Latest / Reality with The King / RealiTEA Crime Stories: Eddie & Wendy Osefo Updates & Britt Eady vs Bravo

Transcript

RealiTEA Crime Stories: Eddie & Wendy Osefo Updates & Britt Eady vs Bravo · Reality with The King

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: scripted as well. All Right, rain Dross, If you've been
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: sipping with us, then you know Reality Crime Stories is
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: where glam meets gritch, and the headlines always comes with
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: a sight of hard truth. Courtney Parker and I put
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: back the velvet rope on fame, fortune and the fallout
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: they tried to hide.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: That's right, Carlos. Everything from reality TV scandals to the
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: crimes committed behind the cameras, whether it happens on or
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: off the screen, Carlos and I will bring you the
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: tea surrounding hot topic crime stories involving all of your
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: favorite reality TV personalities.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: And if today's story taught us anything, child is that
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: in this world the tea is never just hot, it's criminal. Hey,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: Ray drops On today's episode Reality Crime Stories, I am
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: back with my co host Courtney Parker and our special
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: guest just Tyranny to break down today's hot topics. We
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: have so many updates for you, guys, Courtney and try
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: now you're ready for this.
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: We are probably not.
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: Write gonna disclaimer. We know that.
• 2:01
  Speaker 4: Boy, could I get it now later or you and now?
• 2:06
  Speaker 3: Girls? Not the way as I drink my smoothie. I'm
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: doing two smoothiees a day.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: Okay, Yes, summertime fine.
• 2:17
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes, it's March and I need to be fine
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: for a look, I want to be fine from May
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: to August, so that's the.
• 2:28
  Speaker 4: Are we getting married in the summer?
• 2:31
  Speaker 3: No, okay, I want to marry the sand.
• 2:38
  Speaker 4: And riding drops.
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: I know you hate me, but I'm gonna tell you
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: just again, I am here for legal education only. I
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: cannot discuss the facts of any open case. I cannot
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: give you legal advice. I am just here to explain
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: the legal terms and concepts and processes to you. Yes,
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: I know you hate me, but I still love coming
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: here trying.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: They love you actually, yes, yes, no, they actually love you,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: which is good because we really have.
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: A lot to talk about. This evening. The first update
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: is breaking news. This just came out three hours ago, okay,
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: so rain Drops. We recorded this on Wednesday, you're seeing
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: it now on Thursday. So the good thing is we're
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: now able to talk about something that just came out.
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: And that is the latest update with doctor Wendy and
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: Eddie Osepho from the Real Housewives of Potomac, which all
• 3:49
  Speaker 3: of you all know that they were arrested for alleged
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: crime of insurance frog so Courtney tyranny. This is what
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: happened today, Okay. The update is both parties are going
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: to be tried separately. Okay. So Wendy and Eddie a
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: married couple where the Feds have a ledge that they
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: both committed insurance fraud. This married couple is now being
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: tried separately, Okay. Wendy and Eddie, Well, let me start
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: by saying this. Eddie waved his rights to a speedy trial, okay,
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: which is being tried within one hundred and eighty days
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: of being charged. So he waved his rights to a
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: speedy trial. There was extensive discovery and he wants to
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: take a deeper dive per the prosecut.
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: And he's a.
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: Lawyer, right he's a lawyer.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: He's a lawyer. That's interesting.
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: On the other hand, his wife, Wendy, the housewife, she
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: wants her trial to start immediately. She did not waive
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: her right to a speedy trial. The defense and the
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: prosecution were looking for dates in March this month. However,
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: they were none available for a jury trial, so Wendy
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: she would not be able to have a trial as
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: quickly as she wanted. The original trial day for her
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: would have been April fifteenth of this year, next month.
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: Due to the trial schedule, it would have to be
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: pushed out until May, but she was willing to go
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: to trial soon. With all of that being said, speculation
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: has always arose, which is are winding Eddie setting themselves
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: up to have Eddie take the fall? And that's that
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: has been the question that people have been asking since
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: the inception. A little update for the two of you,
• 6:23
  Speaker 3: because I'm not pretty. I'm not sure you two busy
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: ladies are caught up on the Royal Housewives of Potomac.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: We are not.
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: I am I.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: Am and.
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: Let me speak for myself. I am not.
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: You're not. But Courtney, did you watch the reunion? Was
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: three parts?
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: I did because you know, I am a huge Karen fan.
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: Okay, Courtney, you know this. So Tyranny, there was a
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: scene where the cameras picked up a week after and
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: they were arrested. When we first did all Live months ago, yep,
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: and Wendy told her husband, what does this mean for
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: our marriage? Because I'm no longer the same person after this,
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: And it was a shock to all of us. I
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: am all as well, because they were you know this,
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: they give very much power, a power couple United front.
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: So for her to say that, we were like, wait,
• 7:29
  Speaker 3: wait a minute, and now to hear that they're going
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: to be tried separately, to now hear Eddie wanted to wait.
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: She wanted to get herself over with. It is this
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: assumption that will Eddie take the fall, Wendy will be
• 7:43
  Speaker 3: home with the kids. I know you can't say much, but.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: I do have some Yeah, I have some strategic questions
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: when Carlos finishes finish okay, because I hear you Carlos,
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: and I'm wondering if, if, if it's going to be
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: like a Joe and Teresa situation.
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: Explained to Tyranny what that means, Well, a Joe.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: And Teresa, you know, Real Housewives of New Jersey, New
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: Jersey to where he got more. She got like the
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: Martha Stewart treatment, and he got like a you know,
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: more time for embezzlement and fraud and all those things
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: which later led to his deportation. But that was, you know,
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: that was separate.
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: And she went to jail first and was able to
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: stay home with the kids with the kids, and then
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: when she got home, he had to go to jail.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: He had to go to jail. So but here becomes
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: my question. And because he's a lawyer, I'm curious as
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: to what you sent me about what prosecution sightings that
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: they see, Like I'm curious as to what discoveries, the
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: extensive discoveries, and what that means for them to separate.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: So I know you can't speak on open cases, and
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: this is clearly very open, but what you can educate
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: us on is strategy. Is this a good strategy to
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: be tried separately versus together.
• 9:30
  Speaker 4: Strategically? Right?
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: So, again, yes, I cannot comment on any specific case,
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: but just when we are talking about the separance of
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: trials for co defendings, there are a couple things that
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: I would say you have to keep in mind And
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: the first thing is that the burden of proof is
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: always on the prosecutor. Because these are criminal charges, the
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: prosecutor has to prove beyond a using the both doubt
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: that the defendants actually committed the crime. Anytime you have
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: co defendants that you have a trial where we're one
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: trial instead of the trial's being severed, you could run
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: up into several different issues. So one of the things
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: is you could confuse the jury. Instead of proving your
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: burden that someone is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you're
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: like allowing finger peering, finger pointing between the two defendants.
• 10:38
  Speaker 4: So that is something that.
