Latest / Reality with The King / Reality with the King: A Dy-NASTY Divorce: Kandi & Todd

Transcript

Reality with the King: A Dy-NASTY Divorce: Kandi & Todd · 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, we have so.
0:37
Speaker 2: Much to talk about greeting and salutation, honey, that's what
0:41
Speaker 2: we're doing. So on Tonight's Live, I've listened and I'll responded,
0:50
Speaker 2: and you guys wanted me to bring back my amazing
0:54
Speaker 2: friend and amazing co host f M. K. Williams to
0:58
Speaker 2: talk about the Candy and Todd divorce proceedings. So on
1:02
Speaker 2: this one, what we're gonna do is utilize Ebony's amazing
1:08
Speaker 2: intelligence when it comes to the law and being a
1:12
Speaker 2: celebrity and how those two things sort of intersect when
1:16
Speaker 2: it comes to what happens with the celebrity divorce, the
1:19
Speaker 2: money desk at stake, children being involved, minor children at
1:24
Speaker 2: that in addition to recent information about particular allegations of
1:30
Speaker 2: possible cheating. So, Ebony, are you ready to break this
1:33
Speaker 2: all down?
1:35
Speaker 3: I am if I have shot approval from the rain Drops, shit,
1:41
Speaker 3: I mean, well damn.
1:48
Speaker 2: Well. Look, you know the range are very opinionated. So
1:51
Speaker 2: just to catch you all up to speed, what's going on?
1:55
Speaker 2: And look, this has been a situation that a lot
1:59
Speaker 2: of did not see coming. So I want to make
2:02
Speaker 2: sure to recapture you guys exactly what is happening. So
2:08
Speaker 2: rain Drops, as you all know, Candy Burristucker has decided
2:13
Speaker 2: to file for divorce on November twenty first. She has
2:19
Speaker 2: called it quiz after eleven years of marriage. She said
2:22
Speaker 2: in a statement that after deep thought a lot of prayer,
2:25
Speaker 2: she's made the decision to move forward with advores. Okay,
2:33
Speaker 2: she cited that the marriage was irretrivially broken and that
2:38
Speaker 2: she was seeking for joint cust study. So before we
2:43
Speaker 2: get into Ta's response, which truly did break the Internet ebony,
2:48
Speaker 2: some of divorces, especially celebrities, we always hear the reconcilable differences,
2:55
Speaker 2: which is pretty much like the safest thing to say
2:58
Speaker 2: about like two parties. We decided to different matters to
3:02
Speaker 2: say that it was irvally broken explain to us exactly
3:08
Speaker 2: what that particular statement means and why or why not
3:14
Speaker 2: is that important when it comes to this divorce.
3:19
Speaker 3: Well, the only real legal significance of that language, Carlos,
3:22
Speaker 3: and it's a good, it's a good point of clarification
3:27
Speaker 3: is that because, like you said, irreconcilable differences is a
3:30
Speaker 3: catch all, you know, it's it's a standard catch all
3:33
Speaker 3: that almost everybody uses in their uh no fault state divorces,
3:39
Speaker 3: which Georgia is. But that beyond you know, what do
3:45
Speaker 3: you call it? Reconciliation piece just kind of goes to
3:50
Speaker 3: tap the judge or the try or effect on the
3:53
Speaker 3: shoulder and let them know basically, we're not particularly interested
3:57
Speaker 3: in counts or mediation tactics that would put us on
4:02
Speaker 3: a path for reconciliation. It's basically because sometimes when you
4:06
Speaker 3: initially find you do an initial first filing of divorce,
4:09
Speaker 3: you might have a judge push you in that direction,
4:12
Speaker 3: especially when there are minor children involved, as is the
4:16
Speaker 3: case with Candy and Todd. They've got a six year
4:19
Speaker 3: old daughter Blaze, nine year old son Ace and so
4:23
Speaker 3: and especially I'm going to bring up some components rain drops,
4:25
Speaker 3: So follow me here when you're in the Bible Belt,
4:28
Speaker 3: they are in the state of Georgia. And I say
4:30
Speaker 3: this as a proud Southern girl myself, who practice family
4:33
Speaker 3: law in the state of North Carolina, you're gonna sometimes
4:36
Speaker 3: run into a judge, and the judges, y'all, have a
4:39
Speaker 3: tremendous amount of discretion in family law cases. So that's
4:43
Speaker 3: one thing to note. This is not a prosecutor and
4:46
Speaker 3: a defense This is a judge and only a judge
4:50
Speaker 3: that we'll hear from both Candy's lawyers and Todd's lawyers
4:53
Speaker 3: and decide all the elements of this case, from custody
4:56
Speaker 3: to the enforcement of the prenup, which we will get to,
5:00
Speaker 3: to all the elements. And so when you're in this
5:02
Speaker 3: type of jurisdiction, the South, the Bible Belt, where the
5:06
Speaker 3: culture of the region, y'all, and that mandates a presumption
5:11
Speaker 3: of family, a presumption especially in the political climate that
5:17
Speaker 3: we're in. I don't have to name it, y'all can
5:19
Speaker 3: put it together, okay, where there's such a energy and
5:23
Speaker 3: propensity around traditional family values and family staying together and
5:29
Speaker 3: nuclear family situations. So the inclusion by Candy's attorney and
5:34
Speaker 3: their legal team of that sentence essentially beyond reasonable chances
5:40
Speaker 3: of reconciliation is to say, hey, you're honor In case
5:43
Speaker 3: you're thinking about trying to put us on track for
5:45
Speaker 3: some type of preliminary reconciliation counseling, we can skip it.
5:50
Speaker 3: That's what that says to me.
5:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So one of the things that occur after that,
5:57
Speaker 2: because again the worse filings for me, and again I'm
6:02
Speaker 2: not a lawyer, I'm just a general public citizen. One
6:06
Speaker 2: thing that I thought was okay, it was a kind
6:10
Speaker 2: way of saying, this relationship cannot be you know, retrieved
6:17
Speaker 2: outside of getting back together. We do have minor children together.
6:22
Speaker 2: We are going to try to have a joint custody.
6:26
Speaker 2: She did say that. She also said that look, they
6:30
Speaker 2: have businesses together, and that any depth that they have
6:33
Speaker 2: to be split and anything else should be split. Everything
6:36
Speaker 2: seemed to be fair and everybody said, okay, that's fine.
6:40
Speaker 2: Then a few days later after that, on December second,
6:43
Speaker 2: I'm sorry an December second, what happened On December first,
6:48
Speaker 2: Tom Tucker's attorney, Randy Kessler, responded to Candy's filing, and
6:56
Speaker 2: this is where things were said, ebony that run the
7:00
Speaker 2: general public, the wrong way, not all of a sudden,
7:04
Speaker 2: but I wanted to get your thoughts on it. In
7:08
Speaker 2: the In the document, it did state that Todd would
7:13
Speaker 2: like to have in the unlike in the hopefully unlikely
7:17
Speaker 2: event that they are unable to reach a custody deal,
7:22
Speaker 2: he will be seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody,
7:30
Speaker 2: and final decision making authority. The document stated that Candy
7:38
Speaker 2: having substantial time and meaningful access to the children. He's
7:44
Speaker 2: praising her as a mother, But he also did say
7:48
Speaker 2: that because she travels a lot, he wants to be
7:53
Speaker 2: able to be the primary parent if they're unable to
7:57
Speaker 2: reach a deal. You being a love yourself, you being
8:02
Speaker 2: a working mom, yourself, you're actually on set today, yep.
8:07
Speaker 3: Out of state, by the way, out of state, on
8:11
Speaker 3: set out on the other side of the country. So
8:13
Speaker 3: I'm actually very similarly positioned to where Miss Candy Burgers
8:18
Speaker 3: is in terms of this type of situation. So let's
8:21
Speaker 3: start in the back, carlost let me do some issue
8:23
Speaker 3: spotting here, old school style. Everything you read, and I'm
8:26
Speaker 3: so glad you read it in its totality around uh
8:30
Speaker 3: Todd's request on the custody piece. The initial request this
8:34
Speaker 3: is around a potential child support claim. Okay, so let's
8:37
Speaker 3: let's reverse engineering. This is setting up a potential claim
8:41
Speaker 3: from Todd and his legal team to seek child support.
