September 10, 2024 • 28 mins
Rachel's jaw nearly hit the floor when she heard her lawyer's brother was representing Tom Sandoval in a lawsuit involving her, and she's finally ready to address it. From Bethenny Frankel to Renee from "Love is Blind," celebrity defense lawyer Mark Geragos has been busy lately representing some of reality's biggest stars.
Rachel's publicist Juliette also joins her to address the tough decision for Rachel to stand up for herself and file lawsuits against her former co-stars.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
This is Rachel Go's Rogue. Welcome back to another episode
of Rachel Goes Rogue with your host Rachel Savannah leviis
with lots of legal cases in the headlines. I wanted
to break down what is going on and get some
perspective on it all. And today I am being joined
(00:29):
by defense attorney Mark Garretgos who is on My case,
and my producer Juliet to decipher what is going on
legally in the bravosphere. Mark, I'm so happy that you're
here joining us because a lot of people are very
interested in the lawsuits that are going on right now
(00:49):
between cast members and networks, and I just wanted to
ask you, can we get a general idea of what's
going on and do you have any updates with my case?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Well, first of all, I'm going to say, since I
represent you, this is not attorney client privilege. How's that?
So there's no waiver? Don't let anybody come back. But
I'm perfectly willing to talk in general. One of the
things that I thought was interesting people had been following
(01:22):
was what was called the anti slap motions. Now, for
those of you who are not in the weeds in
civil cases in California, and anti slaps are all through
the country. A lot of times anti slaps were originally
developed for people who were trying to express themselves and
(01:44):
then they were getting bullied baby basically, and so legislators
came up with this idea that if you're exercising your
free speech, you that you can't sue somebody into oblivion
for that. It's been used and in my humble opinion,
in your case, it was grossly misused. And why do
(02:05):
I say that, because there were lawsuits that we filed.
As you know, you don't have to comment on that,
that's a public record. Then there was an anti slap
that was filed and interestingly, not only did the judge
(02:25):
did his honor rule that the anti slap, he overruled
it basically, which means basically set it aside. Not only
did that, but found as a matter of law that
a crime had been committed against you, and that was significant,
and it was significant for a number of reasons. We
(02:47):
then had a situation, interestingly, because it got a lot
of press, mister Sandoval hired my brother.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, wait, can we talk about that first time?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
We should talk about that. But by the way, my
brother Matt is some people. Have you ever heard the
expression in Irish twin man that means the born a
year apart, where both October babies. He's my little brother
or one of my two little brothers. And Santoval hired Matthew,
and I can't blame it. Matthew is a hell of
(03:22):
a lawyer. And I think he thought matt was going
to whisper in my ear at Thanksgiving or some who
knows what he thought.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah, I mean, so Santoval went out specifically and asked
your brother Matt to represent him.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
I will tell you I have no inside information as
to what transpired or how that transpired. I will tell
you that for the people. And I can't tell you
the number of reporters who said, isn't that a conflict
of interest? I said, well, if Matt worked with me, yes,
it would be a conflict of interest. If we were
partners in a law firm, yes, it would be conflict
(04:01):
of interest. Neither of our parents are alive. Obviously we
share the same parents, so it's not like we're at
Christmas dinner deciding Okay, I'll do this on Rachel, you
do this on Tom. It's not a conflict of interest.
It's in an interesting choice. And then Tom I apparently
(04:23):
issued a statement where he was letting go of Matt
after he lost the matter the anti slap.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So well, yeah, because Arianna was the one that came
back to our lawsuit with the anti slap, and then
Tom saw that and kind of followed suit saying that
it was not his fault, it was Arianna's fault, and
just like kind of placing the blame elsewhere, kind of
(04:52):
just save his own.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Correct look at you correcting me. You're absolutely right. The
anti slap was on behalf of Ariana. And then Tom
had previously we had previously filed emotion and which had
been overruled also, which I know, to each their own.
Everybody's got the right to litigate. They're litigating. The fact
(05:18):
is is for whatever you say about what happened in
the Genesis and anything else, you are and I know
this is going to be shocking to those or polarizing,
but you're a victim in this. I'll leave it at that.
I don't want you to comment. How's that?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
So I have a little bit of a general question
because it seems like and there's so many headlines right
now that are relevant to lawsuits, whether it's reality star
against reality star or reality star against network or production.
Reality TV has been shocking and crazy and a roller
coaster since it first came on the scene. Why do
you think now there are all of these lawsuits and
how do you think it's going to actually change the industry.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I don't know if she would be upset with me
for giving her credit, but I'm going to give her
credit anyway. I think Bethany Rankl pointed out precisely the
two tiered double standard kind of us and them, between
scripted and reality and it's an artifice, it's artificial, and
(06:24):
I think that the strike brought that into stark relief,
and that's my humble opinion, And it was you had
all of these reality stars who were not weren't lumped in,
if you will, during this strike as part of the group.
And I think that's where a lot of this came from.
