June 5, 2025 • 48 mins
Emily and Shane are discussing the latest updates on Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial.
Then, we dive into the Chrisley’s. From their claim to fame in 2014, to the investigation that led to their downfall, up to their Presidential pardon last week.
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 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today Emily Simpson with my sidekick
Jane Just Shane. We want to give you a little
update first of all, on the Lively and Baldoni case.
We haven't talked about it for a while because it
hasn't had a lot going on. You know, they go
to trial in March of twenty twenty six. However, there
(00:21):
have been some interesting things that have happened lately. So
Blake Lively has dropped the emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni.
So I was reading about this yesterday and it was
actually kind of difficult to follow for me to actually
put a timeline together of what happened. But here's the
way I understand it. A few days ago, there was
a teleconference between both sides, which is normal when you're
(00:43):
in active litigation. Right, So you've got both sides, You've
got Baldoni's team, You've got Blake Lively's team, they have
a teleconference. I guess there was a conversation that had
to do with these emotional distress claims. There's an intentional
infliction of emotional distress and a negligent emotional distress claim
on Blake Lively's side against Justin Baldoni. And apparently during
(01:05):
this teleconference there was a conversation where Lively's attorneys had
suggested that they were going to drop those claims now
after Apparently immediately after this conference between the attorneys, Justin
Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman files emotion to compel her like
(01:26):
therapy notes or doctors against who against Blake Lively. Basically,
the way I understand it is they're like, Okay, we're
going to.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Drop these claims of distress.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So she's going to drop the claims of distress. Brian
Friedman then files a motion to compel basically stating that
she's dropping those claims in order to not comply with
their discovery requests of medical records or therapy notes.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
A medical records. That's my guess. My guess is Lively's
team was like, oh, we're going to have to provide
all these medical records or conversations or anything to.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Show that there was some type of emotional distress distress.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
And then they're and they're like, okay, Lively, can can
you start forwarding those documents? And then She's like, I
never went to the doctor. I didn't do anything because
I was not Yeah, I have some texts with Taylor
Swift where I was complaining, but I don't have anything else.
So they were probably like, then you don't have a
defense or a complaint. You can't you know, succeed on
(02:35):
this claim.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Right, Well, then so the judge dismisses the motion to
compel because the judge is like, look, they said they're
going to drop these claims, and they did dismiss them,
and so why are you filing a motion to compel?
And then obviously Blake Lively's team says the only reason
that Brian Friedman filed a motion to compel was for
what reason?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Well, it would be probably to get her to not
comply and then maybe publicly it would look bad.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Right he did. They claim it's a press stunt, you know,
sounds like a dumb press seeking another round of press coverage.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Yeah, I don't know about that. That sounds because he's
clearly experienced where if the claim is dropped, why would
you want to pursue discovery at a claim that's dropped.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Well, I guess his thinking was, Okay, they're just trying
to avoid our discovery requests, so let's do a motion
to compel. But really, you know Brian Friedman's He's excellent
at working the.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
No I know, so I'm putting my trust in him.
I'm just saying, seeing the order of events, it sounds
like it was poorly executed, but time will tell, and
I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
So Baldoni's side argued that Lively couldn't have it both
ways by making claims of emotional harm while also withholding
supporting records like medical records. In response, Lively's attorneys dismissed
the request as a publicity stunt, as reported, and this
was an entertainment weekly. Actually it was an entertainment weekly.
But then I read several other articles because everybody jumps
(04:03):
on and starts writing about it. Also, I thought it
was really interesting that Blake Lively's side consistently argues that
everything Brian Friedman does as a publicity stunt. But let's
not forget about the facts.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Let's not forget about Lively and Reynolds and their lifestyle
as we.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Go back in time. If you remember, the original complaint
filed by Blake Lively's team was on December twentieth, twenty
twenty four, and The New York Times published a report
and published the filing on December twenty first, twenty twenty four.
So it was it's very I mean, it's easy to
see that they colluded with the New York Times, So it.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Wasn't everything they do with publicity stunt, I believe.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
So. So anyway, I also found it interesting that the
judge who is to judge Lewis J. Lyman, formally ruled
that Lively's emotional distress claims were no longer part of
the lawsuit. Baldoni's motion to compel was denied on the
grounds that Lively had already agreed to withdraw the claims.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Oh okay, I know, yeah, he meant to drop the claims.