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: Could be problematic in any criminal trial. You also that
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: evidence is always going to lead. There may be evidence
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: that there's more damning towards one person than another person
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: got it, or there may be evidence that isn't as damning.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: But it's confusing to a jury when the evidence only
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: is going to apply to one defendant versus two defendants.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: And it's really hard for a jury, even though they
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: would be given instructions to disregard not impute this evidence
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: to both defendants. This only it's really hard to unhear
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: something right no matter what instructures are whatever the instructions are,
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: So then you have possible spillage of over into each
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: defendant's case.
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: It becomes very messy.
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: So there's no And again, I know I'm always repeating this.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: I'm always repeating this, but I just want the public
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: the rain drop to be fair and.
• 12:02
  Speaker 4: Not to jump to conclusions. Suffering your trials does not
• 12:07
  Speaker 4: mean you are.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: Guilty of anything. It just means that you want to
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: be tree it fairly. You want to make sure that
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: the prosecution meets its burden for each defendant in the
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: most fair and just manner, and the court is going
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: to allow that. So it does sound like from a
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: strategy strategic point of view, this is good. I like
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: the thought process of confusion. When you add in confusion,
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: it is harder to prove burden. If I'm saying, well
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: there is evidence that you knew, You're gonna have to
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: really prove that I knew, juxtappose my attorney saying well,
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: I didn't know. Is it likely that it's going to
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: be the same prosecutor having to try both of these cases.
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: It's going to be the same prosecutor typically, right, It's
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: going to.
• 13:04
  Speaker 4: Be the same prosecution office.
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: Okay, so there are different district there's one district attorney,
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: but they are there are different assistant district attorneys, and
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: so the district attorney may assign different assistant district attorneys
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: to these cases and or signed the same. It depends
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: again about the calendars, the trial schedules, the motions for discovery.
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: If one person can handle that with it being severed, right,
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: that's going to be so interesting, Carlos, because you know,
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: we saw we see this oftentimes in high profile cases,
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: especially when they're separate. It's going to be challenging to
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: get you know, unbiased yours within the same district. It's
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: going to be talked about so much, especially if she
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: goes first and he delays the outcome of hers, even
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: though we know that it couldn't, but it could possibly
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: show prejudice against somebody gearing up for him. He's an attorney,
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: so you know, they probably all talked about this. What
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: is going to be the best strategy. My question becomes
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: in Carlis, and I just want to make a note
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: that I think again the public and the raindrops need
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: to be made aware of when you sever into two
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: different trials, you have to understand that you can get
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: two different outcomes simply because you have two different juries.
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: So the juries are going to interpret the documents, the evidence,
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: the communications.
• 14:57
  Speaker 4: They could see them totally different.
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: If if you have the same or a different prosecutor,
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: they could present the evidence differently, the defense strategy could
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: be different between the two trials. So simply it doesn't
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: mean you're going to be prejudiced.
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: It is very well.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: Likely impossible that you could get a different outcome with
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: the exact same evidence, because remember we got two different
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: juris right.
• 15:27
  Speaker 3: That's actually very smart. I'm glad you brought that up,
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: because the thing is this, everything is strategy. I mean,
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: I don't think that's like a secret when it comes
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: to anything dealing with trial. I think it's part of
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: the profession. Everything in life is strategy when it comes
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: to work, corporate America, no matter what you do for
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: a living.
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: So in a trial, and we can't lose sight of this.
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: I didn't mean to cut you off, but I just
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: think it's important. We always have to remember the biggest
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: thing about a criminal trial.
• 15:59
  Speaker 4: Is that this is not my position to prove my innocence.
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: It is the prosecutor's burden to prove my guilt beyond
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: a reasonable doubt.
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: So I could show up and do absolutely nothing.
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: The prosecutor has to do their job, which is different
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: than a corporate America job.
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: You know, it's more a give take put.
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: But in a criminal trial, the burden lies solely on
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: the prosecutor to to prove guilty.
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: Carlos, because the thing is this, but think is this,
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: and I would have laid out all on the table
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: for us to talk about. We have to go back
• 16:47
  Speaker 3: to the discovery of the emails, right, So the refresher memory,
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: Addie allegedly sent an email to his wife stating one
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: of the claims that they were they will be able
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: to get X amount more dollars if they claim up
• 17:14
  Speaker 3: too X amount of dollars. There's there's allegedly an email
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: from Eddie to Wendy about that, which, presumably right shows
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: that he was the orchestrator of all of this. Right,
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: and that was something that I remember when we did
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: our live a few months ago, that stayed with all
• 17:37
  Speaker 3: of us, not meaning the three of us, meaning like
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: the audience, I'm the audience right now. Fast forward later,
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: we're in March and they're being tried separately. We saw
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: a scene where they discussed the idea of what does
• 17:52
  Speaker 3: this mean for our marriage? There's a real possible case
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: in terms of Wendy saying I had no idea what
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: he was doing. This was all him, not me. I'm
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: and it's a bystander and that's that.
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: Can I say this and this?
• 18:14
  Speaker 4: Okay?
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: But from a legal standpoint, And again Tierney gave us
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: her disclaimer.
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: If is that I'm trying to ask a question, she
• 18:28
  Speaker 3: could answer.
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: That, she will answer right, my shady shady really quickly.
• 18:40
  Speaker 4: I'm like, but if.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: You're going to go off of I didn't know what
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: he was doing, did you know you still have the
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: ring on and photographs that you claimed was stolen.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Well, that's the thing, because the other thing with that, Corney,
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: is most people.
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: Recreate their ring if they lost it. It was stumbling.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: So but my question is this, based on the information
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: that it's in a discovery?
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: Is it plausible to defend that the white you know
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: about it?
• 19:26
  Speaker 4: You must be talking to Cordy.
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: Carny, I tried.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: Not in this case. But let me ask another question, Carlo,
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: is it a plausible defense for a spouse to claim
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: no knowledge of something in charges that are being uh
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: you know, charged against both of them. How actually, now
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: that they're not being tried together, where can spousal privilege
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: come into play? And then where can spousal ignorance come
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: into play? Like can I just say, if I'm married
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: and we're in hot water now our trials are separate,
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: and I'm saying, listen, I really did not know what
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: he was up to.
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: Clearly this was his plan.
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: There is I'm wondering, are there emails with her responding
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: there wasn't not discovery?
• 20:38
  Speaker 4: No?
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: OK.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: So then I will say, anytime you have to the
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: cold defenders and they sever a trial, you know there's
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: always the possibility. I'm sure you guys have seen lawn
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: Order where they have pointed the finger as the other person.
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: Yes, that was a shameless plug for my friends.
• 21:00
  Speaker 4: But you know where you point in that that is.
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: One of your legal strategies. You severed a trial so
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: that you can say I didn't do it, the.
