Latest / Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge / Legally Brunette: Todd & Julie Chrisley

Transcript

Legally Brunette: Todd & Julie Chrisley · Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: will be your host today Emily Simpson with my sidekick
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Jane Just Shane. We want to give you a little
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: update first of all, on the Lively and Baldoni case.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: We haven't talked about it for a while because it
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: hasn't had a lot going on. You know, they go
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: to trial in March of twenty twenty six. However, there
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: have been some interesting things that have happened lately. So
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Blake Lively has dropped the emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: So I was reading about this yesterday and it was
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: actually kind of difficult to follow for me to actually
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: put a timeline together of what happened. But here's the
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: way I understand it. A few days ago, there was
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: a teleconference between both sides, which is normal when you're
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: in active litigation. Right, So you've got both sides, You've
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: got Baldoni's team, You've got Blake Lively's team, they have
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: a teleconference. I guess there was a conversation that had
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: to do with these emotional distress claims. There's an intentional
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: infliction of emotional distress and a negligent emotional distress claim
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: on Blake Lively's side against Justin Baldoni. And apparently during
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: this teleconference there was a conversation where Lively's attorneys had
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: suggested that they were going to drop those claims now
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: after Apparently immediately after this conference between the attorneys, Justin
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman files emotion to compel her like
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: therapy notes or doctors against who against Blake Lively. Basically,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the way I understand it is they're like, Okay, we're
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: going to.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: Drop these claims of distress.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: So she's going to drop the claims of distress. Brian
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Friedman then files a motion to compel basically stating that
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: she's dropping those claims in order to not comply with
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: their discovery requests of medical records or therapy notes.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: A medical records. That's my guess. My guess is Lively's
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: team was like, oh, we're going to have to provide
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: all these medical records or conversations or anything to.
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: Show that there was some type of emotional distress distress.
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: And then they're and they're like, okay, Lively, can can
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: you start forwarding those documents? And then She's like, I
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: never went to the doctor. I didn't do anything because
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: I was not Yeah, I have some texts with Taylor
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: Swift where I was complaining, but I don't have anything else.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: So they were probably like, then you don't have a
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: defense or a complaint. You can't you know, succeed on
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: this claim.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Right, Well, then so the judge dismisses the motion to
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: compel because the judge is like, look, they said they're
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: going to drop these claims, and they did dismiss them,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: and so why are you filing a motion to compel?
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: And then obviously Blake Lively's team says the only reason
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: that Brian Friedman filed a motion to compel was for
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: what reason?
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: Well, it would be probably to get her to not
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: comply and then maybe publicly it would look bad.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Right he did. They claim it's a press stunt, you know,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: sounds like a dumb press seeking another round of press coverage.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know about that. That sounds because he's
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: clearly experienced where if the claim is dropped, why would
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: you want to pursue discovery at a claim that's dropped.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Well, I guess his thinking was, Okay, they're just trying
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: to avoid our discovery requests, so let's do a motion
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: to compel. But really, you know Brian Friedman's He's excellent
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: at working the.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: No I know, so I'm putting my trust in him.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: I'm just saying, seeing the order of events, it sounds
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: like it was poorly executed, but time will tell, and
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: So Baldoni's side argued that Lively couldn't have it both
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: ways by making claims of emotional harm while also withholding
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: supporting records like medical records. In response, Lively's attorneys dismissed
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the request as a publicity stunt, as reported, and this
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: was an entertainment weekly. Actually it was an entertainment weekly.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: But then I read several other articles because everybody jumps
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: on and starts writing about it. Also, I thought it
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: was really interesting that Blake Lively's side consistently argues that
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: everything Brian Friedman does as a publicity stunt. But let's
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: not forget about the facts.
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: Let's not forget about Lively and Reynolds and their lifestyle
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: as we.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: Go back in time. If you remember, the original complaint
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: filed by Blake Lively's team was on December twentieth, twenty
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: twenty four, and The New York Times published a report
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: and published the filing on December twenty first, twenty twenty four.
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: So it was it's very I mean, it's easy to
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: see that they colluded with the New York Times, So it.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: Wasn't everything they do with publicity stunt, I believe.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: So. So anyway, I also found it interesting that the
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: judge who is to judge Lewis J. Lyman, formally ruled
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: that Lively's emotional distress claims were no longer part of
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit. Baldoni's motion to compel was denied on the
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: grounds that Lively had already agreed to withdraw the claims.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: Oh okay, I know, yeah, he meant to drop the claims.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: Was informal.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: It was on that it was on the teleconference, so
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: it was an.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: Informal right, So he probably thought, I'm going to file
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: the motion and compel, and I'm going to keep pursuing
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: my defense until you actually drop it. Yeah, So he
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: probably filed the motion to compel to keep the momentum
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: and to make.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Sure that they actually dismissed the claim.
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: I told you, I trust him.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he's a good attorney. I told you anytime, if
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: I'm ever in trouble, who's the first call. It's quite
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Brian Friedman, It's my first call. Judge Lyman also directed
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: both parties to reach This is where it's going to
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: get interesting. He directed both parties to reach a mutual
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: agreement together on whether the dismissed claims would be permanent
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: with prejudice or allow for possible refiling later, which is
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: without prejudice. Regardless, the judgement clear that Lively would not
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: be allowed to introduce any evidence related to emotional distress
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: going forward because the claims have been officially dropped from
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: her filing. Lively's team responded to the ruling by calling
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Baldoni's motion completely unnecessary and framing the court's decision as
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: a favorable outcome for their site. They always do that.
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: They always take every decision this judge makes and they
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: turn it around into some favorable like some big win
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: for them. So it's it's always.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: Like, so, what was this big win was that it's
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: dropped without prejudice?