Was informal.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
It was on that it was on the teleconference, so
it was an.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Informal right, So he probably thought, I'm going to file
the motion and compel, and I'm going to keep pursuing
my defense until you actually drop it. Yeah, So he
probably filed the motion to compel to keep the momentum
and to make.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Sure that they actually dismissed the claim.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I told you, I trust him.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, he's a good attorney. I told you anytime, if
I'm ever in trouble, who's the first call. It's quite
Brian Friedman, It's my first call. Judge Lyman also directed
both parties to reach This is where it's going to
get interesting. He directed both parties to reach a mutual
agreement together on whether the dismissed claims would be permanent
with prejudice or allow for possible refiling later, which is
(05:44):
without prejudice. Regardless, the judgement clear that Lively would not
be allowed to introduce any evidence related to emotional distress
going forward because the claims have been officially dropped from
her filing. Lively's team responded to the ruling by calling
Baldoni's motion completely unnecessary and framing the court's decision as
a favorable outcome for their site. They always do that.
(06:04):
They always take every decision this judge makes and they
turn it around into some favorable like some big win
for them. So it's it's always.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Like, so, what was this big win was that it's
dropped without prejudice?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
No, it's he did he didn't. He told them that
they have to figure out together whether the claims are dropped.
With prejudice or without. So what do you think is
going to happen there? You think they're going to happen.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Oh, they're not going to agree. Neither party is going
to Neither.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Party is going to agree to that.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Let's explain what with prejudice and without prejudice means.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Okay, so both of the emotional emotional distress claims have
been dropped. However, Lively's team is going to want them
dropped without prejudice. Now you explain what that means.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I don't know what it means. I'm just kidding you too.
Know what it means. If it's dropped with prejudice, that's
the equivalent or close to a judgment in favor of
right or it's it's as if the judge ruled on
it and they're it cannot be brought up. It cannot
be brought up without prejudice means it's just a procedural thing.
We dropped it, but you can still pursue it at
(07:06):
a later date if you wish exactly so, then with
that case, Baldoni would want it with prejudice, so that
way it cannot be brought up again. And then of
course Likely's team will want it without prejudice, and I
think it should be without without knowing much more, it
should be without prejudice because the judge didn't review anything
really not in detail.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
No, but I mean that's where I mean. The judge
is basically like, Okay, you guys work it out together
and figure out if it's with prejudice or without, and
you think these two sides are going to be able.
That's very black and white. This isn't a gray area
where they can compromise and come up with something. There's
no middle ground on this. So I good luck with
those two deciding with or without prejudice.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
So it'll allow for another update next week.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
It'll allow for more letters from Brian Friedman and more
updates from US and more updates from US. All right,
let's move on to Ditty Diddy. I thought it was
interesting that there was some testimony and Diddy that was
interesting this week. First of all, they called Eddie Garcia
to the stand, who was a security supervisor at the
(08:08):
La hotel where Combs attacked Cassie back in twenty sixteen. Now,
Eddie Garcia receives complete immunity to testify because when you
hear his testimony he clearly was involved in bribery an
obstruction of.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Justice, so he was offered immunity because you're thinking, well,
witness should just testify if but he committed crimes right
by taking a bribery and whatnot. Yeah, I mean, so
he didn't.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
He's going to perjure himself in the federal court.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
So he would just plead the fifth which is I'm
not going to be able to answer these questions because
it would be self incriminating. So they're saying, well, we
want his testimony because we want to go for the
bigger fish exactly, and so we'll grant you immunity and
then you can freely speak as to what took place
and keep your money.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, keep your money. So Eddie Garcia takes a stand
and testifies that he and two other employees at the
hotel received a lump sum of one hundred thousand dollars
in cash from Combs to keep the video surveillance under wraps.
So this is how it worked out. First of all,
he gets a phone call I think the evening after
this incident happened on his work phone, and it was
(09:19):
Ditty's assistant. Her name is Christina Korum and she reaches
out to Eddie Garcia and says, hey, like, we would
like the video, and he basically tells her the only
way you can get it is you have to speak
to higher than me or you have to subpoena. So
she gets nowhere. Then she makes a personal visit to
(09:40):
him at the hotel and she wants the video. And
this is all clearly under the direction of Ditty and
she makes it.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
So she goes to the hotel she wants she wants
like the original copy to destroy it.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Yeah, So she goes to the hotel.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Like this guy didn't make copies on his phone and
show his friend and so I don't know it until
you can pull it out.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah. So she makes a personal visit at the hotel,
speaks with Eddie Garcia, doesn't get anywhere again, and then
I guess off the record. He tells her that the
video is pretty bad. So then she goes back and
then later on he gets a third phone call on
his personal cell phone. I don't know how they got
a cell phone number, but they got a cell phone
number somehow. She gets on the phone with him again.