• 21:08
  Speaker 4: Other person did it.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: Which is why I keep repeating to you all, and
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: people hate when I repeat, Sorry, rain drops, but it's
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: the truth. The prosecution has to prove that each defendant
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: is saying what they're saying is true. They have to
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: prove that the defendant didn't know because in.
• 21:32
  Speaker 4: Any crime, you generally have to.
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: Have intent, and so the prosecution is going to have
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: to prove intent as a part of that element. That
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: is a part of whether I knew or not, or
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: I didn't know or I participated. Simply, again, our simplest form, conspiracy,
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: a crime was committed between two people.
• 21:59
  Speaker 4: You have to prove.
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: That the person knew that there was a crime going
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: on and they had the intent to break the law. Right.
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: So then to answer your question and say what she
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: can't say, Uh, Carlos, Absolutely, she is not speaking for me, Ryan,
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: I'm listen, I'm speaking as a fan of the show
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: and deciphering what she's talking about. Yeah, He's she's doing
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: this to say I didn't know anything about those emails.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: I didn't even get the emails and what have you done?
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: And what's going to be the state of our marriage now?
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: And I think I think the other thing too, is
• 22:46
  Speaker 3: this because we call this out months ago, and by
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: we meaning me and Courtney in the audience, that we
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: sort of knew this based on the discovery, base on
• 23:00
  Speaker 3: on the responses from winning Eddie's legal team, that is
• 23:07
  Speaker 3: very plausible that he will take the fall for it.
• 23:10
  Speaker 3: And look, this is a legal question. I think it's
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: a question of morality of morals right in terms of
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: as the men of the house.
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: Well, I also just want to caution you from saying
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: take the fall again. The prosecution of admitting guilt, Yeah,
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: that implies guilt. That that has to prove their case
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: against both parties full stop. They have to prove their
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: And that's hard to do.
• 23:48
  Speaker 4: And I would just say, like my.
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: Children with no ill intent again, and maybe I should
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: be like Carlos to not give anybody my past words.
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: But everybody has my password and my children have gone
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: into my phone. They sent text messages, they have sent
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: emails from my email. Again, they were not doing criminal behavior,
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: I don't think.
• 24:18
  Speaker 4: Or anything that I would think.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: But if it's possible that if something worth to come
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: back later, they have access to my devices.
• 24:29
  Speaker 4: They even though it look like I sent.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: A message or an email, maybe I didn't. Because when
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: you're in an intimate space with loved ones, it gets
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: even trickier. It's a lot of things to dissect anytime
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: you're talking about criminal code conspirators who have intimate relationships.
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: Right, yeah, yeah, it's listen. We will see what happens.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: More to come with this, Courtney, you're a fan of
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: the show, You're a fan of the Osephos.
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: What are your final thoughts about this case? Do you
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: do you see a world to where, like Tyranny said,
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: do you think the prosecution can prove this case based
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: on what your knowledge is right now? And Courtney obviously
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: studying law as well, is this something that based on
• 25:24
  Speaker 3: your your current knowledge and you being a fan of
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: the show, do you think that the prosecution is going
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: to have a hard time proving that they're guilty upon
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: a reasonable doubt.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: I think, honestly, I honestly think it was genius to separate.
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: I think Wendy will pray. Wendy's defense team will pray
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: on her celebrity. She's doing a remarkable job of making
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: sure that people know how smart she is, how intelligent
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: their family is, and this wealth was earned and not fraudulent.
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: So having said that, I do believe one of them
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: will walk away from this unscathed, and likely will be her.
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: If I'm a betting woman and I'm a head of
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: to Vegas. My money is bet on her coming out
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: of this with a not guilty verdict him. There might
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: be something, but it might not be straight up fraud,
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: but it definitely because he's an attorney, I think there
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: will be some type of negligence because at some point
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: you know better, you know better simply because he was
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: an attorney. So and again, just in even my very
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: very very very incubated UH knowledge of the law, he
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: is a lawyer. He took certain oaths, He's very savvy
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: with this, so I think when they're when they're taking
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: ignorance will not be bliss for him, even though she's
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: a professor ignorance. In this case, there is some negligence there,
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: no matter how you skin this cat. That's just my
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: person so curious to watch. I think they both know,
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: But I also think Tarranny is absolutely correct. It's gonna
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: be there. This is going to be a tall order
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: for the prosecution uh to fulfill because they're going to
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: have probably top notch lawyers defending both of them. And
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: I will just remind the public and running drops the negligence.
• 27:56
  Speaker 4: Making mistakes.
• 27:58
  Speaker 3: M hmm.
• 27:58
  Speaker 4: It's not always criminal behavior. We all made mistakes.
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: We all have oversight, we all would all do things
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: that could be looked at as extremely stupid, but it
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: does have to rise to the level of criminal behavior
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: and it has to be proven. Right, So I think
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: there were perfect in separating. I think she'll be okay,
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: and I think, you know, I'm not going to ever
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: predict a slap on the wrist for him, but I
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: think that something will happen. He will be held to
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: some accountability for it. But yeah, we're just gonna be watching.
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: And there is one scenario we did not talk about
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: in severing.
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: What's that.
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: Someone could be a cooperating witness. Both of us were like, oh,
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: you're absolutely right, and no, educate us.
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: This is a good education cony. By the way, Rady
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: jobs Courtney Parker is a law school in case I
• 29:18
  Speaker 3: didn't know that, like.
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: University of Law and Order.
• 29:25
  Speaker 3: Yeah, no, no, Courtney. So in real life, guy, just
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: so you know, for the past is how recent is
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: a month or two?
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: It's been now almost thirty days.
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: Right, she's a law she's in law school, So educate us. Tyranny.
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: So there's a possibility of a cooperating witness between one
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: of them.
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: So anytime you have codefendants and you sever a trial.
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: It could simply be because you have a cooperating witness,
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: someone who has decided that they are going to.
• 30:01
  Speaker 4: Testify for the state, and they possibly so you.
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: Don't want admit that together, so you're gonna separate it
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: and then that I am not going down for you,
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: my dude, I am not just kidding.
• 30:20
  Speaker 3: Again.
• 30:21
  Speaker 4: I am not speaking to this case at all. I
• 30:24
  Speaker 4: am just giving you.
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: Scenarios of when possibilities of trials actually being severed.
• 30:34
  Speaker 3: I'm like me, I'm just like my going. I was.
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: Going to withhold it because I don't like for people
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: to jump to presumptions legal this, I mean, this is
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: definitely a possibility when you are suffering trials. God bombshell
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: love it.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: So I'll say this and you don't and obviously listen
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: judging gonna say another.
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: I want to say, childs, we know with that right,
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: with that legal knowledge that we just received, do you
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: see a.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: World where Wendy would testify against Eddie?
• 31:40
  Speaker 4: Hmmm?
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: I think.