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: No, it's he did he didn't. He told them that
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: they have to figure out together whether the claims are dropped.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: With prejudice or without. So what do you think is
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: going to happen there? You think they're going to happen.
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: Oh, they're not going to agree. Neither party is going
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: to Neither.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: Party is going to agree to that.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Let's explain what with prejudice and without prejudice means.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Okay, so both of the emotional emotional distress claims have
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: been dropped. However, Lively's team is going to want them
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: dropped without prejudice. Now you explain what that means.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: I don't know what it means. I'm just kidding you too.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: Know what it means. If it's dropped with prejudice, that's
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: the equivalent or close to a judgment in favor of
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: right or it's it's as if the judge ruled on
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: it and they're it cannot be brought up. It cannot
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: be brought up without prejudice means it's just a procedural thing.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: We dropped it, but you can still pursue it at
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: a later date if you wish exactly so, then with
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: that case, Baldoni would want it with prejudice, so that
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: way it cannot be brought up again. And then of
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: course Likely's team will want it without prejudice, and I
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: think it should be without without knowing much more, it
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: should be without prejudice because the judge didn't review anything
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: really not in detail.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: No, but I mean that's where I mean. The judge
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: is basically like, Okay, you guys work it out together
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: and figure out if it's with prejudice or without, and
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: you think these two sides are going to be able.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: That's very black and white. This isn't a gray area
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: where they can compromise and come up with something. There's
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: no middle ground on this. So I good luck with
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: those two deciding with or without prejudice.
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: So it'll allow for another update next week.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: It'll allow for more letters from Brian Friedman and more
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: updates from US and more updates from US. All right,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: let's move on to Ditty Diddy. I thought it was
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: interesting that there was some testimony and Diddy that was
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: interesting this week. First of all, they called Eddie Garcia
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: to the stand, who was a security supervisor at the
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: La hotel where Combs attacked Cassie back in twenty sixteen. Now,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Eddie Garcia receives complete immunity to testify because when you
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: hear his testimony he clearly was involved in bribery an
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: obstruction of.
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: Justice, so he was offered immunity because you're thinking, well,
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: witness should just testify if but he committed crimes right
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: by taking a bribery and whatnot. Yeah, I mean, so
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: he didn't.
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: He's going to perjure himself in the federal court.
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: So he would just plead the fifth which is I'm
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: not going to be able to answer these questions because
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: it would be self incriminating. So they're saying, well, we
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: want his testimony because we want to go for the
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: bigger fish exactly, and so we'll grant you immunity and
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: then you can freely speak as to what took place
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: and keep your money.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, keep your money. So Eddie Garcia takes a stand
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: and testifies that he and two other employees at the
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: hotel received a lump sum of one hundred thousand dollars
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: in cash from Combs to keep the video surveillance under wraps.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: So this is how it worked out. First of all,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: he gets a phone call I think the evening after
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: this incident happened on his work phone, and it was
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Ditty's assistant. Her name is Christina Korum and she reaches
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: out to Eddie Garcia and says, hey, like, we would
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: like the video, and he basically tells her the only
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: way you can get it is you have to speak
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: to higher than me or you have to subpoena. So
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: she gets nowhere. Then she makes a personal visit to
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: him at the hotel and she wants the video. And
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: this is all clearly under the direction of Ditty and
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: she makes it.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: So she goes to the hotel she wants she wants
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: like the original copy to destroy it.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So she goes to the hotel.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: Like this guy didn't make copies on his phone and
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: show his friend and so I don't know it until
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: you can pull it out.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So she makes a personal visit at the hotel,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: speaks with Eddie Garcia, doesn't get anywhere again, and then
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: I guess off the record. He tells her that the
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: video is pretty bad. So then she goes back and
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: then later on he gets a third phone call on
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: his personal cell phone. I don't know how they got
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a cell phone number, but they got a cell phone
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: number somehow. She gets on the phone with him again.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: She puts Ditty on the phone this time and he
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: testifies that Ditty is nervous during this phone call. He's stuttering.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: He's saying, hey, man, you know I'll take care of you.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: How can I get a copy of this video I
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: need to destroy. It's going to ruin my life. And
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: you know I'll take care of you, which he testifies
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: that he understands that I'll take care of you. Is
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: you know I'll hook you up, I'll get you.
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: You're on the party list, but you're gonna you are
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: now a lifetime supply baby oil.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: For you, sir, Yes, you get a Costco membership baby oil.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: Costco doesn't sell baby oil. It's for freak out.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: Oh that's right, that's right, that's right. We established that.
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: So then they meet at so I guess. So he
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: agrees to it, right, I guess. He goes back to
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: his boss, who security his boss and says the boss says, okay,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: ask him for fifty grand. So he tells Ditty, okay,
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: I'll give you the tape for fifty grand. He shows
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: up at some building to meet Ditty and his assistant
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: in security. Security takes him up to a room. They
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: make him sign an NDA, a confidentiality agreement, basically stating
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: that there's no other videos that it's been destroyed, that
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: he is the only one. He's handing it over.
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: Clearly, Okay, keep going.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: And if he breaches this agreement, this NDA that he's signing,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: that he's gonna, you know, be in breach for a million.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: Dollars up and he might kill right.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: I don't think that's any in writing, but I'm sure
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: that's implied in the contract. But what is in writing
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: is that he would owe a million dollars back. So
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: basically it's I mean, the guy makes ten dollars an hour,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: ten to fifty an.
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: Hour, so he making that up? Are you really no?
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: I read that. I read that he made that he
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: was a security guard. He was making ten dollars and
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: fifty cents an hour. This is back in twenty sixteen, and.
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: That so how did the tape because obviously it wasn't
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: the only copy.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: Well, let's just finish this. So he goes to the hotel,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: he hands over the video that he has, He signs
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: the NDA, the confidentiality a confidentiality agreement. Combs comes out,
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: brings him one hundred thousand dollars in cash. Actually, he
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: counts the money on a money counter at first.