8:45
Speaker 3: I want everybody to immediately put spousal support on a
8:49
Speaker 3: selparate chef, a separate shelf. Spousal support and child support
8:53
Speaker 3: have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Okay. Spousal
8:56
Speaker 3: support may or may not even be at play, depending
9:01
Speaker 3: on whether or not the judge decides to uphold the
9:04
Speaker 3: existing prenuptial agreement. But child support is something that you
9:09
Speaker 3: actually cannot bypass in a pre nup, Okay, because it's
9:14
Speaker 3: not about you or you spouse or spouse. It's about
9:17
Speaker 3: who the child. So excuse me. With that framework, With
9:23
Speaker 3: this being all about a potential child support claim, that
9:26
Speaker 3: would be why Todd, through his attorney Randy Kessler, would
9:30
Speaker 3: be seeking primary physical custody, because if you don't have
9:34
Speaker 3: primary physical custody, there is little to no claim around
9:38
Speaker 3: why you should be compensated from the other parent, because
9:42
Speaker 3: the judge will typically look at that as if it's
9:44
Speaker 3: split physical custody. They will look at y'all as equals
9:48
Speaker 3: who are more or less equally positioned to care for
9:51
Speaker 3: the children through your own resources with the time you
9:54
Speaker 3: each equally have the children. But if you're saying no, no, no, no,
9:58
Speaker 3: I am the the children are with me most of
10:00
Speaker 3: the time, subject to visitation from the other spouse, then
10:04
Speaker 3: the financial presumption shifts. Carlos, see how that goes. And
10:07
Speaker 3: now the expectation is I need to be paid from
10:10
Speaker 3: the other's spouse compensated for taking on more fiscal responsibility
10:16
Speaker 3: because the children are with me more so I'm feeding them,
10:19
Speaker 3: I'm clothing them, I'm housing them, I'm paying for their extracurriculars,
10:22
Speaker 3: and I need to be paid child support to make
10:25
Speaker 3: that equitable. That's so, that's that's connecting the dots as
10:29
Speaker 3: to why he's starting from a physical custody demand and
10:33
Speaker 3: then the legal joint custody that standard because uh, there
10:39
Speaker 3: is no fiscal component to legal custody, because legal custody
10:42
Speaker 3: is not about where the physicality of the children. It's
10:47
Speaker 3: only about the decision making. So this is where they
10:49
Speaker 3: go to school, if they have health insurance, what kind
10:53
Speaker 3: testing the things of this in terms of like whatever
10:57
Speaker 3: whatever assessments the children might need as they continue you
11:00
Speaker 3: to grow and develop but then I think it's interesting.
11:03
Speaker 3: Something I don't see often, Carlos, is this final request
11:07
Speaker 3: potentially of final decision making. Because the whole point of
11:11
Speaker 3: joint legal custody is to say that we are joint
11:14
Speaker 3: in assessing what I just ran down, schooling, healthcare, the
11:19
Speaker 3: major decisions that affect the child's life. But he's saying
11:22
Speaker 3: that I actually want final decision making potentially, and that's
11:25
Speaker 3: a bit unusual. So but the first thing you said
11:28
Speaker 3: is important. We only get to me having physical primary custody,
11:32
Speaker 3: joint decision making, legal custody and final decision if and
11:36
Speaker 3: only if we can't get to a custody agreement. So
11:40
Speaker 3: that's gonna be the first step, Carlos. They're gonna sit
11:43
Speaker 3: down with maybe a mediator, an arbitrator, or even the
11:46
Speaker 3: judge and try to see if they can come up
11:48
Speaker 3: with what we tend to call a consent decree, which
11:53
Speaker 3: means we both consent mutually agree that this is going
11:56
Speaker 3: to be the custody arrangement. So that's going to be
11:58
Speaker 3: the first attempt.
12:01
Speaker 2: Todd, on his social media has had this sort of
12:06
Speaker 2: like social media series, nothing I would call a websode,
12:09
Speaker 2: but he has been promoting that he does a lot
12:13
Speaker 2: of daddy daycare, and he's been doing this for you know,
12:17
Speaker 2: in recent months. Do you think that was a part
12:22
Speaker 2: of strategy to show that he is the prime he
12:27
Speaker 2: is being theen based on what he's showing me as
12:31
Speaker 2: the primary care came, I don't have to.
12:33
Speaker 3: I don't have to think it. Well, I was gonna say,
12:36
Speaker 3: I don't have to think it, Carlos. I know it.
12:38
Speaker 3: I know it, and it's not necessarily that's not a deed,
12:41
Speaker 3: that's not nefarious, that's just quite obvious. Quite frankly, when
12:44
Speaker 3: you see people start to show up in a public setting,
12:47
Speaker 3: which social media is as public as it kind of
12:49
Speaker 3: gets right because it's real time visibility, establishing a narrative
12:54
Speaker 3: which may very well be true, may not be true,
12:57
Speaker 3: maybe a little true or and untrue, who knows, right,
13:00
Speaker 3: but they're establishing a narrative that sements them in a
13:05
Speaker 3: particular position. So he's saying publicly, hey, public and potential
13:10
Speaker 3: judge and whoever's assessing this, I need you to know
13:14
Speaker 3: that it is me that is primarily at home doing
13:18
Speaker 3: the daily caretaking of the children. I'm running the bathwater,
13:22
Speaker 3: I'm preparing the meals. I'm preparing any medicines they may take.
13:26
Speaker 3: I'm the one doing story time because why my wife,
13:30
Speaker 3: per his claim, is out of town, out of the country,
13:35
Speaker 3: promoting Broadway shows, doing press for her incredible you know,
13:40
Speaker 3: works and projects and movies and films and all the
13:43
Speaker 3: amazing things she's doing. So while she is away, kind
13:46
Speaker 3: of well, what's it getting the bacon. I'm playing daddy
13:51
Speaker 3: daycare at home, frying up the bacon, and I am
13:54
Speaker 3: holding down the home front. That is clearly Carlos what
13:57
Speaker 3: he has been trying to establish for the past several months,
14:01
Speaker 3: which bolsters his argument his legal claim that that's why
14:05
Speaker 3: I should be designated the primary physical custodian, because, like
14:09
Speaker 3: you were saying, and you know, using me as an
14:11
Speaker 3: example of what it looks like to be the working
14:14
Speaker 3: mom who's going to get the bacon. I'm out in
14:17
Speaker 3: La getting the bacon. I'm on set getting the bacon.
14:19
Speaker 3: Somebody's got to get the bacon. But also somebody has
14:22
Speaker 3: to be home to fry the bacon because the children
14:25
Speaker 3: can't eat un fried bacon, you know, using this analogy,
14:29
Speaker 3: so I would tell you, cybar, this this is sidebar.
14:33
Speaker 3: This is part of the reason that I used a
14:35
Speaker 3: donor true tide of my personal story time part Yeah.
14:40
Speaker 3: Part of the reason that I decided to be a
14:42
Speaker 3: single mom by choice, Carlos King and use a donor
14:46
Speaker 3: and not have a father for liberty, not use a friend,
14:51
Speaker 3: not have a cold parenting situation, is because I knew
14:55
Speaker 3: my circumstances professionally would put me in Candy's exact situation,
15:00
Speaker 3: and that I would very possibly end up paying child
15:03
Speaker 3: support for my own daughter. Oh apps, some motherfucking lute
15:05
Speaker 3: excuse me, I would easily be in a position to
15:09
Speaker 3: have to go in front of a judge looking just
15:12
Speaker 3: like this and plead my own case from my own
15:16
Speaker 3: daughter that I carried in birth, to say, despite my
15:20
Speaker 3: travel schedule, my work schedule, my sometimes lack of real
15:25
Speaker 3: time availability, I assure you I can make sure all
15:28
Speaker 3: of her needs are met. Because that opens the door,
15:30
Speaker 3: Carlows for exactly this where a father, despite the relationship
15:35
Speaker 3: between me and the father, despite what we even previously
15:38
Speaker 3: agreed to, could then say, your honor, look at her.