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: Yes, I do see a world. I do see a
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: world because you're also talking about a mom. We don't
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: know what conversations they've had. We don't know that even
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: in his you know, assumed or alleged guilt of making
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: a mistake that he didn't say, you know, save yourself
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: and the kids. We don't know the severity of anything
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: right now. So if it would be not necessarily a
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: slap in the face for a wife to say, you know,
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: I've got to do this because I honestly did not know,
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: I think it would be kind of, you know, integral
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: for the man to say, you've got to do this
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: to save our family because I made a mistake. So
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: I do feel because I don't want to assume an
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: emotion here. I don't want to assume the emotion of
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: him just not being anything if he did if there
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: is an alleged mistake that's been made, if there was
• 32:58
  Speaker 2: an alleged oversight on something, and now they're in sticky
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: and hot water, I would respect him if he says, hey, uh,
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: you gotta do what you got to do for our family,
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: and I'll take this on because we're I don't want
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: to make the assumption that anything was done with ill intent,
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: and I don't want to make the assumption that they're
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: not in a good place of understanding. And I won't
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: just note that anytime you're talking about trials, whether it
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: is one trial or two trials, you're always going to
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: be moving according to the calendar and the docket, according.
• 33:45
  Speaker 4: To the court.
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: So the defendants are not going to be in charge
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: of that. They're going to be They can waive the
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: rights to a speedy trial or not, which means that
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: they're going to go on this trial calendar within six
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: months if they don't, but the judge is going to
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: manage the calendar in the schedule. I'm giving this procedural
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: information because it's always important to realize that you can
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: always have a settlement before trial, and and and settlement
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: negotiations are generally not going to be public unless there's
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: a settlement. And those things happen every day all the
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: time up until the day of trial. So anything can
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: happen in the in between right now, and they're not
• 34:36
  Speaker 2: being detained.
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: Correct Carlos, They'll yeah, yeah, So a.
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: Lot can happen between now and their trial day they're not, which,
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: as I always say, should let the process work. Let's
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: not get caught up in partial evidence that you guys
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: believe you review.
• 35:01
  Speaker 4: Out of context.
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: Read but don't jump to conclusion, jump to.
• 35:14
  Speaker 4: Process. Play out. That's what it's here for.
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: We're jumping to conclusions. We're boiling the tea, we're sipping
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: the tea, and we're watching the reunions, and we're insinuating everything.
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: In her comment of I don't know if our marriage,
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: what's gonna be the fate of our marriage, we have
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: taken that comment and ran with it.
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: This is this is mortacon, mortacon, but no, Judge, thank
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: you for this rain jobs. Judge gave us some very
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: great educational information for us to use that to our
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: own devices. So we will obviously circle back with you
• 35:57
  Speaker 3: guys when we hear much more. The next case of
• 36:01
  Speaker 3: the docket we have is.
• 36:04
  Speaker 4: Not on the docket.
• 36:09
  Speaker 3: You know, after Courtney finishes law school in four years,
• 36:13
  Speaker 3: I'll be your next student.
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: So next on the docket we have britt Eadie. So
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: this is the latest update guys. When it comes to
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit that britt Edie has against the problem, drops
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: are up to.
• 36:34
  Speaker 4: See we're shifting from criminal to civil.
• 36:37
  Speaker 2: Yes, oh.
• 36:40
  Speaker 3: See, this is why you need a judge in your life. Okay,
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: So we are transitioning from the criminal case between the
• 36:51
  Speaker 3: those cephos to now the civil case. As we talk
• 36:55
  Speaker 3: about britt Eadie so rain drops as of late February
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: twenty six former one season Real Housewice of Atlanta star
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: Bret Dye. That wasn't Shae. She she quit. It wasn't Shay.
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: She quit. She's one season she quit. It heart deface,
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: she quit. She quit, just former. I wanted in case
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: they're like, in case some people are like, wait, wait what,
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: So I wanted to make sure she was on the
• 37:25
  Speaker 3: show season sixteen.
• 37:27
  Speaker 4: Okay, you're being sactual Carlos.
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: Thank you see I've been lost school. Hello, thank you, Tyranny.
• 37:37
  Speaker 3: Okay. Grey Edie has dropped her twenty million dollars in
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: New York state laws suit against Bravo, NBC Universal, and
• 37:47
  Speaker 3: the production companies regarding the explicit photo scandal. However, brit
• 37:54
  Speaker 3: Edie has filed a new sixty one page federal complaint
• 38:02
  Speaker 3: in the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges defamation,
• 38:07
  Speaker 3: emotional distress, and sexual harassment regarding a twenty twenty four
• 38:11
  Speaker 3: Real Housewives of a Latin incident. As you all know
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: is when Kenya Moore showed what we all assumed was
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: an explicit photo of Bridi. Brigeddi said to us that
• 38:25
  Speaker 3: wasn't her. So I do have a question for you
• 38:29
  Speaker 3: in regards to that tyranny. So according, don't maybe please
• 38:33
  Speaker 3: because the rangel's gonna get me, don't make me forget
• 38:35
  Speaker 3: to ask a question about the photo that calls this stir.
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: She's now saying wasn't her. So the key details regarding
• 38:45
  Speaker 3: the lawsuit update is she's alleging that the network knowingly
• 38:54
  Speaker 3: aired what she claims is a deep fake image and
• 38:59
  Speaker 3: because of that, it created a houstyle work environment. Now
• 39:05
  Speaker 3: I have tons of questions, Courtney. I'll have you ask
• 39:08
  Speaker 3: a question about dropping the case only to follow another one.
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: But my question is this from a legal standpoint, I'm
• 39:16
  Speaker 3: gonna ask it. If you can't answer it, let us know. Child.
• 39:20
  Speaker 5: Okay, I love this group, I don't love this sup.
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: So if if I am suing the network because of
• 39:40
  Speaker 3: an image that I thought was me, I'm saying, after
• 39:48
  Speaker 3: watching the episode, it's not me. But I suffered emotional
• 39:54
  Speaker 3: distress because the photo that the world didn't see. They
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: didn't see it because they didn't air it. They didn't
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: air the photo, just so you all know, they pixelated it,
• 40:05
  Speaker 3: they blurred it, they blurred it, they blurned it what
• 40:08
  Speaker 3: I mean, listen, you can sue anybody, so we know that.
• 40:12
  Speaker 3: I think all of us are confused in terms of
• 40:14
  Speaker 3: if you're saying that this photo that caused this brew
• 40:17
  Speaker 3: haha isn't you, then how.
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: Did it impact your livelihood because the world never saw
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: the photo, and if it's not you, and the woman
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: who did it got fired, you stayed on the show,
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: you kept your job.
• 40:41
  Speaker 3: I feel were all confused. While there is a lawsuit
• 40:44
  Speaker 3: to begin with, let me.