(06:48):
Because you know, it's interesting when they use the term
scripted as opposed to unscripted, because I think both of
you may agree with me, there is a scripted aspect
back to this in the sense that they lay it
out and there is they amplify and they take advantage
(07:09):
they be production companies with the blessing of the networks.
But I think there had been this ability for them
to do this for years until the legislature came in
and the legislature changed the law that you couldn't hide
certain kinds of activity by virtue of an NDA or
(07:31):
an arbitration agreement. And that's another battlefield that we're fighting
right now with Renee, And we're actually up in the
California Supreme Court right now trying to get them to
take a look at this issue, because so far we've
been unsuccessful in getting a court to focus on the
(07:56):
merits of it. And when I say the merits is
can a production company, can a network? Can they basically
take somebody in this kind of power imbalanced situation where
you know, people want to be on reality shows. It's
a I mean, it's not a world that I was
(08:17):
really experienced in. And Rachel, you don't have to applaud
that because she knows that. I ask a lot of
questions because I'm not in the weeds on who is
who and what show and things like that. But boy,
I'll tell you, since I started doing this, it's wild
the number of people in my world who know all
about this and know the ins and outs and the changes.
(08:40):
But that desire and that interest has allowed the production
companies and the networks to take advantage of the people
and people like you and people like Renee and others.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So just to clarify for the listening and don't know
who Renee Pouchet is. Renee is a cast member from
Love Is Blind and her parts were pretty much edited
out of the final cut, and she spoke out about
her experience and it wasn't a healthy working environment to
(09:19):
say the least.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
That's one of the great understatements.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Right, yeah, I mean, if you want to elaborate some more, once.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Again, I'll say it brought home the point she had
under this NDA four supposed violations. Mind you, she hadn't
even been put on air, but because she had signed
this NDA, because it had this arbitration cocome you can
believe it, the production company and the studio then brought
(09:47):
an arbitration action against her for four violations of talking
using your speech. Do you know how much they're seeking?
Speaker 1 (09:56):
How much?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Four million dollars?
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Four million is insane?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But couldn't you turn back to them and be like
anti slap because that's like a freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Absolutely. However, we're fighting the issue on the merits first,
kind of the preliminary legal skirmish, the idea of do
they get to enforce an arbitration clause because and it's
a great question circles back the legislature says, you're not
(10:28):
going to be able to just bury these things. You're
not going to be able to Really was kind of
an outgrowth of the Harvey Weinstein stuff because the argument
was that the corporations were keeping people silenced so that activity,
bad acts could happen and nobody could ever bring anything
against them.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
And am I right in remembering didn't she only make
something like seven or ten thousand dollars to start with?
And then they're suing her for four million?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, yeah, your memory is right.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I have another question too, because of all of these
changes and things that are coming to light, and all
the things that you are bringing to light. You know,
I think that reality stars, like you said, it's an
enticing field and there's all these promises of the pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow, but they
don't realize how rocky the rainbow is, right, and then
there's there's legal issues and there's mental health issues, and
(11:23):
Rachel being subject to both of those. What do you
think moving forward that networks or production companies they should
actually provide reality stars like is it access to lawyers
as it resources for mental health, because at the end
of the day, they're benefiting and they're kind of using
these people, and these people when they come in they
don't have to dimes to rent together necessarily, and they
(11:45):
think they're going to get that pot of gold and
then they get all the headaches.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, our co council, your lawyer, Rachel, Brian Friedman has
done a marvelous job in articulating just the mental health
and I give a shout out to his wife, who's
a mental health professional who I think you've met. And
the idea that somehow they're capitalizing on people's mental health
(12:14):
challenges and through that they're amplifying it because that makes
good TV. Yet there is no proverbial safety net is really,
to my mind, the worst thing about this and really
creates or fosters a situation where people aren't able to
(12:37):
have a you know, I know it gets to some
degree mocked at a certain point, but you need a
safe place. I mean, everybody's got a breaking point, and
you know, you have the idea that if you're being
mocked or if you're being used as a prop in
(12:58):
order for rating, because you know there is this kind
of looking at a car accident element that you can't
turn your head away, and that seems to be part
of what the design is. Where it comes back to
what I was saying, This isn't so much unscripted or
reality as it's taking reality and scripting it as much
(13:22):
as you can, or shaping it and then amplifying it
and being an irritant. That's a bad situation. If there
is no guardrail, if there's no curbs on it, if
there's no I'll use it the term again safety net
and to have somebody. Brian also makes this point often,
(13:42):
and I think it's it's really something to emphasize to
have a therapist after the fact, that is reporting or
sharing with the network. How does that? How do you
find a safe place there? I mean, how do you
if you're restricted by your NDA and your arbitration clause
(14:03):
from voicing your concern about workplace problems and then the
only place where you can find refuge or find solace
is with a mental health professional, but that person is
employed by the person that is they're reporting to, and
(14:23):
you don't have that bloke of privacy and therapeutic guardrails.