15:41
Speaker 3: She's outside. She might be outside for very wonderful, noble reasons,
15:45
Speaker 3: but she's away from home and children need, you know, mom,
15:49
Speaker 3: to be home. Mom's not available to be home, and
15:52
Speaker 3: so she has she has put her custody rights at
15:57
Speaker 3: risk from a legal standpoint, and I'm here to step
16:00
Speaker 3: into the to the to the to the pocket. I'm
16:03
Speaker 3: here to step into the role and play the primary
16:06
Speaker 3: custodian for my children. And that's a real risk, Carlos,
16:10
Speaker 3: and it is one of the reasons I'm telling you
16:12
Speaker 3: that women with high power careers that demand travel or
16:16
Speaker 3: time away. My daughter is being very well taken care
16:19
Speaker 3: of right now, rain Drops in Carlos. I assure you,
16:22
Speaker 3: I'm getting hourly updates from her nanny, who has been
16:26
Speaker 3: with her since she was four months old. She's in
16:28
Speaker 3: a lovely, you know, preschool that she's been so she's good.
16:32
Speaker 3: But if I had to argue this to a judge,
16:37
Speaker 3: it could go either way, and I wasn't willing to
16:39
Speaker 3: risk it going either way. So that's a personal decision.
16:42
Speaker 3: Every woman gets to make that decision for herself. But
16:45
Speaker 3: I hope that helps understand rain Drops why somebody would
16:49
Speaker 3: do what I did, And more and more women are
16:52
Speaker 3: electing to do it because we don't want to be
16:54
Speaker 3: in court having to potentially fight for custody of our
16:56
Speaker 3: own children simply because we chose or needed to go
17:00
Speaker 3: to work.
17:01
Speaker 2: Wow. Wow, well, listen, you are preaching to the choir
17:06
Speaker 2: of the women who are working mothers. Who's working women
17:09
Speaker 2: in the group chat? With that being said, I want
17:12
Speaker 2: to ask you this because this was brought up recently
17:15
Speaker 2: and I never thought about it until one of my
17:17
Speaker 2: brain drops brought it to my attention. Does that hurt
17:23
Speaker 2: a woman in this case? So, let's sen if Candy
17:27
Speaker 2: had Blaze via surrogacy, right, yes? Does that will that hurt?
17:39
Speaker 2: Let me remind could Todd and his attorney used that
17:43
Speaker 2: as a way to establish her busy schedule and the
17:47
Speaker 2: reason why it is in the best interest for the
17:51
Speaker 2: primary custody to be in the hands of the father
17:54
Speaker 2: because of something like that. Is that something that could
17:59
Speaker 2: be used? Has it ever? Did?
18:01
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't think so. I appreciate
18:03
Speaker 3: the curiosity. I see where it could come from from
18:06
Speaker 3: a curiosity standpoint, but I don't believe so. I didn't
18:09
Speaker 3: follow that storyline, Cluk, I was watching this shor at
18:11
Speaker 3: the time. But from what I know period of sarrogacy, Carlos,
18:16
Speaker 3: it is almost always used for medical necessity, Candy, like myself,
18:21
Speaker 3: is now very much so considered advanced maternal age. Candy
18:26
Speaker 3: at that point had already birth Riley. Also at that
18:29
Speaker 3: point Ace and Ace she was older as well, so
18:33
Speaker 3: I could see we're medically speaking, she would have a
18:36
Speaker 3: very sound argument to say that Blaze was brought to
18:41
Speaker 3: the world lovingly and beautifully sarrogacy because not of professional obligations,
18:48
Speaker 3: you know. And she couldn't carry the baby because it
18:50
Speaker 3: was inconvenient, but due to medical reasons, so that would
18:53
Speaker 3: not I don't see any argument, Carlos where that would
18:55
Speaker 3: legally work against her.
18:59
Speaker 2: This is reality. He with the King, and I'm Carlos King.
19:02
Speaker 2: Let's get back into the show. Okay, So rain Drop,
19:07
Speaker 2: I'll hope that answered your question. I want to make
19:09
Speaker 2: sure to ask that, so thank you rain Dad for
19:10
Speaker 2: asking that question. I want to move into the financing.
19:15
Speaker 3: Can I just add something real quick because it doesn't
19:17
Speaker 3: necessarily the Candy, but it could apply to other women
19:20
Speaker 3: in these situations. Let's say Candy had used an egg donor, right,
19:24
Speaker 3: So let's say Candy was so was the legal mother
19:27
Speaker 3: of one of her children, but not the biological mother.
19:30
Speaker 3: I want to be clear, rain Drops, that does not
19:32
Speaker 3: jeopardize her custody. The law does not afford a biological
19:38
Speaker 3: parent more legal rights than a legal parent. I think
19:42
Speaker 3: that's very important to clarify.
19:43
Speaker 2: Okay, and I'm clarified that. And and Ebony, I'm not
19:48
Speaker 2: sure if you heard of this story that happened to
19:51
Speaker 2: Sherry Shepherd.
19:54
Speaker 3: Oh, yes, Sherry has told me that story herself at
19:57
Speaker 3: her own mouth.
19:58
Speaker 2: Yes, are you at liberty if you wanted to, because
20:02
Speaker 2: because what you said made me think about that. Because
20:05
Speaker 2: rain Drops, listen, Sherry Shepherd used a dinner egg, which
20:09
Speaker 2: was her ex husband Lamar Sally's firm, to have herself
20:14
Speaker 2: through a surrogate mother. The egg donor was selected by
20:17
Speaker 2: the agency after you know, they signed an agreement with
20:21
Speaker 2: the agency to be the legal parents. However, rain Drops, it.
20:25
Speaker 4: Led to a legal battle during the divorce, with a
20:29
Speaker 4: court ultimately ruling that Sherry was the legal mother of
20:34
Speaker 4: the child and have to pay.
20:39
Speaker 3: Child support. Sure did, Sure did? Sure did? So that's important.
20:44
Speaker 3: So anybody hearing this this thinking you're mitigating your financial
20:48
Speaker 3: responsibility by putting some biological distance between you and the child,
20:52
Speaker 3: you are not. The court said, motion denied, go ahead, Carlos.
20:57
Speaker 2: All right, so I want to get into the financial
20:59
Speaker 2: so good.
21:00
Speaker 3: This is so many issues, so many issues.
21:03
Speaker 2: As my team all week, I said, I am attending
21:07
Speaker 2: the University of Kay Williams because you.
21:12
Speaker 5: Know, I'm obsessed with you and your brilliant and just
21:16
Speaker 5: everything that I'm learning from you courtesy of this and listen,
21:21
Speaker 5: I have so much of my play.
21:23
Speaker 2: But I do want to go to law school now.
21:26
Speaker 2: And also just so you know, a lot of frame drops,
21:30
Speaker 2: courtesy of just watching you for years and also watching
21:33
Speaker 2: this you are. You are influencing and inspiring a lot
21:37
Speaker 2: of people at the law school. So I want you
21:39
Speaker 2: to know that, and I so love that you.
21:41
Speaker 3: Just so y'all know, rain drops. Of the entire legal profession,
21:44
Speaker 3: only five percent count on one hand, one two, four
21:47
Speaker 3: or five percent are Black attorneys. There are less than
21:51
Speaker 3: for men and women black men and women. There are
21:53
Speaker 3: less than sixty seven thousand Black attorneys in the United
21:56
Speaker 3: States of America. We are underrepresented in this profession and
22:00
Speaker 3: it affects us in every way from child support to
22:03
Speaker 3: a criminal court to real estate property court. When you
22:08
Speaker 3: get people's deeds stolen from underneath them, we need us
22:11
Speaker 3: so Carlos all jokes aside, brother, I will literally write
22:14
Speaker 3: your personal recommendation letters to law school. And I am
22:16
Speaker 3: hand to God, very dead serious, very soon.