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: Say something first before she educates us. It does speak
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: to though and Carlos. As producers and showrunners, we understand intent,
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: and we understand storylines going in that were whether we
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: get it wrong or not, we knew we know as
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: and I'm not saying I mean we allegedly know what
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: storylines are gonna go before they are. Our cast typically
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: does not surprise us. There are moments where cast can
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: surprise us. But when you're show running, when you know
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: we have these network calls, we're on these things day
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: in and day out. We know every intricate part of
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: our shows, so it's we're rarely surprised. So whether it
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: was wrong, the wrong image was printed, where does the
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: intent to do this harm come in and I just
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: wanted to note that because I'm very I'm not confused
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: on what was printed, what was part of sty and
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: if I'm Brit she's saying and claiming, whether they got
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: the photo wrong, y'all knew about this. You intended to
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: try to blow up the spot. You showed a pixelated
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: version of this, and this became story. So now everybody's
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: looking online, searching the internet for the real photos of me.
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: I'm now having to defend myself as a cast member
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: where I'm supposed to feel safe and somebody, if not all,
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: of y'all knew what was up. That was just my
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: two cents. That was my two cents as a as
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: a you know, creator of reality TV, as a showrunner
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: of Reality TV, and as a responsible producer and executive
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: producer of Reality TV. You know yourself, Carlos, how much
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: stuff gets blamed and sat in your desk in your lap,
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: whether you knew about it or not, whether you can
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: manage it or not. So I think that's where Brit
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: is possibly coming from.
• 43:05
  Speaker 3: Doesn't matter if it was the wrong.
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: One, the story remains the same tiernany I will just
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: say that legally, the issue comes with if the photo
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: was false light or misrepresentation or misapproporation of someone's likeness,
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: with defamation, with all of these claims, it's always going
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: to be similar things. It has to be false, so
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: that that's one of the proms. It can't actually be true.
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: So it has to be false if it's a photo
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: or not a photo of you. But that that's the
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: first prom Okay.
• 43:51
  Speaker 4: So happened?
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: I explain that to us, it has to be the
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: wrong thing if she's saying it's not her. So again,
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: I'm not talking about your case. I'm just saying yes, yes, yes,
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: says I'm saying the definite defamation, misappropriation of likeness, false light.
• 44:17
  Speaker 2: You have got to show that it was Falseiness involved
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: when something the person being accused put out something that
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: was false or said something that was not true.
• 44:32
  Speaker 3: Got it, okay, okay, So.
• 44:36
  Speaker 4: It went out to the public and it caused harme.
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: Got it? So in this case that if I posted
• 44:48
  Speaker 3: a photo of you doing something sexual and I tell
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: people this photo is of you, and let's say that
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: the photo was doctored because of my intent in making
• 45:06
  Speaker 3: the world believe this photo is of you, and it
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: is it, I still suffered defamation. Got it?
• 45:18
  Speaker 4: That is correct?
• 45:20
  Speaker 3: Got it? Okay, love what she says that? All right, right,
• 45:24
  Speaker 3: that was the main question the rain jops had.
• 45:27
  Speaker 2: Now the main in this world of AI, we have
• 45:30
  Speaker 2: to really you know, the courts are really looking at
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: this in a stricter and harder manner because you have
• 45:38
  Speaker 2: to realize that the damage that you can do to
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: a person's reputation. I mean, I'll just use myself in
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: my field. If someone put out a photo of me
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: that is not true or not my real likeness, with
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: the intent to mislead people, to harm my reputation, that
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: is an issue. That is an issue.
• 46:03
  Speaker 3: But what I'll find so fascinating is this the person
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: who did the crime right, meaning supposed to the image,
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: that person isn't being sued.
• 46:20
  Speaker 4: Well, I don't know anything about these cases.
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: So again, from when we're talking about lawsuits, you know,
• 46:32
  Speaker 2: you can enjoy different parties.
• 46:34
  Speaker 4: I don't know who is a party to these lawsuits.
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: But again, anytime we are talking about workplace harassment mhm,
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: then you're generally you may sue the person who is
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: actually harassing you, but you can enjoy your actual.
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: Employer, and in the reverse, you can't sue the employer
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: and not necessarily the person who's harassing.
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: You, because it depends on what your claims are and
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: what you can prove, because you still have to prove
• 47:18
  Speaker 2: all of the elements.
• 47:20
  Speaker 3: And that's the thing, because the thing is this, if
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: you have to prove that that's not you, because it okay,
• 47:29
  Speaker 3: if I if I'm suing you, saying Tyranny posted a
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: picture of me on Instagram to the famie, it's me
• 47:38
  Speaker 3: in a very inappropriate position. That's not me. The world
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: thought it was me. I'm embarrassed, and I sue y'all
• 47:53
  Speaker 3: you and whomever would have to prove that that's not me. Right, Well,
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: you're the person.
• 48:02
  Speaker 4: So we're in civil law now, right, Yeah, so going
• 48:07
  Speaker 4: to shift in civil law?
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: Tell me, okay, tell me that why? Why is the
• 48:13
  Speaker 3: burden going to shift in civil law?
• 48:15
  Speaker 2: Because the person whoever fouls the lawsuit has to prove
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: what they are accusing the defendant.
• 48:23
  Speaker 3: Of, got it? Okay. So we're not in.
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: A criminal case where the prosecutor or the opposing party,
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: I guess is what we would call the defendant in
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: this case, it is.
• 48:37
  Speaker 4: Not up to them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: It's their different standards for criminal versus civil which is
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: why when we transition from criminal civil law, I wanted
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: to make that.
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: Notation that's good, that's good, that's good as good as good,
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: that's good.
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: So you don't have to prove nothing in terms of no,
• 48:57
  Speaker 3: that's that's Carlows, that is him. I the person who's
• 49:02
  Speaker 3: suing you. I have to prove that.
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: I have to show that it was false, that it
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: was made public, and that there was harm done.
• 49:12
  Speaker 4: And then I have to actually show the damages.
• 49:15
  Speaker 3: Got it? Got it? That's good, that's good.
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: I think one of the things that we're missing in
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: this is no, the person and in this case it's Kenya,
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: it's not being sued by brick It is it possible?
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: And this question is kind of for you, Carlos, and
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: we can be We can do the delicate dance of
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: conversation because we both have shows, we both show run
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: our shows. But where is the onus on the network?
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: Because the network ultimately has knowledge and approves certain storylines.
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: Is that why britt is charge them versus Keny Kenya?
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: Because that's always been her claim. She's always claimed, y'all
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: knew the producers knew that she was about to do this.
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: Not well, the thing is this what I rest the document?
• 50:17
  Speaker 3: Britt is more alleging that as we as we talk specifics,
• 50:24
  Speaker 3: Britt is alleging that.
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: Can I ask the factual question yes, because I'm not.
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: I have no knowledge of any of this, and brain
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: Drops's intentional. I never want to know about the cases
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: because I know you always are saying you all should
• 50:41
  Speaker 2: They are telling me you should read you should know.
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: That's not what I'm here for to comment. So I
• 50:47
  Speaker 2: specifically and intentionally do not ever read the documents because
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: I'm not commenting on that, but factually, I just am
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: curious about this show. Did the show actually air epixelated image?