That's a real problem, but that's a significant problem. Those
are some of the issues on the merits that i'd
like to we would like to get judges to focus on.
Is a good point, And Rachel, this has got to
(14:45):
be incredibly hard for you as you sit there to
listen to me articulate these things, because nobody is more
of a poster child for a lot of this stuff
than you. And yeah, I'm not trying to make you cry,
and I'm not trying to irritate in the sense of
provoke you. But you know, one of the reasons I'm
(15:06):
attracted to your case is for precisely that reason. I
don't like the history. I don't like bullies, I don't
like power imbalances where you've got corporations making a zillion
dollars and the individuals being taken advantage of.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
So with all of these lawsuits, do we run the
risk of the possibility that the networks are just going
to find a way to protect themselves further and making
it harder for people to get the resources that they
should have as humans.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Well, there is that. I mean, look, you you take
the various industries that have, in my opinion, have exploited
people for their own gain and have only remedied it
after the fact. You know, people can slam trial lawyers
(16:17):
all they want, but a lot of things, a lot
of the movement we've made is a society. And by
the way, I don't disagree that there are times when
trial lawyers are on a way out of their lane.
But in something like this where you've got a whole
industry that has grown up and it has been very lucrative,
(16:40):
and you've got kind of a willing imbalance of power
because of the attractive nuisance that it is to be
involved in these things. Nobody's going to just turn off
the spigot financially without a fight. That's human nature. So yes,
it's a very perceptive and astute question you raise, and
(17:04):
you'll most answer.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
It with the question, yeah, Well, like hopefully the goal
of the lawsuits is to set a precedent to protect
cast members and people who are getting involved in creating
these shows.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
I will also tell you nothing comes easy in the loss.
So yes, that's the goal. Is it a marathon not
a sprint? Absolutely, And that's why I take great pride
in representing you.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Is our case going to go to trial?
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Bill would say, it's a great question. Not if they're smart.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
It would be just my luck that this would turn
into like a Johnny Depp amber heard public court case
where people are like tuning in and geting every few hours.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Well, that would really be the ultimate irony Reality TV
or reality courtroom TV mirroring or flowing the reality that
would that's really kind of a next level game of
or TV Rubik's Cube.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Do you think that TV actually has different standards than
let's say the corporate world because I look at things
like what's happened with the Ady Cohen, what's happened with
Tom things that people did and they're still there, and
then a lot of the ones that were kind of
the victims or the females in particular, have been let go.
I find that very interesting.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Yeah, the C suite is different than the talent in
front of camera. It's just, you know a way. But
that's I don't want to make it a complete generalization
because there's exceptions and it depends, but you know, it
comes down to finances. It's a cost benefit of now
sois something that you would tolerate in the c suite.
(18:54):
You might tolerate from somebody who's in front of the camera,
especially if you think they're disposable. But that's just the
reality of the way it's happened.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Thank you so much, Mark, Thanks Mark, Thank you great questions.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Thanks ladies. It was great.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
When we were going to come out and talk, well,
first we wanted you to talk to your lawyer and
do just what we did a while ago. And then
we decided that I was going to go one and
talk about it. And so I announced on my social
media that I was going to come on and answer
some questions because oh yeah, right, okay, well I got
dragged like you cannot believe on social media. Was so
I mean, it was kind of humorous, but there was
(19:40):
one blogger that like just sort of drugged me all
over the internet and all these people going, oh, that's
the dumbest thing ever. So I do want to take
a minute to say the reason that I didn't come
out at that time after saying I was going to
was because that was right at the minute where everything
was changing. The anti slap got filed and then lost,
and then Tom filed his and we were going to
talk about how he did actually file it and he
(20:02):
hadn't retracted it. Well, then he retracted it. The things
were happening at rapid speed, and what I didn't want
to do is get out there and say something and
the next day it change and have to go back on.
I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole. And
then we were going to have you talk about it,
and then ultimately we decided it was better for you
to have the conversation with the lawyer, which is what
we just did. So I just want to clear that
up a little bit, because life happens, and we're going
(20:23):
along and you were dealing with legal stuff for you,
and it can't be spoken about flippantly, right, and we
have to be accurate otherwise than you know, we're in trouble.
So I just want to take a moment to say that,
because I think we've been very very transparent about the
things that we've been trying to do for you and
that you've been doing for yourself and for your listeners,
(20:44):
and I think that needs to be noted. Well.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
I would just like to say, like I know, I
get a lot of hate clearly for the lawsuit. And
I've said this before, like it was not a lighthearted
toay decision making this choice to sue both parties involved.
But it's like, at a certain point, are you going
(21:10):
to stand up for yourself or are you going to
let everyone dog pile on top of you and smear
your name and just stand idly by and just like
hide under a rock for the rest of your life
and not stand up for what you believe is right
and knowing that there was an injustice here, Like it's
(21:31):
not a clean cut, black and white situation at all,
But I feel like I was done dirty for sure,
and two things can be true at one time, right, Yeah, Yeah,
I mean even Mark Gergos Brian Freedman, they believe that
I was done dirty and they are supporting me in
(21:52):
standing up for myself. And so these are just the
actions that need to be taken. Well.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
What I find fascinating too is when you look at
all of these situations, whether it's Brandy and Andy, it's
Leah Brandy and Caroline and Caroline against Bravo, it is
it is a lot of stuff going on. Cast member
against cast member, cast member against production company against network.