22:19
Speaker 2: Thank you for that. And you know me, I take listen,
22:22
Speaker 2: she knows it could be worked together. Everything I do
22:24
Speaker 2: I take seriously, and I'm always preparing myself. So when
22:27
Speaker 2: the time is right, I will let you know. Okay,
22:31
Speaker 2: so rain drops. As we all know, Candy and Todd
22:34
Speaker 2: got married April fourth, twenty fourteen. Todd, in the court document,
22:40
Speaker 2: has stated that although he admits that he did sign
22:43
Speaker 2: a prenuptial agreement, he is suggesting, though, that he was
22:48
Speaker 2: pressured into signing it without his lawyers around.
22:53
Speaker 6: Todd's lawyer said that he was presented without having council present.
22:58
Speaker 2: Even though Candy then counsel that communicated previously with Todd's
23:07
Speaker 2: counsel regarding a potential prenuptial agreement. What do don't want
23:12
Speaker 2: to Rang Josh to know, because I know they're dealing
23:14
Speaker 2: with business. What that means Range John's and I want
23:16
Speaker 2: ethnic to school us on this when they say that
23:21
Speaker 2: Candy's lawyers independently spoke to Todd without his lawyer's president.
23:29
Speaker 2: The reason why that could be deemed I'm not going
23:32
Speaker 2: to well, I'll just say the word is correct me
23:33
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong. The reason why that may be deemed
23:36
Speaker 2: unethical is because the moment, the moment two parties, So
23:41
Speaker 2: in this case, Candy and Todd, Candy a Todd having
23:43
Speaker 2: separate lawyers, the moment the lawyers are engaged talking to
23:47
Speaker 2: each other. As a lawyer, you're not allowed.
23:50
Speaker 6: To speak to the other council's client without them being president.
23:55
Speaker 2: Is that correct?
23:57
Speaker 3: That correct? Yes? Yeah, Okay, I mean that's that's that's
24:01
Speaker 3: like a one on one type of way you get
24:03
Speaker 3: sationed by the Bar association, is speaking to another attorney's
24:09
Speaker 3: client without representation present. And just the reason for that,
24:13
Speaker 3: rain Drops, is because there's a certain power dynamic at
24:17
Speaker 3: play and certain presumptions of understandings that we have with
24:21
Speaker 3: each other amongst each other as attorneys. Okay that lay
24:26
Speaker 3: people could be brilliant, could be fortune five hundred CEOs,
24:29
Speaker 3: could be multi muntime billion millionaire, celebrity whatever. It's not
24:33
Speaker 3: undermining to say they are incompetent. It's just to say,
24:37
Speaker 3: and they can actually catch this tea colors, they can
24:40
Speaker 3: actually be attorneys. It can actually be it can actually
24:42
Speaker 3: be an attorney. But if they are not the attorney
24:45
Speaker 3: representing the legal interests of that person, in that case,
24:49
Speaker 3: they are not permitted to speak to the council period.
24:54
Speaker 2: Yes, And what we saw on the Wedding special was
24:57
Speaker 2: Candy did call her lawyer. Tom was president. Todd tried
25:02
Speaker 2: to call his lawyer. He didn't answer, but we did
25:04
Speaker 2: see on camera that Candy's lawyer on speaker was talking
25:08
Speaker 2: with Todd. And what would happened on the wedding.
25:11
Speaker 3: Can we ask the flag that when Todd tried to
25:14
Speaker 3: then later in that same scene call his lawyer, Randy
25:18
Speaker 3: and tried to do the same thing, like, hey, Randy,
25:20
Speaker 3: Candy's right here with me. Can you talk to us
25:24
Speaker 3: and basically calm her down and let her know it's
25:26
Speaker 3: gonna be all right. Randy Kessler said, what I think
25:30
Speaker 3: not I will not be speaking to miss Burris without
25:33
Speaker 3: her council present. But what I can do for you,
25:36
Speaker 3: Todd is get on the phone and call Candy's attorney
25:39
Speaker 3: and we could talk lawyer to lawyers. So that's the
25:41
Speaker 3: easy way to think about it, rain drops. Lawyers should
25:43
Speaker 3: be talking lawyers to lawyers, and the party should be
25:47
Speaker 3: talking to each other, but we will not have a dynamic.
25:50
Speaker 3: A triangulation is the word where me and my lawyer
25:54
Speaker 3: are sitting on the phone with my future husband without
25:57
Speaker 3: his lawyer present. Because that in and of itself can
26:00
Speaker 3: be construed as a form of duress, a form of
26:05
Speaker 3: compounding pressure and obligation that does not afford equal representation.
26:12
Speaker 2: So, with all of that being said, Todd attorney in
26:17
Speaker 2: this document, okay, is the reason why he is questioning
26:22
Speaker 2: the prenuptial agreement because of the fact that he did
26:27
Speaker 2: find the document without an attorney. His attorney president. One
26:35
Speaker 2: thing that the attorney is saying, ebony is the fact
26:39
Speaker 2: that I'm gonna read a verbatim so one of his
26:43
Speaker 2: quote things right now, give me one second, okay. Tucker's
26:56
Speaker 2: counterclaim for divorce also demanded a division of all marital
27:03
Speaker 2: assets both real and personal, tangible and intangible between the parties.
27:13
Speaker 2: What does that mean?
27:16
Speaker 3: I'm so sorry, production was in my ear. Read that
27:19
Speaker 3: last line again, thank you, okay, just the last the
27:23
Speaker 3: last two lines.
27:24
Speaker 2: Okay. A division of all marital assets both real and personal,
27:29
Speaker 2: tangible and intangible between the parties.
27:34
Speaker 3: Well, that's just going to probably mean to cover all bases, right,
27:37
Speaker 3: because we know George is a community property state, and
27:40
Speaker 3: he's just saying, hey, listen, we want all we know
27:43
Speaker 3: what real property and assets are. That's the houses and
27:46
Speaker 3: the cars and things like that, clothing, jewelry, things like
27:49
Speaker 3: that that were purchased during the marital time which eleven years.
27:52
Speaker 3: But the intangible stuff that could be things like stop
27:54
Speaker 3: that appreciate it maybe right, or if either of them
27:57
Speaker 3: or both of them have any pension funds. So basically,
28:00
Speaker 3: you know accounts that things that are not liquid, assets
28:04
Speaker 3: that are not liquid, so whatever you know that could
28:06
Speaker 3: be any any account, money market accounts, things of that nature.
28:13
Speaker 2: One thing that I want to get into is the
28:14
Speaker 2: fact that people assume Evny like, hey, they signed a prenup,
28:20
Speaker 2: they got on the boards, everything should be good. It's
28:23
Speaker 2: a legal document. Tell me why that's not always the case.
28:27
Speaker 2: They weren't married for ten plus years. Somebody did say
28:32
Speaker 2: in the chat that is it true that in ten
28:35
Speaker 2: years in the state of Georgia that you may be
28:39
Speaker 2: able to renegotiate your prenup just based on all of
28:43
Speaker 2: the activities that may have occurred in the ten years.
28:47
Speaker 2: And one thing that I do want to say, Mayor
28:49
Speaker 2: J Blige ex husband can Do did sign a prenup. However,
28:55
Speaker 2: she still had to pay.
28:56
Speaker 3: Home as Justin Ross affection affectionately called him ken don't
29:04
Speaker 3: shout out to the lovely Dustin Ross. So a few things.
