speaker 2: So I would But you know what, that's the thing,
Speaker 2: the pardon. I bet you a million bucks that party
Speaker 2: may it like, see, we didn't do anything. See that's right.
Speaker 2: Now they can run around and claim innocence. But if
Speaker 2: it was just commuted, then maybe they could not run
Speaker 2: around and say we didn't do anything. They wouldn't have
Speaker 2: that argument.
Speaker 1: Well, I would love for them to take the opportunity
Speaker 1: to prove how they are innocent, because as far they.
Speaker 2: Already had an opportunity and they sucked at it and
Speaker 2: they went to.
Speaker 1: Jail for I know, but I'm saying now after the fact,
Speaker 1: if you're going to do press conferences and continuously talk
Speaker 1: about how you're innocent and you didn't do anything wrong
Speaker 1: and that's why you were pardoned, then how are you innocent?
Speaker 1: Let's see it?
Speaker 2: Are we going to see him out? Bravo? Con I
Speaker 2: don't know, beause I have some questions.
Speaker 1: Todd also spoke and maintained that he and Julie did
Speaker 1: not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Quote,
Speaker 1: even though this pardon happened, I still was convicted of
Speaker 1: something I did not do. It could be you, It
Speaker 1: could be you, It could be any of you. He
Speaker 1: said during a press conference that it.
Speaker 2: Could never be me because I will never take out
Speaker 2: a loan for fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: Well it was falsified, fifi.
Speaker 2: I don't care whatever. I wouldn't falsify paperwork to get alane. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so it will never be me.
Speaker 1: Chrisly Todd and Julie Cristly's alleged pricey demand for their
Speaker 1: TV comeback raises eyebrows in Hollywood. This was an article
Speaker 1: on Daily Mail. Apparently they are shopping or they're being
Speaker 1: offered a brand new reality series documenting their return back
Speaker 1: into their normal life post prison. According to sources, that
Speaker 1: might not be a problem, as many TV production companies
Speaker 1: are considering signing the couple. However, their price may be
Speaker 1: a hindrance as they're seeking a seven figure payout. Recently,
Speaker 1: some television producers opened up to The Daily Mail sharing
Speaker 1: their thoughts about Todd and Julie's extremely high price tag. Quote,
Speaker 1: we would love to work with them, but their price
Speaker 1: tag is way too high.
Speaker 2: One the complication has no assets. Now he's got to
Speaker 2: build up his wardrobe, right, He's got to catch up
Speaker 2: on whatever procedures he didn't get while he was locked up.
Speaker 1: They also shared that they weren't entirely sure if Todd
Speaker 1: and Joy would be worth such a huge amount, that's
Speaker 1: the thing. Would people want to watch them? The producer asked.
Speaker 1: Another producer revealed that the specific amount Todd and Julie
Speaker 1: were requesting. According to them, the couple is allegedly asking
Speaker 1: for a whopping five million dollar minimum to make a
Speaker 1: reality show post prison. That's where their conversation starts. Five million,
Speaker 1: but they're hoping for a bidding war to take the
Speaker 1: price even higher.
Speaker 2: So it should be in the slammer.
Speaker 1: So you're not a fan, you're a fan. Listen, here's
Speaker 1: my thoughts on pardoning. I understand and I understand the
Speaker 1: Constitution and the president has pardon power, and I agree
Speaker 1: with that. I feel, however, just because of the work
Speaker 1: that I do and the things that I'm involved in.
Speaker 1: I mean I look at cases and things, see things
Speaker 1: all the time and meet people involved in the Innocence project.
Speaker 1: My mind, I'm.
Speaker 2: Thinking, why are we at those cases?
Speaker 1: Why are we not taking it deeper? Are why is
Speaker 1: there not a consultantdenzar.
Speaker 2: Or in addition to a pardons aar, they should have
Speaker 2: a wrongly convicted zaar. Yeah, I would love it for
Speaker 2: those because the lady that was appointed as the pardons are.
Speaker 1: Alice.