• 51:07
  Speaker 3: The blurred image where you could not identify who it was?
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: And so the show aired something that I could believe
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: your presume and there there was almost a gotcha moment
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: in the storyline.
• 51:26
  Speaker 4: And they all have another question.
• 51:29
  Speaker 2: And this is for my producer's showrunners, just because I
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: don't understand how things are. These shoves are not live right,
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: they're editing correct, and so when you edit.
• 51:44
  Speaker 4: Where you're going, you can control.
• 51:49
  Speaker 3: You can't control whether or not you want to show
• 51:52
  Speaker 3: that yes.
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: Okay, and go down that rabbit hole. Yes, So that
• 51:55
  Speaker 2: that is a producer's showrunners.
• 51:58
  Speaker 3: Job, right. The network is it's a.
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: It's bigger than just the.
• 52:06
  Speaker 4: Let's call it a global show like the show. The
• 52:10
  Speaker 4: show decides what people see or what the public.
• 52:13
  Speaker 3: Stats on television correct.
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: Okay, And and none of the what do you call
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: them prova levities, none of the proba levities actually control
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: any of them, now, okay, I understand them. Yeah, So,
• 52:32
  Speaker 2: in producers and showrunners defense, our biggest contender is always
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: going to be the network. The network always has final say.
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: So when people wanting to do reality TV understand that
• 52:49
  Speaker 2: once they purchased the show, you can have a lot
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: of influence, but it is there inevitably, it is their show.
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: You're running a show, and if you have wonderful creators
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: and partners like the Carlos King, then nine times out
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: of ten, things like this won't get out of hand
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: because you have somebody really, really really sincerely advocating and
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: fighting for talent.
• 53:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and to answer your question.
• 53:25
  Speaker 4: I also have legal departments.
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so I was gonna say that the thing is
• 53:29
  Speaker 3: this and this will always tell people because you know,
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: I cant blame for everything, child, because I'm the face
• 53:36
  Speaker 3: of the production. Just like just like when you are
• 53:38
  Speaker 3: the hit of the household and something goes awry in
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: your home, your neighbors are going to blame the hit
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: of the household.
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: Right, it is what it is. But look at it
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: that way, however legally right, right, it's not us. We
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: there's so many people above me, and the words of
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: the cool kids is above me.
• 54:03
  Speaker 3: Now it's above my pay grade.
• 54:06
  Speaker 4: That's one of my favorite quotes.
• 54:08
  Speaker 3: Yes, it's above me. Now it's above my pay grade.
• 54:11
  Speaker 3: That is the case for all producers. I am not
• 54:14
  Speaker 3: a network, but never has final says every corney said,
• 54:17
  Speaker 3: they say yang or day, and you can have suggestions,
• 54:23
  Speaker 3: but ultimately they're the one holding the purse strings. And
• 54:27
  Speaker 3: like you said to Karny, they also have an entire
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: legal department that looks at things. And the reason why
• 54:35
  Speaker 3: this is such an interesting case to me is because
• 54:38
  Speaker 3: on the show, Britt was never just so you know,
• 54:44
  Speaker 3: Britt never saw the photo because she left the event
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: before it was displayed. So when Kenya displayed the event
• 54:52
  Speaker 3: from the housewives and this let's say fifty people, all
• 54:58
  Speaker 3: of this.
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: Is on a television show this is airing, so fifty
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: people present, but the world one two point seven million people.
• 55:09
  Speaker 3: Watched, just as diffic Courtney. So I want I want
• 55:12
  Speaker 3: to make sure that tell Terrany was different in real time.
• 55:17
  Speaker 3: At Kenya salon, the housewives and fifty people saw an
• 55:25
  Speaker 3: unedited photo of a woman performing filatio.
• 55:33
  Speaker 2: Okay, her reaction was prog yes, and Kenya.
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: Said this was Britt Edie. Grig Edie left the room
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: five minutes before Kenya showed the photo, so when the
• 55:49
  Speaker 3: photo was shown, the other housewife left. Photo was disgusting.
• 55:54
  Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blah. The ladies told Britt, she showed
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: a photo of you performing filatio. Right, So Britt ran
• 56:06
  Speaker 3: with that narrative She never because so she wasn't feared
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: to see it. She ran with the narrative of it
• 56:13
  Speaker 3: now based on what she said on the show. She said,
• 56:20
  Speaker 3: when that happened, I was young, So although she didn't
• 56:24
  Speaker 3: see it, she she did say, there is a photo
• 56:29
  Speaker 3: of me doing that, but I was young, and and
• 56:32
  Speaker 3: you know, she gave all the reasons why it was
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: out there. How embarrassed she was in all the and
• 56:36
  Speaker 3: and all the things. She continued filming Kenya got suspended. Oh,
• 56:47
  Speaker 3: immediately they cease, They cease philming Kenya.
• 56:52
  Speaker 4: But they still aired it.
• 56:54
  Speaker 3: They so the fifty people saw being an edited photo.
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: What they aired it was a blurred you couldn't you
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: couldn't see it.
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: Why now, I mean they aired the incident correct, Yeah,
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: and it kept going like they not only aired the
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: incident when Kenya got suspended, it kept that particular storyline
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: alive because when you go back to why Kenya was suspended,
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: all roads lead back to So if I'm picking it
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: up at episode ten and I'm like, well, Kenya's not
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: here and people are talking about that in real time,
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: then I'm going to go back to episode six and see, well,
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: why what led up to it? Because now we control
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: how we watched television. All of these things are on demand.
• 57:50
  Speaker 2: So again it's you know, it's just it was.
• 57:55
  Speaker 4: I'm just gonna say that in any time.
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: You see a hostile workplace alleged, it's not just that
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: it happened one time, it's when it's allowed to continue.
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: What did the employer do to stop the hostile workplace
• 58:20
  Speaker 2: or the impression of such?
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: And because they thought they suspended her proper word, the
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: moment that hasn't happened in real time. She did not
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: film since they suspended Kenya and brit was allowed to
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: continue filming Kenya was suspended, right and.
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: Which which it seems like this is layered with a
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: lot more issues than just a contractual dispute.
• 58:50
  Speaker 3: Yes, with.
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: Probably land to why the case has moved now to
• 58:57
  Speaker 2: federal court because now it looks like there may be
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: these some federal loss because when you're talking about airing
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: things that such as this on television, now we're talking
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: about federal laws. Then you're talking about civil rights protections,
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: and you know, there we possibly could be talking about
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: things that happen across state lines in filming. Not sure
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: if they filmed only in Atlanta or in different places.
• 59:23
  Speaker 4: So there's so many variables where this is.
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: It may explain why the case is now more appropriate
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: for federal court.
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: And I wanted to ask you that because she refiled
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: at the federal level.
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: And now is it and and and according to the
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: new federal complaint tyranny, she's not seeking a specific dollar
• 59:52
  Speaker 3: amount right. Instead, she is requesting compository damages, punitive damages,
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 3: attorney fees, an additional relief deem appropriate by the court.