29:09
Speaker 3: This ten year mark, let's clear some things up. Ten
29:14
Speaker 3: years in some states is hugely significant, like the state
29:18
Speaker 3: I'm in right now, California. In California, we saw this
29:21
Speaker 3: with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in California. Legally speaking,
29:27
Speaker 3: it's for real, for real, for real once you get
29:29
Speaker 3: to ten years, meaning it now becomes very difficult to
29:33
Speaker 3: not cash the other party out once you hit the
29:35
Speaker 3: ten year mark. Now, let's go to Georgia where this
29:38
Speaker 3: is happening. They don't have that severe of a statute
29:41
Speaker 3: where everything kind of changes it ten years, but certainly
29:45
Speaker 3: a few things do happen at ten years. Now, no
29:47
Speaker 3: sitting judge is going to presume that this was just
29:50
Speaker 3: for play play. If somebody sayed ten years, even if
29:52
Speaker 3: they were a gold digger, they were committed, so we're
29:55
Speaker 3: gonna treat them more seriously. That's a real thing. Also
30:00
Speaker 3: point in the marriage, but certainly it's more likely after
30:02
Speaker 3: the ten year mark things could be renegotiated. We even
30:06
Speaker 3: heard Ashley Darby discuss this on Real Housewives of Potomac
30:09
Speaker 3: when she was still married to Michael Darby that once
30:13
Speaker 3: they got to ten years, it essentially is thrown out,
30:17
Speaker 3: you know, this notion of we need to be real
30:20
Speaker 3: careful of how we divvy things up once you get
30:22
Speaker 3: to ten years. Again, the presumption is that everybody was
30:26
Speaker 3: operating in good faith and that this is more treated
30:29
Speaker 3: as a community of sorts and that's how it's gonna
30:31
Speaker 3: be handled. So that's the significance of the ten year piece,
30:34
Speaker 3: just so everybody's clear on that. It doesn't seismically change
30:39
Speaker 3: what's going on here, but it says that nobody the
30:44
Speaker 3: judge is not gonna look at Todd or whoever the
30:46
Speaker 3: other person is and say you just married them just
30:50
Speaker 3: for money, because most people that just married for money
30:52
Speaker 3: are in and out in a year two or three,
30:55
Speaker 3: not eleven.
30:58
Speaker 2: And just so we know for the record, Candy is
31:00
Speaker 2: the one that actually filed for the divorce. Todd did it.
31:05
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to make sure that fact was
31:07
Speaker 2: also presented because people are saying that all of this
31:10
Speaker 2: happened because you know Todd wanted to, you know, get
31:13
Speaker 2: the money. It's pretty much well.
31:15
Speaker 3: Cash out, yeah, cash out. Well, we had to add
31:21
Speaker 3: this to Carlos because I think you're right. First of all,
31:22
Speaker 3: you're exactly right. I think people look at he signed
31:25
Speaker 3: the document. It's legally binding, case closed. While that's not
31:30
Speaker 3: the now, it is important that he signed the document.
31:32
Speaker 3: I do want to be clear, it's not a nothing sandwich, okay,
31:35
Speaker 3: because he signed the document. And there's also a part
31:38
Speaker 3: in the wedding special or maybe it's an episode of
31:40
Speaker 3: the next season where he says on camera, against my
31:44
Speaker 3: attorney's advice, against my attorney's advice, I signed the document
31:51
Speaker 3: because no piece of paper I'm paraphrasing now, but no
31:54
Speaker 3: piece of paper is going to get in the way
31:56
Speaker 3: of me and Candy being together. That's not gonna be
31:58
Speaker 3: a good fact for Todd Tucker. However, it's not. But
32:04
Speaker 3: it's not going to be a good fact for him, Carlos.
32:06
Speaker 3: But it's not controlling enough to undermine his entire claim.
32:10
Speaker 3: And part of the reason why is what I'm about
32:12
Speaker 3: to tell you and point out now, both of their
32:15
Speaker 3: lawyers are going to make arguments around whether or not
32:18
Speaker 3: his signing of the prenup was what we call truly voluntary?
32:22
Speaker 3: Was it truly voluntary? And when he says what I
32:24
Speaker 3: just said, he said, against my attorney's advice, I signed
32:27
Speaker 3: it anyway. That goes to it being voluntary.
32:30
Speaker 2: Right.
32:31
Speaker 3: But you know what doesn't bode well for Candy's side
32:33
Speaker 3: of this argument and it being truly voluntary the time frame,
32:38
Speaker 3: the fact that these two were twenty four hours before
32:43
Speaker 3: their wedding, still going back and forth around the document
32:49
Speaker 3: itself clauses what this means interpretation Already, that's a flag
32:54
Speaker 3: to any judge Carlos, because ideally, for a prenup to
32:58
Speaker 3: be deemed kind of best practices, this should have been
33:02
Speaker 3: done months ago, months ago, this should have been in
33:06
Speaker 3: the can. This is what this really is supposed to
33:08
Speaker 3: look like in best practices is we set a wedding date,
33:14
Speaker 3: and we each give our lawyers the document. Your lawyer
33:18
Speaker 3: drafts it, they send it to my lawyer. We spend
33:20
Speaker 3: at least, on average, with this kind of money involved,
33:24
Speaker 3: a month to three months negotiating back and forth. What's fair?
33:28
Speaker 3: Would I like what you like? Cut this out? Or
33:30
Speaker 3: draft this? Da da da da da da. Then we
33:32
Speaker 3: agree on the document I sign, you sign, it's notarized,
33:37
Speaker 3: it's in the can at least a month, if not
33:41
Speaker 3: three or four months ahead of the wedding date. When
33:44
Speaker 3: you are just the nature of the pressure cooker of
33:49
Speaker 3: vows start in twenty four hours now, that could easily
33:53
Speaker 3: be construed as duress in its own form? Is that
33:57
Speaker 3: making sense? Just the nature of the timeline can can
34:00
Speaker 3: can be construed as an aspect of duress? Why? And
34:04
Speaker 3: I don't know that that that this is on candy,
34:06
Speaker 3: So I'm not saying that rain drops. But what I'm
34:09
Speaker 3: saying is that's going to be investigated by the judge,
34:12
Speaker 3: Miss Burris and your counsel. When did you deliver the
34:15
Speaker 3: initial draft to mister Tatar and how long did his
34:18
Speaker 3: counsel have to review it? And when did they get
34:20
Speaker 3: the revisions? And how long did you to see did
34:24
Speaker 3: you allow adequate reasonable time of review, consideration, and negotiation
34:28
Speaker 3: and execution of the document, because if the court deems
34:31
Speaker 3: you did not, and that you kind of tried to
34:33
Speaker 3: run the clock out so that you were you felt
34:36
Speaker 3: like your decision is marry the love of my life
34:39
Speaker 3: or signed the document ill advised that that wouldn't vote
34:43
Speaker 3: well for Miss Boris.
34:47
Speaker 2: I have to ask the question because it's in the
34:49
Speaker 2: comments and I want to get your expert opinion. A
34:53
Speaker 2: lot of people are saying that with Todd because Okay,
34:58
Speaker 2: Candy tops a claim Todd's response and said that they
35:03
Speaker 2: will use the Bravo footage of the wedding series to
35:06
Speaker 2: show that he did sign it. Now, with that being said,
35:10
Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is Todd did sign it
35:13
Speaker 2: the morning of his wedding. He did not have a
35:17
Speaker 2: lawyer present. Yes, the Bravo cameras were there, But the
35:21
Speaker 2: question does remain do you think that Todd was smart
35:28
Speaker 2: enough to know that at the end of the day, Godfribis,
35:31
Speaker 2: something may go awry. I do have this to protect myself.
35:37
Speaker 7: The footage to protect himself, The footage of the fact
35:40
Speaker 7: that he is signing the morning and everything and everything
35:45
Speaker 7: that led to it, him having issues with Mama Joyce,
35:49
Speaker 7: his his his mother makes you rest in peace, and
35:52
Speaker 7: Mama Joys almost getting the physical altercation the day.
35:55
Speaker 2: Before the wedding. He's being you know him and came
35:59
Speaker 2: again to an ur I'm gonna tell.
36:01
Speaker 3: You something else. I'm gonna tell you something else that
36:03
Speaker 3: would work in his favor. Again, not controlling, but just
36:06
Speaker 3: something in his bucket. There was a couple of times
36:10
Speaker 3: that morning or the day before rather where Candy was
36:13
Speaker 3: saying things like, what do you need to talk to
36:15
Speaker 3: your lawyer for? Talk to him for what? This is open?