Something's broke right, something's not right, because you know, it's
(22:21):
all funny when people are on reality TV and they're
dating and they're joking, But when people are getting hurt
and people are getting destroyed. This is where I'm saying
the difference. In mainstream world, people step up and people
have to have repercussions and people get fired, and it's
very different in this world for the very same offenses,
(22:43):
or some quite often greater offenses. You know, you say
a comment in the in the corporate world and someone's
fired or disciplinary actions and they're benched, so to speak.
But in this one, it's like a free for all
because it makes good TV. There's a lot more leniency.
And that's when do you stop when it's dangerous, when
people have to go to rehabs, when people have to
(23:04):
go to mental health facilities, when people are getting sued
left and right, and at the end of the day,
it's a fat cat at the beginning, at the top
of the food chain is still getting their checks and
everybody else is, you know, a bit abused and disposable.
I think there really does need to be a change
in you being a big part of that and like
Mark said, you being the poster child, it's a lot
(23:25):
to carry on your shoulders and you still get millinized
for it. But at the end of the day, I
know your hope start to shine might and help other people.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah. I mean, even when Stosse's video was taken and
passed around by the cast and talked about on the show,
there weren't any repercussions because there was a revenge porn law.
There wasn't a law made preventing people from sharing videos
like that.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
This is something I've learned and working with all these lawyers,
is every lawsuit, you know, they go back. How they
validate and move is going back on what's happened. And
if there are previous lawsuits, it's it's easier because they
build on it. But when something's like new and not happy,
that's all the hard work, right and to get those
things done that Mark was talking about, that's where all
(24:14):
the hard work comes from. And you're in the forefront
a lot of this stuff and you're going to take
the heat. But as it if you win these things,
or when you win these things, it's going to set precedents.
It's going to make things a lot easier. For the
people exactly.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
And it's the fact that I'm just a person, you know,
like this has happened to me as an individual, and
it's just the fact that my specific situation is on
a very large platform with millions of viewers that makes
(24:48):
it a little bit more like dramaticized, like it's it's dramatic.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But this is why it's important to stand up for.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
What you believe is right, because it's going to make
way for other people following suit.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I'll tell you something interestingly from a PR standpoint, the
Brandy Andy, Bravo Caroline scenario. So I'm gonna do my
best to recap that. So Caroline, who claims she was
assaulted from Brandy, actually didn't sue Brandy. She sued Bravo
(25:26):
and then because of but then now Andy, Brandy is
suing Andy. I believe Andy and Bravo for his comments,
which is like I was saying, you can't as subordinate,
can't say, hey, watch us have sex. In the corporate world,
you'd be fired in a hot second. But here this
is apparently not enough of an issue. But I find
(25:47):
interesting is that Bravo, in one of their lawsuits, did
have to say on record that what happened between Brandy
and Caroline was not that bad. So Brandy now is
jumping up and saying, hey, hello, why aren't you covering that?
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Media?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
And and this is something you know, I've been doing
this for twenty three years, and it is one of
the issues with the media. They are first to jump
on the negative part of the story. But when somebody
is vindicated or even if it's you know, right, tweet
tweet tweet tweet, I'm like begging and you know, borrowing
favors to get that part covered. So, you know, Brandy's
(26:27):
point that she just came out is, hey, this was
a really big deal and I feel vindicated by Bravo.
But the media didn't sort of jump on that as
much as they did the negative part. So I just
found all how circular that is.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Well, yeah, I mean, just to pull that back to
this case, when Arianna filed the anti Slack lawsuit, it
got so much media attention, and then when the judge
declared that the lawsuit had no grounds and that there
was illegal act activity involved, it was crickets, I know.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
And that is something we need to change with the
media because it does at least seed to be fair,
because I can't tell you every time something negative happens
five hundred calls I get in the morning, and then
when and it depends on if I'm up front of
it or in the middle of it or behind it,
how the reaction then is. And now I will say
they're very fair about adding things in, but just taking
(27:23):
the coverage.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Yeah, it's interesting though, because negative. You just said negative,
I'm saying quote unquote negative. I guess it would be
from like the Ariana stan standpoint, it would be negative
that her anti slap motion was dismissed. But they're not
publishing that because that's not what the fans want to hear,
(27:46):
and that's not what's going to get the most clicks
and people like wanting to come back to their media
outlet to get their news.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
When she lost, that was a win for you. Yeah,
and people you know her stands in the Ariana world
don't want to push that out there either. They don't
want not only do they not want her to lose,
but they don't want you to win. And it's not
a matter of what's right or wrong or the precedent
sets for other people. They just don't want you to win.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Thank you. So much for listening to Rachel Goes Rogue.