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: Because that's what that's what criminals do. Yeah, they have
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: money counters, Yeah they do.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: They have I don't have one. Do you have one?
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: No?
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: I don't either. So he brings out a money counter,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: he cash. He counts one hundred thousand in cash in
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: front of him. He says, do you want to count it?
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: And he's like no, you know, I trust the money counter.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: So he puts one hundred thousand dollars in a bag
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: and gives it to him. He leaves, He goes back.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: He gives fifty grand to his boss, He gives twenty
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: to another security guard that also witnessed the tape, and
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: he gives thirty thousand to himself.
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: This guy's too honest. He should have well, first of all,
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: he should have said I only got fifty like you asked,
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: and then he keeps the fifty for himself and then
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: he just the other fifty, right.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: But so anyway, well he's an honest man.
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: He's an honest recipient of bribes.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: Yes, so he ends up. Oh and also did he
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: tells him like, don't go make a big purchase, right,
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: So he's warning at like, you know, avoid tax fraud
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: and everything else. He uses a thirty thousand to buy
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: himself a used car in cash. So I guess it
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: doesn't ever show up anywhere. It doesn't look suspicious.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Apparently, why did he did he give him a tip of.
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: I probably because he's just so happy the guys show.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, the guy's a billionaire. One hundred thousand's like
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: if I found a quarter in my pocket, So I
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: think he's or a nickel thank you. I think he's
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: just it's just so he's so happy as static. This
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: guy showed up in hands over the video, right. So anyway,
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: apparently there was another security guard that worked that night
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: that ended up making a video on his phone so
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: he can show it to his wife. I couldn't find
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: I looked for articles or anything that connected it to
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: being in the footage that was eventually that CNN got
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: ahold of. So I'm assuming that's where the breach took place.
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: But I mean, clearly, if he could have sold it
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: more to the media. For more to the media, I
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: don't know what media pays well, I.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: Don't know, but here's where he went wrong. He could
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: have gotten way more than one hundred thousand dollars from Diddy.
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: Like this guy, I don't know, because if it's too
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: if he was being too greedy, then his car might
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: have blown up. And oh, so you're saying he just
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: didn't negotiate with mobs and murderers.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: I think you don't know. All right, Well, then I
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: thought it was interesting that he testified that. Then Shawn
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Combs called him on Easter to wish him a happy
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: Easter and call him an angel and tell him that
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: he was like a good guy and that good things
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: were going to happen to him.
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: And you know, the way I.
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Interpreted that, I feel like Sean Combs was being like, hey, oh.
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: He was really checking in. I don't like we're buddies.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: Hey, happy Easter.
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: So wait, when did the deal take place? That was
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Easter of the very next holiday? Like how much time
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: had passed it?
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: Well, this was like March of twenty sixteen. Maybe, yeah,
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: But I thought it was interesting that it was like,
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: that's a good Friday, happy Easter. In also there was
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: So there's also another victim that is scheduled to testify
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: that's actually today. Her name is Jane, and Jane is
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: a pseudonym. And we didn't talk about this on this podcast,
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: but I did have a conversation with Aubrey o Day
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: last week, so if you want to listen to that podcast,
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: you can find hers where we talked about. There was
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: another victim that testified last week and her name was Mia,
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: which was a pseudonym. Her real name isn't Mia, And
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: I was saying, I understand that these witnesses come forward.
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: She talked about sexual assault, sexual abuse. She was Ditty's
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: assistant for a long time, and there were all these
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: incidents of sexual abuse and assault that she talked.
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: About against her or that she was.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: Her personally, So she had a pseudonym in Core And
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: I was saying, I understand that she wants to keep
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: her identity on the download, but she's testifying in front
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: of them, and testifying in court and testifying in front.
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: Of the gym. The dangers people already know who she is.
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: That's p Diddy here knows he's not gonna.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: Be like well, apparently she was trying to she was
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: testifying under a pseudonym to keep her name out of
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: the media.
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: I understand.
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: I mean, he clearly knows who she is.
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: Oh, I guess there's no cameras in the court room either,
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: So those crummy paintings.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: Right, But what happened is, of course someone finds out
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: her identity and there's a YouTuber.
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: Okay, so hold on before you get any further. Yeah,
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: I was already thinking this. When people always give a
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: fake name and they say not their real name, they
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: should just pretend that that's her real name, because if
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: she said my name is Mia, and she didn't say
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: that's my pseudonym or whatever, then this whoever would try
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: to search for her would keep searching for Mia and
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: they would never come up with her.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're saying they should just create a whole
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: false identity instead of instead of just declaring them, they're
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: testifying under a pseudonym because they want to protect their identity. Well,
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: so what happened was the pseudonym and this whole, this
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: whole confidentiality that the court's trying to maintain in order
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: to keep her identity under wraps did not work because
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: a YouTuber who was like live streaming and like talking
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: about the trial somehow knew her identity and released it.
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: And then there was a news outlet that posted her
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: identity on x So the prosecution was upset. They said
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: that Jane who is someone that's also using a pseudonym,
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: is scheduled to testify today, and that she was nervous
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: about testifying because it had already been breached with this
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: whole mia pseudonym. Now, I tried to look for it.
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: I couldn't find it, would you I was trying.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: To find it.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I looked. Yeah, I was looking for her real
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: identity because it had been breached, but apparently they'd scrubbed
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: it pretty well. But the judge asked the prosecution to
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: draft a possible court order to bar the news outlet
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: from court. So there was a news outlet that released
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: her name on X and then.
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: That was the need to do that. That's so stupid, I.