Speaker 2: She's awesome, she is and she's lived up to her
Speaker 2: end of the deal of just being a good person
Speaker 2: to society and trying to help those who you know,
Speaker 2: need to get back up on their feet. And she's
Speaker 2: the one that sought out the chrislies. I think in
Speaker 2: some fashion. I mean, she was probably approached, but she
Speaker 2: did her homework because I watched an interview with her,
Speaker 2: she did her homework and she felt after doing her
Speaker 2: homework that they were wrongly convicted or and definitely wrongly
Speaker 2: sentenced or harshly sentenced. So I do know that she's
Speaker 2: a pretty genuine good woman. So I hope that she
Speaker 2: did her homework enough. But I still disagree.
Speaker 1: Well, you disagree on I disagree.
Speaker 2: Based on what I know, right, there might be things
Speaker 2: I don't know. No, I know what I know, you
Speaker 2: know what you know. I don't think I know what.
Speaker 1: I guess. The point of what I was saying was
Speaker 1: in the in the field and the things that I
Speaker 1: work in, and you have been involved in a lot
Speaker 1: of it, and we meet a lot of people that
Speaker 1: have been wrongfully convicted, and my question is why are
Speaker 1: we not investing more time and energy into those cases
Speaker 1: that the Innocence Project picks up and puts all this
Speaker 1: time and energy.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess the argument is if they were pardon
Speaker 2: then the argument is they were wrongly convicted. So they were,
Speaker 2: But I would.
Speaker 1: Rather I would just I would If we're going to
Speaker 1: have pardoning power, we're going to pardon people. I would
Speaker 1: rather pardon someone that has been in prison for a
Speaker 1: long time that was either wrongfully.
Speaker 2: Convicted, like one of the cases that you help with,
Speaker 2: or it takes they have evidence and now it still
Speaker 2: takes yes years, yes to actually yes, get it overturned.
Speaker 1: I am released, right.
Speaker 2: But you're saying so when the president can just come in, well,
Speaker 2: assuming it's a federal crime, when the president can come
Speaker 2: in or the guf A R could come in his
Speaker 2: boom and get him out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just I wish there was I just needed
Speaker 1: maybe the Christie should have a reality show where they
Speaker 1: go around the prisons and they talk to people. That's
Speaker 1: what they should do. Did you hear that, Todd and
Speaker 1: Julie Chrisly if you're looking for a reality show because
Speaker 1: they did complain. You see an interview with Todd Christly
Speaker 1: where he does talk about the prison environment and how
Speaker 1: bad it is and how bad the food is, and
Speaker 1: he did say he said that African Americans are treated
Speaker 1: more poorly than the white prisoners, and he said he
Speaker 1: received privileges because he was white, and he he made
Speaker 1: that known. He said it in an interview.
Speaker 2: See that's interesting. So you do your part and bring
Speaker 2: all that to the public and expose those things and
Speaker 2: try to make it better.
Speaker 1: Okay, I there, that's a good solution. We together would
Speaker 1: get behind a reality show with the Chrislies if they
Speaker 1: want to do prison reform or do some type of
Speaker 1: Innocent's project or or work with wrongly convicted and.
Speaker 2: Then he has to give all his money back to
Speaker 2: the bank.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, but because he has to give the money
Speaker 1: back to all right, that is the Chryslies will keep
Speaker 1: you updated and on things that have to do with
Speaker 1: Diddy and Lively and if there's any more that comes
Speaker 1: with the Chrystlies will be aware of whether they get
Speaker 1: their reality show or not, or whether they listen to
Speaker 1: this podcast, and then we'll recap it, recap shot the
Speaker 1: reality show. Yes, all right, thanks guys for listening to
Speaker 1: Legally Brunette. We appreciate it. And as always a lot
Speaker 1: of you send me dms and tell me your thoughts
Speaker 1: about cases and cases that you think that we should
Speaker 1: talk about. So I appreciate that, so please continue to
Speaker 1: do that.