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: And she wants this to be a jury trial, right,
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: I will just say while he's checking that actual damages
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 2: you have to prove so I lost this amount of money,
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 2: I lost this amount of contracts, it impeded my ability
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: to work here or there or where you have to
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 2: actually calculate your actual damages. Pinative damages is where you
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: can say a jury can say this behavior is so reprehensible,
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: we're gonna put a number on here where you never
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 2: do this again. And when we're talking about corporations or
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 2: big businesses, the numbers tend to increase because when you
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: say five or ten million dollars to a regular civilian,
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 2: that is a lot of money that would bankrupt our
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 2: entire family. But when you're talking about large corporations, five
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: or ten million dollars may not put a dent in
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 2: their operation. So that's why punitive damages are allowed, because
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: that's when you hear these huge verdicts like one hundred
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: million dollars or you know, in Florida there was a
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: billion dollar verdict against Big Tobacco that was later appealed.
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: But I'm just saying these are the kind of verdicts
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: that they want.
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 4: To send them. The jury is saying, this is so egregious.
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: I want to send a message to the corporations and
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: two other corporations, do not do this again, a Chinese
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: fees are going to be actually what you spent. So again,
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 2: that may be a part of the reason why the
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 2: language has changed, because now the jury is going to
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 2: get to decide what the number is for punitive damages,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: but the planet still has to actually show actual damages
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: and calculate the attorney's.
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: Fees and the actual damages is losing money because of
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: this scandal, losing jobs, losing income because of the scandal.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: You can base it off of her contract, her existing
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 2: contract with them.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 3: Well, she continued fail me. She got paid for all
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 3: the episodes she was in, but she could.
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: She could have pegged herself as the next Nini Leeks
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: or Bethany Frankel of the franchise. But they didn't fire her.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 3: No, she quit.
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 2: She quit, But that's what I'm saying. But she's kind
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 2: of forced to quit because it was a hostile working environment.
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 3: I was just saying. I was just talking as strictly
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: based on the punitive damages, because if I can prove
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 3: to you, I lost money. How was that even possible
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 3: in terms of the networks?
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: Right when, like Tyranny said, which is again, now we
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: kind of can understand the legal conversation that was happening.
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 3: Behind closed doors.
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: You have to get rid of Kenya, right like you
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 1: just have to right if you This is me saying it.
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 3: Based on the facts of the situation. Now I understand
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 3: why they had to suspend Kenya because if she continued filming.
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: It would have made My legal opinion is britt would
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: have had a much better case for housile work environment
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: based on this woman who showed a photo.
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: But now she has to prove how that is effective
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 3: bottle line, So we'll see what she says with that.
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: They did not fire her, They continue filming with her.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 3: She decided to quit the show a few days before
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 3: taping the reunion. So the other thing I just want,
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 3: I want to paint the picture for Tyranny is that
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 3: particular moment of the photo being shown to that moment
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 3: being shown, excuse me, the photo because it was blurred
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 3: was maybe episode five or six, six, I think six.
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 3: I think there were twelve more episodes after that, and
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 3: it wasn't until they were ready to take the reunion
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 3: that she said it wasn't me. And that's why a
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 3: lot of people were confused because.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: They were, like, you let these episodes air, you went
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: on watch What Happens Live after that moment you told
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: Andy Cohen how you felt. That's why a lot of
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: people are surprised. I just wanted to paint the picture
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: for tyranny.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: Which is why we have to allow for them to
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 2: get to the discovery in order to review the evidence
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: in court, because there is a lot of presumptions once
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: again that may or may not be true. The court
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: is going which is and let me just say this
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 2: for the range drops and for you all, less than
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 2: two percent of federal civil.
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 4: Cases make it to trial.
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: Less than two percent of federal civil cases make it
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: to trial. Before that happens, they can settle, it could
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: be dismissed due to motions, because now that its in
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 2: federal court, it has to go through different motions and
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: it has to survive. Of course, the defendants are going
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: to put forth a case of why this.
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 4: Should be dismissed.
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 2: But once or if it survives, then you get to discovery.
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: The discovery is where you're going to see all of
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: the internal communications, all of the documents, everything's going to
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 2: be timestamped. You're going to really get a timeline of
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: what happened, when it happened, how it happened, and that
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: could lead to a settlement, It could lead to a dismissal,
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 2: or it could lead to some kind of pretrial negotiations
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 2: with motions before. So again, this is why I always say,
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: let's not jump to any presumptions. But lawyers do not
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 2: file lawsuits in federal court generally without having some evidence.
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 3: Can you so before we wrap up, I do want
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 3: to Can I break down what she's alleging and can
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 3: you explain to us what that means? Yes, I think
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 3: we all understand such a harassment a house of work environment.
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: So I think rain DAWs, we know that gender motivated violence.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: What does what does that mean?
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: It means that based on her gender, there was violence
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: perpetrated towards her as a woman, as a woman.
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 4: Meaning that this is not the type of.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: I guess generally, this is not the type of conduct
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 2: or an issue a man would have to deal with.
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 3: Oh Okay, okay ati splits a photo of performed Okay Georgia.
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 3: Non Consensual Intimate image law violations.
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 4: M hm, say that again. This isn't This is in
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 4: federal court. Now, did you say Georgia.
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 3: It says Georgia here not it says g Orgia non
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 3: consensual intimate image law violations, which I'm assuming image means
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 3: the photo, the photo.
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: She didn't get consent, You didn't give consent to basically
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: show a what do we call it, undressed photo?
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 3: Got it? Okay?
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 1: I think we all know what intentional infliction of emotional
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: distress means. I think we know that negligence, in this
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: particular negligence.
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 2: The negligence could be a variety of things, but it
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: could be of the handling of the situation, the handling
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: of the images, the post handling of the situation. Because
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 2: you gotta understand that there is more than one way
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: to stop work place harassment.
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 4: It doesn't mean, oh, if I just do one thing,
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 4: then I'm off the hook.
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 2: So if I get rid of a bad actor, but
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 2: I still perpetuate an environment that makes bad actors comfortable,
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 2: the workplace harassment could be continuing. Right, you got one
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 2: of the things that I also read very very early on. Okay, okay,
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 2: go go go go.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 3: I'm sorry, no, no, I think we all know contract
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: related claims. We don't have our contracts, so we can't
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 3: speak to that, okay, but.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 2: I will like to say this about contracts. The contract
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 2: is going to matter. So because you negotiate a bad
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 2: contract isn't just gonna let you off the hook. You
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 2: don't get to say now I got a bad contract,
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 2: now I'm mad, and now I'm gonna sue you. You're
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 2: gonna need something more than you negotiate a bad contract.
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 2: You're going to have to show some conduct that actually
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 2: violates a protected class or protected activity.