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: You know, I don't know, especially when the judge made
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: it clear that this woman was testifying, you know, under
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: and then then the judge the the YouTuber got kicked
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: out of court, like they're not allowed to come back,
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: but the news outlet is allowed to still be there
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: even though they released the name on X. And then
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: the judge asked the prosecution to draft a possible court
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: order to bar the news outlet. I guess if they
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: draft this court order and then he rules on it,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: maybe he'll bar them from court. But anyway, that's people
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: not following. And also there was some I don't know
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: if you read this, but there was also some woman
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: that uh uh went she went a little crazy. She
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: was inside the courtroom yesterday. Apparently she's been at court
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: every single day. Outside of the courtroom. Then she was
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: in the holding area. I think she's just she's not
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: a news report or anything.
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: She's just someone.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: Yes, she ended up in the courtroom yesterday and apparently
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: she started screaming.
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: And yelling and in whose defense.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I tried to read what she said.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: None of it really, I couldn't tell if she was
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: a fan of Ditty or she was a nut. She
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: was a nut.
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: She's probably at the Michael Jackson trial too.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Probably, And they removed her from the courtroom, but they
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: did not bar her from court. She's still allowed to
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: be in the holding area. So I didn't I was like,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: I didn't really understand that. But anyway, that is Ditty.
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: So that is an update on Blakelee, Blakely, Blakely, Blake
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: Lively and Justin Baldoni, and an update on the testimony
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: that's going on in Ditty. And I will say on
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: track of what happens with Jane, because I want to
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: see what she testifies too. But well, one more thing
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: on Ditty. I was thinking this whole entire time we've
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: been talking about Ditty, how he's basically being tried not
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: only for well, he's being tried for RICO, which again, why.
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: She tells what RICO means, I mean what it stands for.
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, what is RICO samsor.
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: Stands for a racketeering, influence corrupt organization.
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: Exactly, there's a party for you, if you're standing in
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: line to pick up your kids, you can tell everyone
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: about the Didny trial and that he's being tried under
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: the federal statue to Rico, which was enacted for mobsters
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: because those guys at the top never actually commit any crime,
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: like al.
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: Capone to get him on tax fraud before Rico, right,
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: but before Rico.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: So now that there's Rico, you just have to establish
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: that there's two criminal acts within a ten year time period,
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: that there was a criminal enterprise, and.
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: The enterprise was designed to carry out the crimes.
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: And they're acting hard and they're acting on behalf of
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: or for a unified goal. Anyway, I was thinking in
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: this Ditty trial. So far, we have a lot of violence,
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: and we know that he's a violent man, but are
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: we really is the prosecution doing a good job of
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: establishing that this is a criminal enterprise? And I think
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: the testimony of Mia, who was under a pseudonym, was
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: not a girlfriend.
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: Oh she was an assistant? Was she?
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: She was an assistant? And now we have the security
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: guard with the hotel, with the bribery, So I feel
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: like the prosecution is now honing it.
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: It's becoming less of a domestic case and more of
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: organized or sophisticated cover ups and carry out, carrying out
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: further crimes, exactly paying off right, exactly.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: At the direction of Diddy. So I think they're they're
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: doing better of establishing.
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: You from needing a money counter being in a cell.
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: That sucks.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: That's all right, So let's go into the chrystalies. This
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: has been all over the news lately, so I feel
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: like we have to go down this road and talk
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: about it. So, first of all, how did Todd Julie
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: Crisly first rise to fame? We know that they have
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: reality show, but I had to do some deep digging
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: because I've only seen one episode of the show. And
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna guess you've never seen them never.
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: Never. I've seen them in headlines all over the place
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: years ago and then now again. But I don't know them.
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: And I was surprised they were married. Yes, yes, he
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: does not look like he would be married.
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: He doesn't look like the marrying type.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: No, let's leave it at that.
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: Todd Chrisly and his real estate empire. So Todd Chrislely
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: originally built his wealth in the early two thousands through
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: real estate investment and development. He ran a company called
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: Chrisly Asset Management, which claimed to manage and liquidate distress properties.
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: During the housing boom, Todd made millions by flipping homes
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: and investing and property. He projected an image of financial success,
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: frequently referencing lavish spending, designer clothing, upscale homes, and at
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: their peak, the Chrystlies lived in a thirty thousand square
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: foot mansion Geez and traveled extensively. In twenty fourteen, they
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: launched They Have a Counter. I'm sure they have a
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: money Counter. In twenty fourteen, they launched Chrisly No's Best
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: on the USA Network. It was a reality show portraying
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: them as wealthy, outspoken Southern family navigating parenting, business, and faith.
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: It became a hit, known for Todd's dramatic personality and
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: strict parenting. Success from the show led to spinoffs and endorsements,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: and the family made hundreds of thousands per season. Todd
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: and Julia used their fame to their benefit, conducting brand deals,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: public appearances, and even podcasting with their show Christly Confessions
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen. But along the way, there were
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: always some red flags with his family.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: So the show is what put them in the spotlight.
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: Yes, there were nobody's normies. Normies, yes, we now know
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: the term Norman.
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: Yes, ormies.
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: Okay, So there's some red flags throughout these years where
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: they're building this real estate empire, and I put empire
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: in quotations, enterprise, criminal, enterprise. Yes, well, so Todd filed
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: for Chapter seven bankruptcy back in twenty twelve. According to
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: court records from his bankruptcy filing, he had claimed to
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: have forty nine point four million in debt. He reported
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: just four point two million in assets and listed only
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: fifty five dollars in a checking account and one hundred
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: dollars in cash. His monthly expenses were more than fifty thousand,
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: including twelve thousand on clothing, six thousand on food, and
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: seventeen thousand mortgage and written other household costs. He also
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: owed twelve million to Regions Bank and millions more to
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: other lenders.