She puts Ditty on the phone this time and he
(10:25):
testifies that Ditty is nervous during this phone call. He's stuttering.
He's saying, hey, man, you know I'll take care of you.
How can I get a copy of this video I
need to destroy. It's going to ruin my life. And
you know I'll take care of you, which he testifies
that he understands that I'll take care of you. Is
you know I'll hook you up, I'll get you.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
You're on the party list, but you're gonna you are
now a lifetime supply baby oil.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
For you, sir, Yes, you get a Costco membership baby oil.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Costco doesn't sell baby oil. It's for freak out.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Oh that's right, that's right, that's right. We established that.
So then they meet at so I guess. So he
agrees to it, right, I guess. He goes back to
his boss, who security his boss and says the boss says, okay,
ask him for fifty grand. So he tells Ditty, okay,
I'll give you the tape for fifty grand. He shows
(11:15):
up at some building to meet Ditty and his assistant
in security. Security takes him up to a room. They
make him sign an NDA, a confidentiality agreement, basically stating
that there's no other videos that it's been destroyed, that
he is the only one. He's handing it over.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Clearly, Okay, keep going.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And if he breaches this agreement, this NDA that he's signing,
that he's gonna, you know, be in breach for a million.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Dollars up and he might kill right.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
I don't think that's any in writing, but I'm sure
that's implied in the contract. But what is in writing
is that he would owe a million dollars back. So
basically it's I mean, the guy makes ten dollars an hour,
ten to fifty an.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Hour, so he making that up? Are you really no?
Speaker 1 (11:54):
I read that. I read that he made that he
was a security guard. He was making ten dollars and
fifty cents an hour. This is back in twenty sixteen, and.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
That so how did the tape because obviously it wasn't
the only copy.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Well, let's just finish this. So he goes to the hotel,
he hands over the video that he has, He signs
the NDA, the confidentiality a confidentiality agreement. Combs comes out,
brings him one hundred thousand dollars in cash. Actually, he
counts the money on a money counter at first.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Because that's what that's what criminals do. Yeah, they have
money counters, Yeah they do.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They have I don't have one. Do you have one?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
No?
Speaker 1 (12:27):
I don't either. So he brings out a money counter,
he cash. He counts one hundred thousand in cash in
front of him. He says, do you want to count it?
And he's like no, you know, I trust the money counter.
So he puts one hundred thousand dollars in a bag
and gives it to him. He leaves, He goes back.
He gives fifty grand to his boss, He gives twenty
to another security guard that also witnessed the tape, and
(12:49):
he gives thirty thousand to himself.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
This guy's too honest. He should have well, first of all,
he should have said I only got fifty like you asked,
and then he keeps the fifty for himself and then
he just the other fifty, right.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
But so anyway, well he's an honest man.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
He's an honest recipient of bribes.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes, so he ends up. Oh and also did he
tells him like, don't go make a big purchase, right,
So he's warning at like, you know, avoid tax fraud
and everything else. He uses a thirty thousand to buy
himself a used car in cash. So I guess it
doesn't ever show up anywhere. It doesn't look suspicious.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Apparently, why did he did he give him a tip of.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
I probably because he's just so happy the guys show.
I mean, the guy's a billionaire. One hundred thousand's like
if I found a quarter in my pocket, So I
think he's or a nickel thank you. I think he's
just it's just so he's so happy as static. This
guy showed up in hands over the video, right. So anyway,
(13:53):
apparently there was another security guard that worked that night
that ended up making a video on his phone so
he can show it to his wife. I couldn't find
I looked for articles or anything that connected it to
being in the footage that was eventually that CNN got
ahold of. So I'm assuming that's where the breach took place.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
But I mean, clearly, if he could have sold it
more to the media. For more to the media, I
don't know what media pays well, I.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Don't know, but here's where he went wrong. He could
have gotten way more than one hundred thousand dollars from Diddy.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Like this guy, I don't know, because if it's too
if he was being too greedy, then his car might
have blown up. And oh, so you're saying he just
didn't negotiate with mobs and murderers.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I think you don't know. All right, Well, then I
thought it was interesting that he testified that. Then Shawn
Combs called him on Easter to wish him a happy
Easter and call him an angel and tell him that
he was like a good guy and that good things
were going to happen to him.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
And you know, the way I.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Interpreted that, I feel like Sean Combs was being like, hey, oh.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
He was really checking in. I don't like we're buddies.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Hey, happy Easter.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
So wait, when did the deal take place? That was
Easter of the very next holiday? Like how much time
had passed it?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Well, this was like March of twenty sixteen. Maybe, yeah,
But I thought it was interesting that it was like,
that's a good Friday, happy Easter. In also there was
So there's also another victim that is scheduled to testify
that's actually today. Her name is Jane, and Jane is
a pseudonym. And we didn't talk about this on this podcast,
(15:32):
but I did have a conversation with Aubrey o Day
last week, so if you want to listen to that podcast,
you can find hers where we talked about. There was
another victim that testified last week and her name was Mia,
which was a pseudonym. Her real name isn't Mia, And
I was saying, I understand that these witnesses come forward.