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 4: It's not just simple like, hey, I work in a
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 4: bad environment. Like there are a lot of bad environments
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 4: where we work in that may not rise.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: To the level of actually violating a protected class or
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: protected behavior.
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 4: And this is back to the rain drops. Y'all know.
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 2: I'm contract driven, always, always, and I understand that sometimes
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 2: people are gonna say that the networks and the producers
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: have all the power. But a contract can be at
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 2: the very least red. And I don't mean that you
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 2: per se has to read it. This is where it's really.
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 4: Important for you to get legal counsel. No one should
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 4: sign any.
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 2: Contract without legal consultation because you need someone reading the
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: fine print.
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 4: We don't know what's in this contract.
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 2: This contract may have said something that deals with this
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: kind of behavior that gives the network and out because
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: the network, like I said, has a huge legal team.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 2: All networks have huge legal teams. So again, contracts can
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 2: be negotiated. And just because they have the power, that
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: does not mean that they are not willing to actually
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 2: make some amendments because there are certain things, like Courtney
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 2: said that networks are always going to have the final
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: say because they've.
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 4: Put resources into things in like that. But there's small tweaks.
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 4: I mean, I look at a contract lawyer before I became.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 2: A judge, where you can make you can change a
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: word or two and it changes. You can change a
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 2: word from shall to make and it changes the whole understanding.
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 4: And those little tweaks are things that.
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: People when they're dealing with contracts should really kind of
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 2: focus in on. But at the very least, the contract
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 2: has to be read and you should get a lawyer
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: to consult it, to give you legal consultation before signing it,
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: because a lot of people are just so excited to
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: be on reality TV and they probably just signed away
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: kind of skim over it. Don't really read it. People
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: tell them, oh, it's standard, this is a standard contract.
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 2: It's standard jargon.
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 4: No, you need a lawyer.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 3: And last one, the carious liability.
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: Bycarious liability, what does that break that down for us?
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 4: That I guess.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: You are going to be liable through the actions of
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: someone else due to your positioning. So when people say
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 2: I'm living vicariously through you, she's saying she's alluding I'm
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: suing you vicariously by what you allowed your other talented.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: To Kenya in this case, right through Kenya, because she's
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: not suing Kenya so.
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 3: Well, because I really do Yeah.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: I believe that she's feeling the onus is on the
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: network because ultimately they knew. One of the things I
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: read and I could have gotten this wrong. So let
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: me know if you read this too. She was saying
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: that the props went to like Staples or something like
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 2: they had this poster made her a photo that was
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 2: that was made and on display like.
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 4: A PA went to get it.
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 2: It was picked up. So there's a lot of you know,
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 2: coercion and planning that went into this scene that was filmed.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 2: Did you hear anything about about that Carlos, you have
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 2: a sinister look on your face.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: Noat Okay, repeat the last part.
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: What I think a lot of people want to know
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 2: when this came up for me because I was asked
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 2: about this as one who show run shows before, Like
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 2: I'm always asked, what part does producers executive producers, what
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 2: part do we play? Because we know when we're filming
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: a scene. When we're filming these scenes, we pretty much
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: have a basis of what's about to happen. Oh case, the.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 3: In this case, production had no idea. They had no idea. Okay,
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 3: so when she when Kenya showed the poster board, everybody
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 3: meaning the production shot shot. They had no idea she
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 3: was doing this. They had no clue.
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: Now to your point earlier in terms of staples and
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 1: all of those things.
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 3: You know, there was a poster board saying who is
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 3: this hole? And there were several photo images of her
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 3: in yeah and not not not nothing sexual, just like
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 3: you know she called her insurance for on the hole
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 3: and all these other things. So the poster board had
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 3: these images and then one poster board is when it
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: was the explicit phone on that one. So, yeah, somebody listen,
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 3: unless Kenya has a jet brinner at the crib, Like
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 3: you said, somebody has to print it, do all the things.
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 1: So yeah, but I wanted to make sure that production
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: had no idea she was doing this zero and production
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 1: it and and.
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 3: Was not happy. I was not happy. I was not
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 3: happy with it, and was just like why and and
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 3: and in Kingya's defense, she has cent on record that
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 3: she did this on her own, on her own.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 2: So so then the bigger, the bigger question becomes why
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: the network chose to steal air it? Because we shoot
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 2: lots of scenes all the time that never make air
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 2: and live on the cutting room floor. Where does the
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 2: onus and responsibility of the conglomerate lie?
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 3: Well, again, I think that's something that we're about to
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 3: find out is based on the going because again I don't,
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 3: I don't have the answer to it. Yeah, I think
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 3: I think that's what we.
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 2: Call it discovery, discovery, right, yeah, yeah, And we also
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 2: call it integrity. And Carlos is a creator and executive
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 2: producer of integrity. I strive to be one because when
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 2: when anything fails and anyone walks away from an experience
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 2: that was supposed to be good, you know, we are
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 2: not just here to spill tea and destroy lives. Like
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 2: we're also as producers impacted and whatever we can, whatever
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 2: we can control, we typically do try to operate in integrity.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 2: Well, once they get through the motions phase, if it survives,
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: Discovery is where the money is, right, you know, Discovery
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: is going to tell exactly what happened, and so that
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 2: if it makes it too Discovery, then a lot of
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 2: questions will be answered for the court and in term
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 2: for the public.
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 2: As for Kenya Carlos King, have you heard from her?
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 2: Have you spoken to her? How is she doing even
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 2: though she's not being sued. Does she feel like she no,
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Does she feel like she was the scapegoat
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: for this? Does she feel like she had to die
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 2: on the sword for this?
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: You know?
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 2: How is she?
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 3: Well?
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: She did a live on Sunday and she appears to
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: be in a great mood. She talked about how she
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 1: has several projects in the works. She talked about how
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: she hasn't burned the bridge with Bravo, so.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 3: She seems she was in really good spirits. She's been busy.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 3: I haven't spoken to her in a minute, but I
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 3: did see some clips of her life on Sunday and
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 3: she's she has red hair, honey, and she is living
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 3: her life. Yeah, and what about Britt?
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 2: Has anybody?
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 3: No, Britt has kept a low profiles, you know since this. Yeah,
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 3: she hasn't been out there like that at all. Honestly,
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 3: she just hasn't. She's definitely did a good job keeping
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 3: just like Aby, a very low profile.
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 2: Got it.
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So rain Jobs, you guys have a jam packed episode. Listen.
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 3: This one, I feel was one of our most educational
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 3: ones because I'm walking away from having so much knowledge
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 3: based on Tyranny's breakdown from the criminal case that we
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 3: with those cephos to the civil case. We are talking
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 3: abob with Brady. So rain Jobs, let us on the comments,
• 1:20:06
  Speaker 3: your thoughts, and we will continue to update you as
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 3: more things progress. Thank you, Courtney, thank you, Tarranny.
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 2: Thanks you.
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership with the Lack
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: Effect Network. You can also find us on my YouTube
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: channel at the Carlos King Underscore