Follow us on Instagram and TikTok for exclusive video content
at Rachel Goes Rogue Podcast
This is Rachel Go's Rogue. Welcome back to another episode
of Rachel Goes Rogue with your host Rachel Savannah leviis
with lots of legal cases in the headlines. I wanted
to break down what is going on and get some
perspective on it all. And today I am being joined
(00:29):
by defense attorney Mark Garretgos who is on My case,
and my producer Juliet to decipher what is going on
legally in the bravosphere. Mark, I'm so happy that you're
here joining us because a lot of people are very
interested in the lawsuits that are going on right now
(00:49):
between cast members and networks, and I just wanted to
ask you, can we get a general idea of what's
going on and do you have any updates with my case?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Well, first of all, I'm going to say, since I
represent you, this is not attorney client privilege. How's that?
So there's no waiver? Don't let anybody come back. But
I'm perfectly willing to talk in general. One of the
things that I thought was interesting people had been following
(01:22):
was what was called the anti slap motions. Now, for
those of you who are not in the weeds in
civil cases in California, and anti slaps are all through
the country. A lot of times anti slaps were originally
developed for people who were trying to express themselves and
(01:44):
then they were getting bullied baby basically, and so legislators
came up with this idea that if you're exercising your
free speech, you that you can't sue somebody into oblivion
for that. It's been used and in my humble opinion,
in your case, it was grossly misused. And why do
(02:05):
I say that, because there were lawsuits that we filed.
As you know, you don't have to comment on that,
that's a public record. Then there was an anti slap
that was filed and interestingly, not only did the judge
(02:25):
did his honor rule that the anti slap, he overruled
it basically, which means basically set it aside. Not only
did that, but found as a matter of law that
a crime had been committed against you, and that was significant,
and it was significant for a number of reasons. We
(02:47):
then had a situation, interestingly, because it got a lot
of press, mister Sandoval hired my brother.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, wait, can we talk about that first time?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
We should talk about that. But by the way, my
brother Matt is some people. Have you ever heard the
expression in Irish twin man that means the born a
year apart, where both October babies. He's my little brother
or one of my two little brothers. And Santoval hired Matthew,
and I can't blame it. Matthew is a hell of
(03:22):
a lawyer. And I think he thought matt was going
to whisper in my ear at Thanksgiving or some who
knows what he thought.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah, I mean, so Santoval went out specifically and asked
your brother Matt to represent him.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
I will tell you I have no inside information as
to what transpired or how that transpired. I will tell
you that for the people. And I can't tell you
the number of reporters who said, isn't that a conflict
of interest? I said, well, if Matt worked with me, yes,
it would be a conflict of interest. If we were
partners in a law firm, yes, it would be conflict
(04:01):
of interest. Neither of our parents are alive. Obviously we
share the same parents, so it's not like we're at
Christmas dinner deciding Okay, I'll do this on Rachel, you
do this on Tom. It's not a conflict of interest.
It's in an interesting choice. And then Tom I apparently
(04:23):
issued a statement where he was letting go of Matt
after he lost the matter the anti slap.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So well, yeah, because Arianna was the one that came
back to our lawsuit with the anti slap, and then
Tom saw that and kind of followed suit saying that
it was not his fault, it was Arianna's fault, and
just like kind of placing the blame elsewhere, kind of
(04:52):
just save his own.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Correct look at you correcting me. You're absolutely right. The
anti slap was on behalf of Ariana. And then Tom
had previously we had previously filed emotion and which had
been overruled also, which I know, to each their own.
Everybody's got the right to litigate. They're litigating. The fact
(05:18):
is is for whatever you say about what happened in
the Genesis and anything else, you are and I know
this is going to be shocking to those or polarizing,
but you're a victim in this. I'll leave it at that.
I don't want you to comment. How's that?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
So I have a little bit of a general question
because it seems like and there's so many headlines right
now that are relevant to lawsuits, whether it's reality star
against reality star or reality star against network or production.
Reality TV has been shocking and crazy and a roller
coaster since it first came on the scene. Why do
you think now there are all of these lawsuits and
how do you think it's going to actually change the industry.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I don't know if she would be upset with me
for giving her credit, but I'm going to give her
credit anyway. I think Bethany Rankl pointed out precisely the
two tiered double standard kind of us and them, between
scripted and reality and it's an artifice, it's artificial, and
(06:24):
I think that the strike brought that into stark relief,
and that's my humble opinion, And it was you had
all of these reality stars who were not weren't lumped in,
if you will, during this strike as part of the group.
And I think that's where a lot of this came from.
(06:48):
Because you know, it's interesting when they use the term
scripted as opposed to unscripted, because I think both of
you may agree with me, there is a scripted aspect
back to this in the sense that they lay it
out and there is they amplify and they take advantage
(07:09):
they be production companies with the blessing of the networks.