She talked about sexual assault, sexual abuse. She was Ditty's
(15:53):
assistant for a long time, and there were all these
incidents of sexual abuse and assault that she talked.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
About against her or that she was.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Her personally, So she had a pseudonym in Core And
I was saying, I understand that she wants to keep
her identity on the download, but she's testifying in front
of them, and testifying in court and testifying in front.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Of the gym. The dangers people already know who she is.
That's p Diddy here knows he's not gonna.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Be like well, apparently she was trying to she was
testifying under a pseudonym to keep her name out of
the media.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
I understand.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
I mean, he clearly knows who she is.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Oh, I guess there's no cameras in the court room either,
So those crummy paintings.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Right, But what happened is, of course someone finds out
her identity and there's a YouTuber.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Okay, so hold on before you get any further. Yeah,
I was already thinking this. When people always give a
fake name and they say not their real name, they
should just pretend that that's her real name, because if
she said my name is Mia, and she didn't say
that's my pseudonym or whatever, then this whoever would try
to search for her would keep searching for Mia and
they would never come up with her.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, so you're saying they should just create a whole
false identity instead of instead of just declaring them, they're
testifying under a pseudonym because they want to protect their identity. Well,
so what happened was the pseudonym and this whole, this
whole confidentiality that the court's trying to maintain in order
to keep her identity under wraps did not work because
(17:15):
a YouTuber who was like live streaming and like talking
about the trial somehow knew her identity and released it.
And then there was a news outlet that posted her
identity on x So the prosecution was upset. They said
that Jane who is someone that's also using a pseudonym,
is scheduled to testify today, and that she was nervous
(17:37):
about testifying because it had already been breached with this
whole mia pseudonym. Now, I tried to look for it.
I couldn't find it, would you I was trying.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
To find it.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Yeah, I looked. Yeah, I was looking for her real
identity because it had been breached, but apparently they'd scrubbed
it pretty well. But the judge asked the prosecution to
draft a possible court order to bar the news outlet
from court. So there was a news outlet that released
her name on X and then.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
That was the need to do that. That's so stupid, I.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You know, I don't know, especially when the judge made
it clear that this woman was testifying, you know, under
and then then the judge the the YouTuber got kicked
out of court, like they're not allowed to come back,
but the news outlet is allowed to still be there
even though they released the name on X. And then
the judge asked the prosecution to draft a possible court
(18:31):
order to bar the news outlet. I guess if they
draft this court order and then he rules on it,
maybe he'll bar them from court. But anyway, that's people
not following. And also there was some I don't know
if you read this, but there was also some woman
that uh uh went she went a little crazy. She
was inside the courtroom yesterday. Apparently she's been at court
(18:52):
every single day. Outside of the courtroom. Then she was
in the holding area. I think she's just she's not
a news report or anything.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
She's just someone.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Yes, she ended up in the courtroom yesterday and apparently
she started screaming.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
And yelling and in whose defense.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
I don't know. I tried to read what she said.
None of it really, I couldn't tell if she was
a fan of Ditty or she was a nut. She
was a nut.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
She's probably at the Michael Jackson trial too.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Probably, And they removed her from the courtroom, but they
did not bar her from court. She's still allowed to
be in the holding area. So I didn't I was like,
I didn't really understand that. But anyway, that is Ditty.