36:18
Speaker 3: You know, this is this is simple. You're making something
36:21
Speaker 3: out of nothing. That kind of language not ideal for
36:25
Speaker 3: showing voluntariness, because what ideally would have been said is like,
36:30
Speaker 3: of course, baby, call your counsel, call him a million times,
36:33
Speaker 3: go over in a thousand times. I want you to
36:36
Speaker 3: be completely comfortable with all the terms and conditions in
36:40
Speaker 3: the document before we walk down this aisle. That's what
36:43
Speaker 3: a judge is ideally looking for, not anything that looks
36:47
Speaker 3: to try to circumvent the conversation with counsel because it's
36:50
Speaker 3: very important.
36:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, okay, a few more minutes. Get back to worry.
36:55
Speaker 2: I want to I want to get into this so
36:57
Speaker 2: that so rand on us all the legalities that we know.
37:00
Speaker 8: As of today, December fourth, at the December fourth, sixty
37:05
Speaker 8: seven pm Eastern Tod's attorney, Brandy Kesseler has not counter
37:10
Speaker 8: claimed to Candy's response.
37:13
Speaker 9: Now yesterday, Ebanie the very credible People magazine revealed that
37:21
Speaker 9: a source said that Candy Birds discovered that Todd Tucker
37:27
Speaker 9: was talking to other women behind her back.
37:31
Speaker 2: That same day. Yesterday, Candy revealed on her Instagram a
37:36
Speaker 2: post where she said how she has been dealing with
37:39
Speaker 2: this for months and that sometime we have to check
37:43
Speaker 2: on your strong friend. She had a photo slide of
37:47
Speaker 2: her smiling and said that she was hurting and it
37:50
Speaker 2: was in pain emotionally behind these photos. Today Today today
37:56
Speaker 2: Tod posted a photo of him in a scenery background,
38:01
Speaker 2: saying how he's with somebody, a friend of his, and
38:04
Speaker 2: he's this journey has been difficult for How are the
38:10
Speaker 2: interesting time? It's the timing. Do you think these two
38:13
Speaker 2: people are using the media to influence the public perception?
38:21
Speaker 2: Did Todd cheeto Candy? I'm emotionally distressed too, not just her.
38:28
Speaker 2: Is that a factor in this that that that could
38:30
Speaker 2: help the case legally?
38:33
Speaker 3: I think they're doing what people in their position kind
38:36
Speaker 3: of have to do right now, Carlos, which is do
38:38
Speaker 3: two things at once. They're letting their lawyers, their actual lawyers, UH,
38:45
Speaker 3: navigate this very real issue of divorce and custody and
38:49
Speaker 3: all these things in the court of law, and because
38:52
Speaker 3: of just how hugely public Candy and now Todd are,
38:57
Speaker 3: they are working the court of public opinion at the
38:59
Speaker 3: same time. Because if they were to do the thing
39:01
Speaker 3: that we used to be told and advised to do
39:04
Speaker 3: in this business, which is let it play out in
39:06
Speaker 3: court and the public opinion piece will take care of itself,
39:10
Speaker 3: we're seeing now that that no longer is effective. Those
39:15
Speaker 3: are no longer the times we're living in, Carlos King.
39:17
Speaker 3: So they are doing what public figures of their magnitude
39:20
Speaker 3: must do. Actually, I would say, which is get in
39:24
Speaker 3: front of some of this public narrative immediately and as
39:27
Speaker 3: soon as possible. So Candy probably or her team probably
39:32
Speaker 3: I think correctly assumed that if there starts to be
39:35
Speaker 3: an argument around infidelity or bad actions on the part
39:39
Speaker 3: of Todd Tucker, his legal team would then go to
39:41
Speaker 3: her Instagram and pull all of these beautiful, gorgeous photos
39:45
Speaker 3: of Candy Burris in July, of Candy Burris in March,
39:50
Speaker 3: of Candy Burros in September, and say, for a woman
39:53
Speaker 3: who was going through all that you just told this
39:55
Speaker 3: court you're going through, I certainly can't tell this to me.
40:00
Speaker 3: I'm just telling you how it go down in the
40:02
Speaker 3: war room. Baby. I'm telling you how to go down
40:04
Speaker 3: the war room. I'm telling you how to go down
40:06
Speaker 3: in the depositions because I've sat in them. I have
40:10
Speaker 3: done the questioning. Well, ma'am, you just told me that
40:13
Speaker 3: your husband was cheating on you with your best friend,
40:15
Speaker 3: and this and that and you going through it and
40:16
Speaker 3: you got postpartum? Was this you having postpartum in Malibu?
40:21
Speaker 3: Was this you have? This is how it go down, baby.
40:24
Speaker 3: So this is Candy and her team saying, oh no,
40:26
Speaker 3: we're not gonna allow for that. We're gonna we're gonna
40:28
Speaker 3: we're going to get in front of that narrative and
40:31
Speaker 3: we're gonna say, despite what it looks like, despite all
40:35
Speaker 3: the you know, what's an eighteen hundred hark, I mean,
40:38
Speaker 3: her stylist. But but but but you know, behind the
40:43
Speaker 3: oh my god, god, dang here everything okay, back to
40:51
Speaker 3: the business. Said hey, I'm sorry, I was literally gaged
40:54
Speaker 3: despite all of that stunning, gorgeousness that you see on
40:58
Speaker 3: your screens. My heart breaking. I was absolutely devastated. I'm
41:04
Speaker 3: literally going through and then now, twenty four hours later,
41:08
Speaker 3: we're not gonna let that go un answered, if we're
41:09
Speaker 3: Todd Tucker and his team right, because certainly we're not
41:12
Speaker 3: gonna let the opposing council or you know, opposing party
41:16
Speaker 3: at this point which they are adversaries, Ladies and gentlemen.
41:18
Speaker 3: Don't be confused, not saying they hate each other, not
41:21
Speaker 3: even saying they don't still love each other. But when
41:23
Speaker 3: it comes to what this is, in this point in time,
41:26
Speaker 3: they are adversarial to one another, you better fucking believe it. Okay,
41:30
Speaker 3: So he's not gonna allow his now adversary to take
41:32
Speaker 3: that argument and run with it unanswered. So now we
41:36
Speaker 3: too have to make our case that despite what it
41:39
Speaker 3: looked like and the holding hands and the red carpets,
41:42
Speaker 3: I too was struggling, I too was going through. So
41:46
Speaker 3: we'll see something else I want to put out a
41:50
Speaker 3: far go, Carlos. What we don't know is whether or
41:54
Speaker 3: not this this prenuptial agreement had something called a bad
41:57
Speaker 3: boy clause. Okay, This said is that a part of
42:02
Speaker 3: the divvying of the assets and lat is predicated on behavior. Now,
42:08
Speaker 3: these aren't very common because they're very hard to enforce
42:11
Speaker 3: and very hard to prove, but it is.
42:16
Speaker 8: It is.
42:16
Speaker 3: It is something that we see. Sometimes it's rumored that
42:19
Speaker 3: Jessica Bill and Justin Timberlake have such a clause that says,
42:24
Speaker 3: in addition to the basic consideration who has what, who
42:27
Speaker 3: made what, who brought what to the table, and when
42:29
Speaker 3: they bought it, and da da dah, we're also gonna
42:31
Speaker 3: consider before we make the division of assets and liabilities,
42:36
Speaker 3: take into account whether one or either party committed infidelity,
42:41
Speaker 3: was a bad actor. If indeed, fidelity is even you know,
42:46
Speaker 3: a consideration in the marriage. So we don't know, and
42:50
Speaker 3: I have no reason to know because I wouldn't know,
42:52
Speaker 3: right we haven't seen the documents yet. But I just
42:55
Speaker 3: want rain drops to put that on the radar that
42:58
Speaker 3: if indeed there was a bad boy cl laws that says,
43:01
Speaker 3: all of this looks different if mister Tucker is proven
43:04
Speaker 3: to be out of fidelity, or maybe if Miss Burgess
43:07
Speaker 3: is proven to be. And sometimes they go one way,
43:10
Speaker 3: so don't assume that what's good for the goose is
43:12
Speaker 3: good for the other. I've seen bad boy clauses that
43:15
Speaker 3: only apply to the husbands. I've seen bad woman clauses
43:19
Speaker 3: that only apply to the wife because it's understood that
43:22
Speaker 3: the husband, because he's bringing the whole bag. Can do
43:24
Speaker 3: whatever he want to do. But you bitch, you better
43:27
Speaker 3: not think about it. I've seen it, so I'm just
43:30
Speaker 3: telling you.