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: Wait, he owed twelve million, Yeah too, he found only
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: be four and a half million in debt.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: No, forty nine point four million.
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: Forty nine million.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, did you miss that? That was the first thing
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: I said.
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: I thought you said four million.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: Forty nine point four million in debt. Fifty million dollars
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: in debt.
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: What did he do for income before his TV show? Well,
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: I just told you that he Yeah, tell me again
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: now that it's forty nine Millionay, I want to know
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: what he did for work.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: He was flipping homes, he was building, He building a
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: real estate home. Well, that's what he claims.
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: He opened off the banking industry, is what he was doing.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: Ran a company called Christly Asset Management where they managed
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: and liquidated distress properties, and apparently allegedly he made millions
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: by flipping homes and investing in property. Then he files
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: for bankruptcy and he has forty nine point.
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: Four million million dollars.
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: Yes, fifty million dollars.
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: I mean he spent fifty million dollars or maybe more so.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: During the bankruptcy process, there were allegations.
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: What would he spent fifty million dollars clothing? I know
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: it's one hundred and forty four thousand year clothing.
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: He said, cars, trips, lavish. I could spend fifty million
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: a year.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: Like that, fifty million dollars.
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: Yes, So during the bankruptcy process there were allegations of
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: concealed assets. Todd was accused of hiding income and failing
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: to disclose assets, including trust and property possibly put into
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: his wife's name. Prosecutors later alleged that Todd and Julie
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: used Julie's bank accounts and other people's names to avoid
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: revealing income to the bankruptcy court and to the irs.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: This is all leading up to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: So this is all going on right. Here's the way
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: I understand it, and this is what I was trying
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: to read and decipher. It was, basically, from my understanding,
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: a Ponzi scheme that had to do with loans. So
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: they were taking out loans and then getting more loans
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: to pay back the.
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: Place, as you're saying, instead of getting investors to some
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: supposed snake oil, they were getting loans, helped pay back
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: other loans and then have more money, and they just
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: kept robbing Peter to pay Paul.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: Exactly allegedly, well not allegedly, I mean they were prosecuted
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: for it. So this leads to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: Prosecutors charged the Chrislies with one bank fraud, submitting falsified
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: documents to banks to obtain large loans. So that was
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: the first part of this Ponzi scheme as I understand it.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: First of all, in order to get all these loans,
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: they had to falsified documents to make it look like
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: they have more income or more assets than they do
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: in order to get the loans.
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: Second, this is why the world hates us, because people
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: go and get loans and spend all kinds of money
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: on clothes, then file bankruptcy and then thinking is walk
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: away right.
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: Second, wire fraud using fake emails and bank records to
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: qualify for funding. Third, tax evasion not paying federal taxes
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: or filing returns for multiple years, and for a conspiracy
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: to defraud the United States. They pled not guilty and
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: claimed that they were being framed by a former employee.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: And this former employee also when they went to trial.
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: I think he was convicted of three years. He was
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: like a financial advisor or something, which you told me
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: when I was telling you about this. You get sick
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: of people blaming their financial advisors.
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: I do as stupid. It's because they still have to
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: sign everything and they still need to be responsible. You
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: can't just hire a financial advisor to alleviate yourself and
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: create some veil where it's like, oh, I didn't know
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: he did it, not me, fifty million. You were stuck
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: on that fifty Yeah, I had no idea it was
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: fifty million dollars.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: So then COVID comes along and delays their trial proceedings
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: from twenty twenty to twenty one.
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: Flip homes and make that kind of money, so.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: You think so you think, well, he's no. Well he
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: might have. He might have flipped a couple, or he
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: might have.
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: A couple couple, but not enough to.
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: Have fifty million dollars in debt, not unless.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: You falsify the loan documents.
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: Well that's what they claim, and that's what they were
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: convicted of. Was falsifying loan documents. In June of twenty
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: twenty two, their trial began. The prosecution's main evidence was
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: fake bank and financial documents. Julie Crisley allegedly created fake
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: fake financial documents, including falsified bank statements, fake credit reports,
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: and altered financial audit letters. These were used to apply
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: for and receive over thirty million dollars in loans from
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: community and regional banks between two thousand and seven.
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: And they they got addicted. It was easy money, yeah,
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: and they just wanted more and more and more.
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: There's so other evidences, emails and text messages. Federal agents
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: recovered emails and text messages between the Chrystalies and co
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: conspirators that revealed that Julie allegedly emailed fake financial statements
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: to third parties who submitted them to lenders, and Todd
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: and other co conspirators discussed how to trick banks into
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: approving their loans golly.
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: And then when I go get like a loan for
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: a car, it seems like amount of paperwork, and I'm
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: like trying to state my case and make it like
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: I could afford it, and then these people just go
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: and get fifty million dollars.
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: And loans and then file for bankruptcy and not pay
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: back the loans and then get more. Sorry, I think
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: they probably get more loans to pay back as many
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: loans as they can. But then when they start to
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: get to the point where it's like loans, then you
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: just file for bankruptcy and you just start over, and.
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: You say it's a Ponzi scheme. You know, it's called
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: the Ponzi scheme.
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you know the history on the guy's name was Ponzi, Yeah, Charles,
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Charles Ponzi.
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, in the twenties, and he was making a fortune.
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: What was what was his Ponzi?
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: His original business idea was valid?
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: Okay, what was this? This is the twenties, the nineteen twenties.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: In the twenties, he he it was there was international
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: stamps posted stamps that could be used to mail internationally
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: to other countries. Like countries got together and agreed that
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: this was a universal stamp. It was cheaper in Italy
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: the stamps. Why then, I don't know, exchange rate or something.
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: So he was like, hey, I'll buy the stamps there,
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: I'll bring him to the States and I'll resell and
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: it'll be cheaper for the buyers, and I'll make a profit.