But I think there had been this ability for them
to do this for years until the legislature came in
and the legislature changed the law that you couldn't hide
certain kinds of activity by virtue of an NDA or
(07:31):
an arbitration agreement. And that's another battlefield that we're fighting
right now with Renee, And we're actually up in the
California Supreme Court right now trying to get them to
take a look at this issue, because so far we've
been unsuccessful in getting a court to focus on the
(07:56):
merits of it. And when I say the merits is
can a production company, can a network? Can they basically
take somebody in this kind of power imbalanced situation where
you know, people want to be on reality shows. It's
a I mean, it's not a world that I was
(08:17):
really experienced in. And Rachel, you don't have to applaud
that because she knows that. I ask a lot of
questions because I'm not in the weeds on who is
who and what show and things like that. But boy,
I'll tell you, since I started doing this, it's wild
the number of people in my world who know all
about this and know the ins and outs and the changes.
(08:40):
But that desire and that interest has allowed the production
companies and the networks to take advantage of the people
and people like you and people like Renee and others.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So just to clarify for the listening and don't know
who Renee Pouchet is. Renee is a cast member from
Love Is Blind and her parts were pretty much edited
out of the final cut, and she spoke out about
her experience and it wasn't a healthy working environment to
(09:19):
say the least.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
That's one of the great understatements.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Right, yeah, I mean, if you want to elaborate some more, once.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Again, I'll say it brought home the point she had
under this NDA four supposed violations. Mind you, she hadn't
even been put on air, but because she had signed
this NDA, because it had this arbitration cocome you can
believe it, the production company and the studio then brought
(09:47):
an arbitration action against her for four violations of talking
using your speech. Do you know how much they're seeking?
Speaker 1 (09:56):
How much?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Four million dollars?
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Four million is insane?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But couldn't you turn back to them and be like
anti slap because that's like a freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Absolutely. However, we're fighting the issue on the merits first,
kind of the preliminary legal skirmish, the idea of do
they get to enforce an arbitration clause because and it's
a great question circles back the legislature says, you're not
(10:28):
going to be able to just bury these things. You're
not going to be able to Really was kind of
an outgrowth of the Harvey Weinstein stuff because the argument
was that the corporations were keeping people silenced so that activity,
bad acts could happen and nobody could ever bring anything
against them.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
And am I right in remembering didn't she only make
something like seven or ten thousand dollars to start with?
And then they're suing her for four million?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, yeah, your memory is right.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I have another question too, because of all of these
changes and things that are coming to light, and all
the things that you are bringing to light. You know,
I think that reality stars, like you said, it's an
enticing field and there's all these promises of the pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow, but they
don't realize how rocky the rainbow is, right, and then
there's there's legal issues and there's mental health issues, and
(11:23):
Rachel being subject to both of those. What do you
think moving forward that networks or production companies they should
actually provide reality stars like is it access to lawyers
as it resources for mental health, because at the end
of the day, they're benefiting and they're kind of using
these people, and these people when they come in they
don't have to dimes to rent together necessarily, and they
(11:45):
think they're going to get that pot of gold and
then they get all the headaches.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, our co council, your lawyer, Rachel, Brian Friedman has
done a marvelous job in articulating just the mental health
and I give a shout out to his wife, who's
a mental health professional who I think you've met. And
the idea that somehow they're capitalizing on people's mental health
(12:14):
challenges and through that they're amplifying it because that makes
good TV. Yet there is no proverbial safety net is really,
to my mind, the worst thing about this and really
creates or fosters a situation where people aren't able to
(12:37):
have a you know, I know it gets to some
degree mocked at a certain point, but you need a
safe place. I mean, everybody's got a breaking point, and
you know, you have the idea that if you're being
mocked or if you're being used as a prop in
(12:58):
order for rating, because you know there is this kind
of looking at a car accident element that you can't
turn your head away, and that seems to be part
of what the design is. Where it comes back to
what I was saying, This isn't so much unscripted or
reality as it's taking reality and scripting it as much
(13:22):
as you can, or shaping it and then amplifying it
and being an irritant. That's a bad situation. If there
is no guardrail, if there's no curbs on it, if
there's no I'll use it the term again safety net
and to have somebody. Brian also makes this point often,
(13:42):
and I think it's it's really something to emphasize to
have a therapist after the fact, that is reporting or
sharing with the network. How does that? How do you
find a safe place there? I mean, how do you
if you're restricted by your NDA and your arbitration clause
(14:03):
from voicing your concern about workplace problems and then the
only place where you can find refuge or find solace
is with a mental health professional, but that person is
employed by the person that is they're reporting to, and
(14:23):
you don't have that bloke of privacy and therapeutic guardrails.
That's a real problem, but that's a significant problem. Those
are some of the issues on the merits that i'd
like to we would like to get judges to focus on.