43:30
Speaker 2: What it is.
43:31
Speaker 3: Okay, Okay, So go ahead, go.
43:33
Speaker 2: Ahead, question questions. With that being said, With that being said,
43:38
Speaker 2: With that being said, Candy and Todd have been very
43:41
Speaker 2: public and open about inviting women in their bedroom. It's
43:45
Speaker 2: been something that they've been very open about. They this
43:48
Speaker 2: is not a secret. They have three songs. They've been
43:51
Speaker 2: very open about it. They had that understanding. If there
43:57
Speaker 2: is a bad boy cloth or bad woman claw in
44:00
Speaker 2: the in the in the prenuptial agreement, is it plausible
44:04
Speaker 2: to say if Todd decided to be with a woman
44:08
Speaker 2: independently of Candy, although Candy has allowed women to enter
44:13
Speaker 2: their bedroom together, is that considered cheating because he does
44:21
Speaker 2: have a free pass to sleep with other women based
44:26
Speaker 2: on from my understanding watching the show, if she was around,
44:30
Speaker 2: but is that considered cheating? And and and we have
44:33
Speaker 2: seen videos of them on Instagram. They been on boats
44:38
Speaker 2: with with with a third you know, with with another
44:41
Speaker 2: woman and seems to be having a good, golly time.
44:46
Speaker 3: So this is the height of judges discretion. Carlos and
44:49
Speaker 3: this is where you know. One thing we say in
44:51
Speaker 3: the law, and I've heard this since my first day
44:54
Speaker 3: of law school, is the law always lagged behind society, right,
44:59
Speaker 3: So what we know are these notions of whether it's
45:01
Speaker 3: threesomes or more broader polyamory. They've always existed. No one's
45:05
Speaker 3: naive to it, but the visibility and maybe the frequency
45:10
Speaker 3: is peaking. It's climaxing right part in the pun Okay,
45:15
Speaker 3: So because of that, I could see this is gonna
45:19
Speaker 3: be what judge do you get on what day? And
45:21
Speaker 3: what are their personal kind of values around this sort
45:24
Speaker 3: of thing. You can end up in front of a
45:25
Speaker 3: judge that's very kind of old school and traditional. It
45:28
Speaker 3: feels like my grandma, don't start nothing you can't finish, okay,
45:32
Speaker 3: May she rest in peace. So, hey, young lady, you allowed,
45:36
Speaker 3: you know, you broke the seal so to speak, you know,
45:39
Speaker 3: and once you break the seal and allow one woman
45:41
Speaker 3: into your bed, you are tacitly inviting unlimited women at
45:47
Speaker 3: unlimited times. And it will only be a fool that
45:50
Speaker 3: thinks she can control the nature of it once we've
45:53
Speaker 3: allowed permissible third party participation. That's one perspective you could
45:58
Speaker 3: get a more of all. We'll say judge man or
46:02
Speaker 3: woman of any age by the way, that says, hey, no,
46:06
Speaker 3: it don't go like that. The couple must be in
46:10
Speaker 3: complete agreement at all times on what the rules and
46:13
Speaker 3: participation look like. So if it's if she's known, if
46:16
Speaker 3: Ms Buris knows and she's you know, volunteering, and she's willing,
46:21
Speaker 3: then it's permissible. But any activity outside of her knowledge,
46:25
Speaker 3: outside of her permissiveness this court is gonna deem to
46:29
Speaker 3: be out of fidelity of the agreed upon relationship. So
46:33
Speaker 3: that's that's gonna ultimately be the height of a judge's
46:35
Speaker 3: discretion point.
46:37
Speaker 2: Okay, and my last question for you is this. You
46:40
Speaker 2: were very honest about, you know, not dating a bus driver,
46:45
Speaker 2: right and then girl.
46:53
Speaker 3: And it absolutely not.
46:56
Speaker 2: Yes, it lifted, it was split. A lot of people
46:59
Speaker 2: are decide, a lot of people are not on your side. Yes,
47:02
Speaker 2: that's how the conversation. The last question for edby k
47:05
Speaker 2: Williams at least up tonight because she will be back.
47:08
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
47:10
Speaker 2: You are a woman of means, you are a highly
47:12
Speaker 2: educated woman, and you are a celebrity. You, like I said,
47:18
Speaker 2: have been litten about not dating the bus driver based
47:21
Speaker 2: on the fact that they're you know, the the financial
47:25
Speaker 2: difference between Candy and Todd entering the relationship, and now
47:29
Speaker 2: he's asking for you know, possible child support. Alumny, are
47:35
Speaker 2: these the reasons why you felt so strongly about not
47:40
Speaker 2: dating a bus driver to prevent yourself from being in
47:43
Speaker 2: the situation?
47:44
Speaker 3: But of course that's an easy answer, no shame. In
47:47
Speaker 3: my game, rain Drops, this is very much a part,
47:50
Speaker 3: not exclusively, but a very real part of why I
47:54
Speaker 3: personally this is a me decision, each woman, each man,
47:58
Speaker 3: each person gets to make this decision for themselve. But
48:00
Speaker 3: for me, this would not be a risk I would
48:03
Speaker 3: be willing to take. And that's based on a few things, right, Raindrops,
48:06
Speaker 3: It's based off my personal value system. I'm very old school.
48:10
Speaker 3: I'm very much of the traditional mindset that I think
48:14
Speaker 3: men in this nation we live in a patriarchy, and
48:17
Speaker 3: I believe that men, despite challenges that they also go through,
48:21
Speaker 3: I think they are put in best position to climb
48:25
Speaker 3: the capitalism ladder of this nation based off of male
48:29
Speaker 3: patriarchal systems. So what do I look like tethering myself
48:35
Speaker 3: legally for sure to a man that I'm out earning
48:39
Speaker 3: when the whole system is designed for you to out
48:40
Speaker 3: earn me. So I got a problem with that, and
48:43
Speaker 3: I have no problem saying that, put it on a
48:45
Speaker 3: T shirt. That's fine, fine, totally fine with it. But
48:48
Speaker 3: in addition to that, because I have practiced family law,
48:52
Speaker 3: I know what it's like to see sherry share. And
48:54
Speaker 3: I also have relationships with women who have paid child
48:57
Speaker 3: support for their own children. I have relationships with women
49:00
Speaker 3: who have paid spousal support to men for years, to
49:05
Speaker 3: multiple men. Some of these women and they're not all famous.
49:08
Speaker 3: Some of them are accountants, some of them are CEOs,
49:12
Speaker 3: some of them are you know, working healthcare positions, you know,
49:16
Speaker 3: And that's again, not a risk I am personally willing
49:19
Speaker 3: to take. So I want to be clear before anybody
49:21
Speaker 3: thinks anything funny style, I am not calling Todd Tucker
49:24
Speaker 3: a bus driver at all. I believe that Todd was
49:27
Speaker 3: a working individual, that he bought many things to the table,
49:30
Speaker 3: and Candy made sure we knew that. But the discrepancy
49:34
Speaker 3: is undisputed. The financial discrepancy between herself and Todd remained severe.
49:40
Speaker 3: And when there is a severe discrepancy from the man,
49:43
Speaker 3: the woman whoever it is this risk of money grab
49:48
Speaker 3: accusations is going to always be at play.
49:52
Speaker 2: Ebony, I know you got to run. Thank you so much,
49:54
Speaker 2: my love for breaking this down for you are listen,
49:58
Speaker 2: she knows this already.