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: Totally valid.
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: That's a legitimate business plan.
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: Legitimate business plan. Okay, it got out of control and
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: then he then he just ended up going into a
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: Ponzi scheme where now he couldn't keep up with the
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: demand and he was just getting investors and he wasn't
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: actually buying the stamps, and he was paying people back
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: and he was then it turned into a true Ponzi scheme.
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: So a true Ponzi scheme is when you have people
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: invest in something and then you just use that money
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: to pay back some of your investors at the top,
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: and then you just get more people and sometimes usually.
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: Just pay a little bit like so, then then a
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: newspaper came and wrote a complaint about him that it
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: was a Ponzi scheme. Of course they labeled back then,
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: but they said it was fraud. He sued the newspaper defamation, yes,
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: and won five hundred thousand dollars in the twenties ties,
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: even though he was a crook and in that time prior,
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: I think, when the media came out and said he
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: was a scam, he opened up his doors and said,
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: I will pay all my investors back and they came
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: and he would pay him back with a little bit
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: of interest or whatever the agreement was. And then he'd
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: be like, see, I have money, are you sure you
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: wanted it back? And then they eventual he said no, no, no,
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: keep it, keep it, keep investing in. Yeah, and then
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: he won five hundred thousand dollars. And he had like
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: a heated pool for his mom in like the twenties
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: and all this like fancy home and electricity and cars,
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: and I think he had a permanent cabin on some
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: yacht for his mom that would go across the seas.
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: He was out of control. And then he got busted.
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: How did he finally get caught?
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: That I can't remember. Oh yeah, I can't remember.
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: So that's the end of the story.
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: I didn't finish the book. But he didn't get caught.
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: He got extradited to Italy. And then Italy is supposedly
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: just like slapped him on the rest and said, yeah.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: You're the bad boy.
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, don't do that again next time, don't get caught.
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: Right, here's some pasta all right. So other further evidence
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: in their original trial was testimony from a former business associate,
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: a former employee Mark Braddock testified against the Chrystlies in
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: exchange for immunity. He claimed he helped Todd commit fraud
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: for years and was involved in faking documents, forging signatures,
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: and submitting false applications. He also claimed they paid off
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: banks using newly fraudulently obtained loans, operating almost like a
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: Ponzi scheme, which is what we talked about. And then
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: there's also evidence of spending beyond their actual income. Despite
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: claiming little to know income on taxes and bankruptcy forms,
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: the Chrystlies spent tens of thousands monthly on luxury items,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: paid for designer clothing, private school tuition, luxury cars, and
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: rent for multimillion dollar homes. The prosecution highlighted this to
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: show that the Chrystlies were not simply bad with money,
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: that they were intentionally living beyond their means while lying
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: to banks and to the government. And lastly, there was
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: a pattern of concealing the income. The Chrystlies use various
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: strategies to avoid detection, including routing income through a production
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: company controlled by Julie to shield it from the IRS,
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: and claiming to have little personal income while receiving thousands
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: per month via other entities.
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: Losers.
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: The conviction and sentencing, the jury found them both guilty
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: on all counts in November of twenty twenty two. Todd
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: was sentenced to twelve years, Julie was sent in to
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: sentence to seven years, and both were also given sixteen
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: months of probation following their following release.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: Well, he had twelve years and so he got seven.
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: So they spent three years. Give her take what do
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: you mean?
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: Oh?
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, less than three years?
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: Yes, So in January of twenty twenty three, they report
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: to prison. Todd reports to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, Florida,
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: and Julie reports to Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: So what happened to the children. At twenty five years old,
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: Savannah Chrisley became the legal guardian and family spokesperson. She
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: took custody of her younger brother, Grayson, who's sixteen, and
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: niece Chloe, who was ten. And this was Todd and
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: Julie's adopted granddaughter. Because Todd had two children from a
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: previous marriage, he was married before, so he's been married twice,
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: so he has two. He has two children from his
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: first marriage. He had a falling out I believe with
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: the daughter, and she was kind of a strange from
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: the family. I don't think she was part of the
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: reality show or anything, but I think she did offer
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: support for them publicly when they went to press.
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: To be fair, we won't judge the family affairs because
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: we don't really know any Yeah, but the stealing money
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: is a problem, Okay, and then I'll judge all day long.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: That you're going to judge. And he also had a
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: son from his first marriage who had Chloe, who is
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: the granddaughter. And then I believe the son had some
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: substance abuse issues, so Todd and Julie adopted the granddaughter.
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: So they prior to going to prison.
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: Prior to going to prison. Yes, she became the public
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: so we're talking about Savannah. Savannah became the public face
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: of the family, frequently speaking out in interviews and on
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: her podcast Unlocked with Savannah Chrisly about the injustice she
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: believed her parents faced. She continually expressed being overwhelmed. I mean,
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: she is taking care of the kids, so I get that,
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: but was committed to keeping the family together. Quote, I'm
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: helping raise two children while also dealing with the loss
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: of my parents being in a way, she said in
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: a twenty twenty three interview. Savannah's older brother, Chase, did
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: not become a legal guardian. However, he did support Savannah
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: and helping with the two younger ones, Grayson and Chloe.
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: So Savannah has been the one that's been working tirelessly
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: to have her parents pardon. Let's just talk about pardon
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: power so that we know where that comes from. So
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: the president's power to grant pardons comes from. It's outlined
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: in article yes the Constitution, Article two, Section two, Clause
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: one of the Constitution. I like to give you guys
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: this little bits of like interesting legal to me, it's interesting.
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: I love the Constitution. I actually had a small pocket
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: version of the Constitution that I just had in my purse.
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: I mean along with yeah, I would like to read
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: it along with like snacks and you know, sandwiches. I
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: also have a copy of the Constitution.