Is a good point, And Rachel, this has got to
(14:45):
be incredibly hard for you as you sit there to
listen to me articulate these things, because nobody is more
of a poster child for a lot of this stuff
than you. And yeah, I'm not trying to make you cry,
and I'm not trying to irritate in the sense of
provoke you. But you know, one of the reasons I'm
(15:06):
attracted to your case is for precisely that reason. I
don't like the history. I don't like bullies, I don't
like power imbalances where you've got corporations making a zillion
dollars and the individuals being taken advantage of.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
So with all of these lawsuits, do we run the
risk of the possibility that the networks are just going
to find a way to protect themselves further and making
it harder for people to get the resources that they
should have as humans.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Well, there is that. I mean, look, you you take
the various industries that have, in my opinion, have exploited
people for their own gain and have only remedied it
after the fact. You know, people can slam trial lawyers
(16:17):
all they want, but a lot of things, a lot
of the movement we've made is a society. And by
the way, I don't disagree that there are times when
trial lawyers are on a way out of their lane.
But in something like this where you've got a whole
industry that has grown up and it has been very lucrative,
(16:40):
and you've got kind of a willing imbalance of power
because of the attractive nuisance that it is to be
involved in these things. Nobody's going to just turn off
the spigot financially without a fight. That's human nature. So yes,
it's a very perceptive and astute question you raise, and
(17:04):
you'll most answer.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
It with the question, yeah, Well, like hopefully the goal
of the lawsuits is to set a precedent to protect
cast members and people who are getting involved in creating
these shows.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
I will also tell you nothing comes easy in the loss.
So yes, that's the goal. Is it a marathon not
a sprint? Absolutely, And that's why I take great pride
in representing you.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Is our case going to go to trial?
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Bill would say, it's a great question. Not if they're smart.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
It would be just my luck that this would turn
into like a Johnny Depp amber heard public court case
where people are like tuning in and geting every few hours.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Well, that would really be the ultimate irony Reality TV
or reality courtroom TV mirroring or flowing the reality that
would that's really kind of a next level game of
or TV Rubik's Cube.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Do you think that TV actually has different standards than
let's say the corporate world because I look at things
like what's happened with the Ady Cohen, what's happened with
Tom things that people did and they're still there, and
then a lot of the ones that were kind of
the victims or the females in particular, have been let go.
I find that very interesting.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Yeah, the C suite is different than the talent in
front of camera. It's just, you know a way. But
that's I don't want to make it a complete generalization
because there's exceptions and it depends, but you know, it
comes down to finances. It's a cost benefit of now
sois something that you would tolerate in the c suite.
(18:54):
You might tolerate from somebody who's in front of the camera,
especially if you think they're disposable. But that's just the
reality of the way it's happened.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Thank you so much, Mark, Thanks Mark, Thank you great questions.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Thanks ladies. It was great.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
When we were going to come out and talk, well,
first we wanted you to talk to your lawyer and
do just what we did a while ago. And then
we decided that I was going to go one and
talk about it. And so I announced on my social
media that I was going to come on and answer
some questions because oh yeah, right, okay, well I got
dragged like you cannot believe on social media. Was so
I mean, it was kind of humorous, but there was
(19:40):
one blogger that like just sort of drugged me all
over the internet and all these people going, oh, that's
the dumbest thing ever. So I do want to take
a minute to say the reason that I didn't come
out at that time after saying I was going to
was because that was right at the minute where everything
was changing. The anti slap got filed and then lost,
and then Tom filed his and we were going to
talk about how he did actually file it and he
(20:02):
hadn't retracted it. Well, then he retracted it. The things
were happening at rapid speed, and what I didn't want
to do is get out there and say something and
the next day it change and have to go back on.
I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole. And
then we were going to have you talk about it,
and then ultimately we decided it was better for you
to have the conversation with the lawyer, which is what
we just did. So I just want to clear that
up a little bit, because life happens, and we're going
(20:23):
along and you were dealing with legal stuff for you,
and it can't be spoken about flippantly, right, and we
have to be accurate otherwise than you know, we're in trouble.
So I just want to take a moment to say that,
because I think we've been very very transparent about the
things that we've been trying to do for you and
that you've been doing for yourself and for your listeners,
(20:44):
and I think that needs to be noted. Well.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
I would just like to say, like I know, I
get a lot of hate clearly for the lawsuit. And
I've said this before, like it was not a lighthearted
toay decision making this choice to sue both parties involved.
But it's like, at a certain point, are you going
(21:10):
to stand up for yourself or are you going to
let everyone dog pile on top of you and smear
your name and just stand idly by and just like
hide under a rock for the rest of your life
and not stand up for what you believe is right
and knowing that there was an injustice here, Like it's
(21:31):
not a clean cut, black and white situation at all,
But I feel like I was done dirty for sure,
and two things can be true at one time, right, Yeah, Yeah,
I mean even Mark Gergos Brian Freedman, they believe that
I was done dirty and they are supporting me in
(21:52):
standing up for myself. And so these are just the
actions that need to be taken. Well.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
What I find fascinating too is when you look at
all of these situations, whether it's Brandy and Andy, it's
Leah Brandy and Caroline and Caroline against Bravo, it is
it is a lot of stuff going on. Cast member
against cast member, cast member against production company against network.