49:59
Speaker 6: You will have been heavy requested your arms were president, and.
50:04
Speaker 2: I know you're busy on the West coast, but I
50:06
Speaker 2: want to say thank you so much for taking time out.
50:08
Speaker 3: I love you, and I.
50:10
Speaker 2: Get my best a Liberty and I will see you
50:12
Speaker 2: some of my.
50:12
Speaker 3: Live I will love you. Rain Drops y'alls by Sweetie
50:15
Speaker 3: Bye Carlos.
50:16
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so rain drops, you have it here.
50:24
Speaker 6: Ebony broke it down. Ebony broke it down. Ebney broke
50:28
Speaker 6: it down. Ebony broke it down.
50:30
Speaker 2: I want to read the super chat really fast before
50:33
Speaker 2: I have to run myself job to get my food.
50:39
Speaker 2: I gotta eat tu seven o'clock job.
50:42
Speaker 6: Sweet talks the Mama Joyce's behavior along with the pressure
50:45
Speaker 6: of being filmed at to the duress.
50:48
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I think what we're seeing now is
50:53
Speaker 2: I thought Candy's filing for divorce was very straight and narrow.
51:00
Speaker 2: It wasn't anything that I thought was relacious. Then Todd responded,
51:04
Speaker 2: and Todd, I think what Todd asked for.
51:10
Speaker 6: If they're unable to agree to joint to the custody
51:13
Speaker 6: of the kids, then.
51:14
Speaker 2: You know people want X, Y and Z. I think
51:16
Speaker 2: that's when people started parkling, like what's going on? And
51:19
Speaker 2: then when he challenged the prenup, challenging, challenging, excuse me
51:22
Speaker 2: the prenup, I think the audience was like, oh, this
51:25
Speaker 2: is about to get a little messy. So to answer
51:29
Speaker 2: your question, sweet Tea talks, I don't know. I think
51:32
Speaker 2: I think more is going to come out. And one
51:35
Speaker 2: thing I will say about being in the media is
51:38
Speaker 2: this okay, And and hear me, Lillington brain drops when
51:43
Speaker 2: you see things like bread crumbs being dropped, something big
51:50
Speaker 2: is about to happen when you see like little bread crumbs.
51:54
Speaker 2: And People Magazine is very different than I don't want
51:59
Speaker 2: to I want to mention outlet because I'm not trying
52:01
Speaker 2: to like say one is high to the other. But
52:04
Speaker 2: what I will say is People Magazine in order for
52:08
Speaker 2: them to publish a story, and I know this for
52:11
Speaker 2: a fact, I am a journalist. Hey, porscha, People Magazine
52:16
Speaker 2: is the most credible entertainment magazine in the world. In
52:21
Speaker 2: order for them to publish anything from a source, they
52:25
Speaker 2: need more than two sources. And that's just the fact,
52:31
Speaker 2: me sweating job, that's a fact. You need more than
52:34
Speaker 2: two sources for People Magazine to publish anything. They're not
52:38
Speaker 2: gonna take a phone call from Edna because she heard
52:45
Speaker 2: on the streets. M okay at First Avenue or you
52:51
Speaker 2: know she read on the YouTube streets. Child, what, No,
52:56
Speaker 2: they're not going to which I think a lot of
52:59
Speaker 2: people should not do. But I digress.
53:02
Speaker 6: Stop reporting on things that isn't substantial anyway. They're not
53:07
Speaker 6: going to report on anything unless they get multiple sources.
53:11
Speaker 6: So what happened yesterday?
53:13
Speaker 2: I was like, People Magazine, my people, So that happened?
53:22
Speaker 2: And then I know you got look, wait a minute, Carlos.
53:30
Speaker 2: Miss Edna's reliable too, Yes, child, But I'm just saying
53:34
Speaker 2: not when it comes to sources that People Magazine is
53:36
Speaker 2: gonna take without talking to miss Edna in addition to
53:39
Speaker 2: two more people. Child, That's all I'm saying. Okay, So
53:43
Speaker 2: when I saw that, I was like, oh, these are breadcrumbs,
53:46
Speaker 2: cause that's how the video works. It is with this child. Okay,
53:52
Speaker 2: Oh I missed this. This This is a question for
53:55
Speaker 2: Ebony when Leina and c Hey, Carlos and Ebony. If
53:59
Speaker 2: toad Chie could he still get alamoney love y'all, I'll
54:03
Speaker 2: bring you know what I want to do. Actually, I won't.
54:09
Speaker 6: Me and Ebony to come back and then maybe bring
54:16
Speaker 6: on a Georgia divorce lawyer to talk.
54:20
Speaker 2: To ebd and I because I like that. Because the
54:25
Speaker 2: thing is this, Everything is contingent on the state. When
54:27
Speaker 2: you get married. State laws are different. As you all though.
54:34
Speaker 2: That's that, all right. Last question from page four one
54:38
Speaker 2: two eight Carlos as a producer for Candy's wedding special,
54:41
Speaker 2: how did you feel about Candy gimming Todd the pre
54:44
Speaker 2: nup forty eight hours forty eight hours before the wedding.
54:48
Speaker 2: I saw that the comment. First of all, I have
54:51
Speaker 2: no feelings in terms of I follow me as a producer,
54:56
Speaker 2: I follow the reality. I don't I don't invoke my
54:59
Speaker 2: personal opinion based on the reality of the people were filming.
55:02
Speaker 2: So I wastly busy following it in real time. I
55:06
Speaker 2: did see the comments built A lot of you guys
55:08
Speaker 2: are saying that she gave him the prenup forty eight
55:11
Speaker 2: hours before they got married. I don't. I don't know
55:15
Speaker 2: if that is true, I have to I have to
55:20
Speaker 2: go back and watch the season. Based on my memory,
55:25
Speaker 2: I think he had it. I don't listen, I would,
55:29
Speaker 2: I don't think. Listen. I don't think Todd had a
55:35
Speaker 2: first draft of the prenup forty eight hours before they
55:38
Speaker 2: were married. I don't think that's the case. I think
55:41
Speaker 2: what may have been the case is maybe the final
55:46
Speaker 2: draft on Candy's part was sent to him forty eight hours.
55:49
Speaker 2: But I don't think he received a first draft forty
55:53
Speaker 2: eight hours. So you know, but who, okay who? We
56:02
Speaker 2: watched the wedding special here, Okay, the diva just me said.
56:07
Speaker 2: I heard he got it three weeks before.
56:12
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm what I'm gonna do is look at the
56:21
Speaker 6: the wedding special again, because I don't remember.
56:24
Speaker 2: I don't remember, but I do not. I'm ninety nine
56:29
Speaker 2: percent sure he did not receive a first draft forty
56:33
Speaker 2: eight hours. I don't think so at all. I don't
56:36
Speaker 2: think that. But he did receive the final document the
56:41
Speaker 2: morning of the wedding.
56:42
Speaker 6: Because we were there filming it. So all right, ray listen,
56:45
Speaker 6: I'll hope you guys enjoyed this episode. We will be
56:47
Speaker 6: back more and when more information occurs, and thank you
56:52
Speaker 6: guys so much, and I'm dropping.
56:54
Speaker 2: I'm driving another episode tomorrow. Okay, so make sure you
57:00
Speaker 2: guys go on Patreon, Patreon, doctor Hevle and I. Every
57:03
Speaker 2: week we are recapping Maritime Medicine. Sign on to Patreon
57:08
Speaker 2: to watch Heaveley and I recap Mariton Medicine, and sign
57:12
Speaker 2: out to Patreon to see Marlo Hampton and we do
57:16
Speaker 2: our fashion recaps. Okay, all right, that's patreon dot com
57:21
Speaker 2: slash b Carlos King. All right, love you guys so much.
57:25
Speaker 2: I'll see y'all late time.
57:32
Speaker 1: Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
57:37
Speaker 1: produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.
57:40
Speaker 2: With the Lack Effect Network.
57:42
Speaker 1: You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
57:45
Speaker 1: be Carlos King Underscore