• 36:54
  Speaker 2: Okay. I never knew that this.
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: Power is broad but not limitless, and it allows the
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: president to offer forgiveness and restore rights to individuals convicted
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: of federal crimes. Pardon power is explicitly limited to federal
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: offenses only, not state offenses, and this means the president
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: cannot pardon individuals for crimes committed under state or local laws.
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: So on May twenty seven, twenty twenty five, the presidential
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: pardon is granted. President Donald Trump issues full pardons to
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: both Todd and Julie Chrislely. The pardon cites claims of
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: unfair prosecution and procedural irregularities and the trial. The couple
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: is released from prison having served roughly two years. All right,
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: first of all, what is your thoughts. I know we
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: were having this conversation, but you were saying you didn't
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: think that they should be pardoned. If anything, you felt
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: like their sentence should have been commuted.
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: Right, because a pardon pretty much says you didn't do
• 37:51
  Speaker 2: the crime right, or you were unfairly prosecuted and you
• 37:54
  Speaker 2: know you shouldn't have been found guilty, or something to
• 37:56
  Speaker 2: that effect. I don't know. If there's there's paper trails,
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: it's a crime not of testimony, but of just like
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: their own signing documents. And I disagree based on what
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: I know, I disagree with the pardon. If anything, commuting
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: the sentence would have been better, because then it'd be
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: like Okay, you know what, that's more like, you did
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: the crime, You did enough time. Your sense was harsh.
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: This is enough. You're not a risk of society. If anything,
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: can be more productive, and we don't have to pay
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: for you to sit in jail, so you sent them out.
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: I think a pardon was not a good idea. I
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: disagree with that, and I think, and now that it's
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: fifty million dollars, I definitely think they should be in jail.
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: Still in jail. Do you think two years was not
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: enough time?
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: No?
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: No, you know what.
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: The the should be an eye for an eye. It
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: should be like you're not allowed to have more than
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: five hundred dollars in your pocket at any given time.
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: You cannot be rich anymore because your phony. So you're
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: saying they lived a life or luxury and now they
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: should suffer.
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: So you're saying, if someone commits fraud to live extravagant
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: life style, they should never be able to live in
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: extravagant lifestyle again, even if they earned it legitimately after
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: they came out of prison. You're just not allowed to
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: ever be rich again. That's your punishment.
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: So.
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: In other news, Savannah Christly addresses rumors about her parents' pardons.
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: Days after Todd Christly and Julie Chrisly were released from prison,
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: their daughter addressed conspiracy theories about her year's long efforts
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: to free her parents from behind bars.
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: Quote.
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: Obviously, the biggest misconception right now is that I either
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: paid for a pardon or I slept for a pardon,
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: Savannah told the media.
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: A lot.
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: You Well, she's very attractive.
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: She looks like him. He is pretty. He is pretty.
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: Okay, she's pretty. They're both pretty. Savannah told the media
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: alongside Todd during a May thirtieth press conference.
• 39:56
  Speaker 2: I just have very little sympathy for people that take
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: other people's money knowingly. This isn't This isn't like a
• 40:02
  Speaker 2: business venture that went bad or they kept throwing good
• 40:06
  Speaker 2: money after bad because they were.
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: They were trying to have something.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: Authornically, they were genuinely trying something, even if it was
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: poor decision, they should have known better. Yeah, this is.
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: Like intentional fraudulent. They were big fifty million dollars that
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: are doctored. Here's the argument, and this is where I
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: think people like when you talk about Menendez, there's clearly
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: victims and brutality. When you talk about a crime like this,
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: there isn't. I think people look at it people, but
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: I don't think people see it that way. I think
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: people see it as a victimless crime.
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: It's not I don't I never really understood victim. I
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: guess meaning there's no individual person harmed, and I think
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: it's still a crime.
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: I think also people I have a problem with capitalism
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: a lot, and they feel like people like this are
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: just sticking it to like the you know, banks and
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: you know, the like there's no there's there's no actual victim.
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: You know, when people don't pay their car payments and
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: they're like, so what so land Rover doesn't get my money?
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: Or well, well that would that would be okay. If
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: the person was fell flat, flat on flat on their
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: fees at the term and they had no money and
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: they couldn't pay, then it's not a it's not criminal.
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: It's just a financial situation. This is criminal. I'm sorry,
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: but you take fifty million dollars or more so, you
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: because you think you should live a certain lifestyle. Screw them.
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: She also states during a press conference that if people
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: knew the countless hours and money in time I spent
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: going to d C literally with not a meeting scheduled,
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: and I just got on a plane and went and said,
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: I'm going to be in the right room and the
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: right time, I meet the right people. So basically, I
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: know she spoke during the RNC and I think she
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: her She alleges that her parents were unfairly prosecuted and
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: gone after because they were supporters of Trump, so that
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: it was a political She was wrong.
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: They were going after them because because they committed crimes
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: and owed fifty million dollars. She forgot that part.
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he claims in his press conference that they are
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: completely innocent.
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: So I would But you know what, that's the thing,
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: the pardon. I bet you a million bucks that party
• 42:14
  Speaker 2: may it like, see, we didn't do anything. See that's right.
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: Now they can run around and claim innocence. But if
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: it was just commuted, then maybe they could not run
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: around and say we didn't do anything. They wouldn't have
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: that argument.
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: Well, I would love for them to take the opportunity
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: to prove how they are innocent, because as far they.
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: Already had an opportunity and they sucked at it and
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: they went to.
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: Jail for I know, but I'm saying now after the fact,
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: if you're going to do press conferences and continuously talk
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: about how you're innocent and you didn't do anything wrong
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: and that's why you were pardoned, then how are you innocent?
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: Let's see it?