Something's broke right, something's not right, because you know, it's
(22:21):
all funny when people are on reality TV and they're
dating and they're joking, But when people are getting hurt
and people are getting destroyed. This is where I'm saying
the difference. In mainstream world, people step up and people
have to have repercussions and people get fired, and it's
very different in this world for the very same offenses,
(22:43):
or some quite often greater offenses. You know, you say
a comment in the in the corporate world and someone's
fired or disciplinary actions and they're benched, so to speak.
But in this one, it's like a free for all
because it makes good TV. There's a lot more leniency.
And that's when do you stop when it's dangerous, when
people have to go to rehabs, when people have to
(23:04):
go to mental health facilities, when people are getting sued
left and right, and at the end of the day,
it's a fat cat at the beginning, at the top
of the food chain is still getting their checks and
everybody else is, you know, a bit abused and disposable.
I think there really does need to be a change
in you being a big part of that and like
Mark said, you being the poster child, it's a lot
(23:25):
to carry on your shoulders and you still get millinized
for it. But at the end of the day, I
know your hope start to shine might and help other people.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah. I mean, even when Stosse's video was taken and
passed around by the cast and talked about on the show,
there weren't any repercussions because there was a revenge porn law.
There wasn't a law made preventing people from sharing videos
like that.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
This is something I've learned and working with all these lawyers,
is every lawsuit, you know, they go back. How they
validate and move is going back on what's happened. And
if there are previous lawsuits, it's it's easier because they
build on it. But when something's like new and not happy,
that's all the hard work, right and to get those
things done that Mark was talking about, that's where all
(24:14):
the hard work comes from. And you're in the forefront
a lot of this stuff and you're going to take
the heat. But as it if you win these things,
or when you win these things, it's going to set precedents.
It's going to make things a lot easier. For the
people exactly.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
And it's the fact that I'm just a person, you know,
like this has happened to me as an individual, and
it's just the fact that my specific situation is on
a very large platform with millions of viewers that makes
(24:48):
it a little bit more like dramaticized, like it's it's dramatic.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But this is why it's important to stand up for.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
What you believe is right, because it's going to make
way for other people following suit.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I'll tell you something interestingly from a PR standpoint, the
Brandy Andy, Bravo Caroline scenario. So I'm gonna do my
best to recap that. So Caroline, who claims she was
assaulted from Brandy, actually didn't sue Brandy. She sued Bravo
(25:26):
and then because of but then now Andy, Brandy is
suing Andy. I believe Andy and Bravo for his comments,
which is like I was saying, you can't as subordinate,
can't say, hey, watch us have sex. In the corporate world,
you'd be fired in a hot second. But here this
is apparently not enough of an issue. But I find
(25:47):
interesting is that Bravo, in one of their lawsuits, did
have to say on record that what happened between Brandy
and Caroline was not that bad. So Brandy now is
jumping up and saying, hey, hello, why aren't you covering that?
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Media?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
And and this is something you know, I've been doing
this for twenty three years, and it is one of
the issues with the media. They are first to jump
on the negative part of the story. But when somebody
is vindicated or even if it's you know, right, tweet
tweet tweet tweet, I'm like begging and you know, borrowing
favors to get that part covered. So, you know, Brandy's
(26:27):
point that she just came out is, hey, this was
a really big deal and I feel vindicated by Bravo.
But the media didn't sort of jump on that as
much as they did the negative part. So I just
found all how circular that is.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Well, yeah, I mean, just to pull that back to
this case, when Arianna filed the anti Slack lawsuit, it
got so much media attention, and then when the judge
declared that the lawsuit had no grounds and that there
was illegal act activity involved, it was crickets, I know.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
And that is something we need to change with the
media because it does at least seed to be fair,
because I can't tell you every time something negative happens
five hundred calls I get in the morning, and then
when and it depends on if I'm up front of
it or in the middle of it or behind it,
how the reaction then is. And now I will say
they're very fair about adding things in, but just taking
(27:23):
the coverage.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Yeah, it's interesting though, because negative. You just said negative,
I'm saying quote unquote negative. I guess it would be
from like the Ariana stan standpoint, it would be negative
that her anti slap motion was dismissed. But they're not
publishing that because that's not what the fans want to hear,
(27:46):
and that's not what's going to get the most clicks
and people like wanting to come back to their media
outlet to get their news.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
When she lost, that was a win for you. Yeah,
and people you know her stands in the Ariana world
don't want to push that out there either. They don't
want not only do they not want her to lose,
but they don't want you to win. And it's not
a matter of what's right or wrong or the precedent
sets for other people. They just don't want you to win.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Thank you. So much for listening to Rachel Goes Rogue.
Follow us on Instagram and TikTok for exclusive video content
at Rachel Goes Rogue Podcast
Popular Podcasts
1. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.