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: Are we going to see him out? Bravo? Con I
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: don't know, beause I have some questions.
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: Todd also spoke and maintained that he and Julie did
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Quote,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: even though this pardon happened, I still was convicted of
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: something I did not do. It could be you, It
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: could be you, It could be any of you. He
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: said during a press conference that it.
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: Could never be me because I will never take out
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: a loan for fifty million dollars.
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: Well it was falsified, fifi.
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: I don't care whatever. I wouldn't falsify paperwork to get alane. Yeah,
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: so it will never be me.
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: Chrisly Todd and Julie Cristly's alleged pricey demand for their
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: TV comeback raises eyebrows in Hollywood. This was an article
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: on Daily Mail. Apparently they are shopping or they're being
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: offered a brand new reality series documenting their return back
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: into their normal life post prison. According to sources, that
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: might not be a problem, as many TV production companies
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: are considering signing the couple. However, their price may be
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: a hindrance as they're seeking a seven figure payout. Recently,
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: some television producers opened up to The Daily Mail sharing
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: their thoughts about Todd and Julie's extremely high price tag. Quote,
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: we would love to work with them, but their price
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: tag is way too high.
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: One the complication has no assets. Now he's got to
• 44:02
  Speaker 2: build up his wardrobe, right, He's got to catch up
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: on whatever procedures he didn't get while he was locked up.
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: They also shared that they weren't entirely sure if Todd
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: and Joy would be worth such a huge amount, that's
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: the thing. Would people want to watch them? The producer asked.
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: Another producer revealed that the specific amount Todd and Julie
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: were requesting. According to them, the couple is allegedly asking
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: for a whopping five million dollar minimum to make a
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: reality show post prison. That's where their conversation starts. Five million,
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: but they're hoping for a bidding war to take the
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: price even higher.
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: So it should be in the slammer.
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: So you're not a fan, you're a fan. Listen, here's
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: my thoughts on pardoning. I understand and I understand the
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: Constitution and the president has pardon power, and I agree
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: with that. I feel, however, just because of the work
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: that I do and the things that I'm involved in.
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: I mean I look at cases and things, see things
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: all the time and meet people involved in the Innocence project.
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: My mind, I'm.
• 45:00
  Speaker 2: Thinking, why are we at those cases?
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: Why are we not taking it deeper? Are why is
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: there not a consultantdenzar.
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: Or in addition to a pardons aar, they should have
• 45:11
  Speaker 2: a wrongly convicted zaar. Yeah, I would love it for
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: those because the lady that was appointed as the pardons are.
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: Alice.
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: She's awesome, she is and she's lived up to her
• 45:24
  Speaker 2: end of the deal of just being a good person
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: to society and trying to help those who you know,
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: need to get back up on their feet. And she's
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: the one that sought out the chrislies. I think in
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: some fashion. I mean, she was probably approached, but she
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: did her homework because I watched an interview with her,
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: she did her homework and she felt after doing her
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: homework that they were wrongly convicted or and definitely wrongly
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: sentenced or harshly sentenced. So I do know that she's
• 45:56
  Speaker 2: a pretty genuine good woman. So I hope that she
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: did her homework enough. But I still disagree.
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: Well, you disagree on I disagree.
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: Based on what I know, right, there might be things
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know. No, I know what I know, you
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: know what you know. I don't think I know what.
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: I guess. The point of what I was saying was
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: in the in the field and the things that I
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: work in, and you have been involved in a lot
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: of it, and we meet a lot of people that
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: have been wrongfully convicted, and my question is why are
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: we not investing more time and energy into those cases
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: that the Innocence Project picks up and puts all this
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: time and energy.
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: Well, I guess the argument is if they were pardon
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: then the argument is they were wrongly convicted. So they were,
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: But I would.
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: Rather I would just I would If we're going to
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: have pardoning power, we're going to pardon people. I would
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: rather pardon someone that has been in prison for a
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: long time that was either wrongfully.
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: Convicted, like one of the cases that you help with,
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: or it takes they have evidence and now it still
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: takes yes years, yes to actually yes, get it overturned.
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: I am released, right.
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: But you're saying so when the president can just come in, well,
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: assuming it's a federal crime, when the president can come
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: in or the guf A R could come in his
• 47:00
  Speaker 2: boom and get him out.
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I just I wish there was I just needed
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: maybe the Christie should have a reality show where they
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: go around the prisons and they talk to people. That's
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: what they should do. Did you hear that, Todd and
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: Julie Chrisly if you're looking for a reality show because
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: they did complain. You see an interview with Todd Christly
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: where he does talk about the prison environment and how
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: bad it is and how bad the food is, and
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: he did say he said that African Americans are treated
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: more poorly than the white prisoners, and he said he
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: received privileges because he was white, and he he made
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: that known. He said it in an interview.
• 47:37
  Speaker 2: See that's interesting. So you do your part and bring
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: all that to the public and expose those things and
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: try to make it better.
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: Okay, I there, that's a good solution. We together would
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: get behind a reality show with the Chrislies if they
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: want to do prison reform or do some type of
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: Innocent's project or or work with wrongly convicted and.
• 47:58
  Speaker 2: Then he has to give all his money back to
• 48:00
  Speaker 2: the bank.
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: Oh yes, but because he has to give the money
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: back to all right, that is the Chryslies will keep
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: you updated and on things that have to do with
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: Diddy and Lively and if there's any more that comes
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: with the Chrystlies will be aware of whether they get
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: their reality show or not, or whether they listen to
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: this podcast, and then we'll recap it, recap shot the
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: reality show. Yes, all right, thanks guys for listening to
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: Legally Brunette. We appreciate it. And as always a lot
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: of you send me dms and tell me your thoughts
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: about cases and cases that you think that we should
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: talk about. So I appreciate that, so please continue to
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: do that.