So that is an update on Blakelee, Blakely, Blakely, Blake
Lively and Justin Baldoni, and an update on the testimony
(19:35):
that's going on in Ditty. And I will say on
track of what happens with Jane, because I want to
see what she testifies too. But well, one more thing
on Ditty. I was thinking this whole entire time we've
been talking about Ditty, how he's basically being tried not
only for well, he's being tried for RICO, which again, why.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
She tells what RICO means, I mean what it stands for.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Yeah, what is RICO samsor.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Stands for a racketeering, influence corrupt organization.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Exactly, there's a party for you, if you're standing in
line to pick up your kids, you can tell everyone
about the Didny trial and that he's being tried under
the federal statue to Rico, which was enacted for mobsters
because those guys at the top never actually commit any crime,
like al.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Capone to get him on tax fraud before Rico, right,
but before Rico.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
So now that there's Rico, you just have to establish
that there's two criminal acts within a ten year time period,
that there was a criminal enterprise, and.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
The enterprise was designed to carry out the crimes.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
And they're acting hard and they're acting on behalf of
or for a unified goal. Anyway, I was thinking in
this Ditty trial. So far, we have a lot of violence,
and we know that he's a violent man, but are
we really is the prosecution doing a good job of
establishing that this is a criminal enterprise? And I think
(20:52):
the testimony of Mia, who was under a pseudonym, was
not a girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Oh she was an assistant? Was she?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
She was an assistant? And now we have the security
guard with the hotel, with the bribery, So I feel
like the prosecution is now honing it.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
It's becoming less of a domestic case and more of
organized or sophisticated cover ups and carry out, carrying out
further crimes, exactly paying off right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
At the direction of Diddy. So I think they're they're
doing better of establishing.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
You from needing a money counter being in a cell.
That sucks.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
That's all right, So let's go into the chrystalies. This
has been all over the news lately, so I feel
like we have to go down this road and talk
about it. So, first of all, how did Todd Julie
Crisly first rise to fame? We know that they have
(22:00):
reality show, but I had to do some deep digging
because I've only seen one episode of the show. And
I'm gonna guess you've never seen them never.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Never. I've seen them in headlines all over the place
years ago and then now again. But I don't know them.
And I was surprised they were married. Yes, yes, he
does not look like he would be married.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
He doesn't look like the marrying type.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
No, let's leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Todd Chrisly and his real estate empire. So Todd Chrislely
originally built his wealth in the early two thousands through
real estate investment and development. He ran a company called
Chrisly Asset Management, which claimed to manage and liquidate distress properties.
During the housing boom, Todd made millions by flipping homes
and investing and property. He projected an image of financial success,
(22:46):
frequently referencing lavish spending, designer clothing, upscale homes, and at
their peak, the Chrystlies lived in a thirty thousand square
foot mansion Geez and traveled extensively. In twenty fourteen, they
launched They Have a Counter. I'm sure they have a
money Counter. In twenty fourteen, they launched Chrisly No's Best
on the USA Network. It was a reality show portraying
(23:08):
them as wealthy, outspoken Southern family navigating parenting, business, and faith.
It became a hit, known for Todd's dramatic personality and
strict parenting. Success from the show led to spinoffs and endorsements,
and the family made hundreds of thousands per season. Todd
and Julia used their fame to their benefit, conducting brand deals,
public appearances, and even podcasting with their show Christly Confessions
(23:31):
back in twenty eighteen. But along the way, there were
always some red flags with his family.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
So the show is what put them in the spotlight.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yes, there were nobody's normies. Normies, yes, we now know
the term Norman.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yes, ormies.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Okay, So there's some red flags throughout these years where
they're building this real estate empire, and I put empire
in quotations, enterprise, criminal, enterprise. Yes, well, so Todd filed
for Chapter seven bankruptcy back in twenty twelve. According to
court records from his bankruptcy filing, he had claimed to
have forty nine point four million in debt. He reported
(24:10):
just four point two million in assets and listed only
fifty five dollars in a checking account and one hundred
dollars in cash. His monthly expenses were more than fifty thousand,
including twelve thousand on clothing, six thousand on food, and
seventeen thousand mortgage and written other household costs. He also
owed twelve million to Regions Bank and millions more to
other lenders.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Wait, he owed twelve million, Yeah too, he found only
be four and a half million in debt.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
No, forty nine point four million.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Forty nine million.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, did you miss that? That was the first thing
I said.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
I thought you said four million.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Forty nine point four million in debt. Fifty million dollars
in debt.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
What did he do for income before his TV show? Well,
I just told you that he Yeah, tell me again
now that it's forty nine Millionay, I want to know
what he did for work.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
He was flipping homes, he was building, He building a
real estate home. Well, that's what he claims.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
He opened off the banking industry, is what he was doing.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Ran a company called Christly Asset Management where they managed
and liquidated distress properties, and apparently allegedly he made millions
by flipping homes and investing in property. Then he files
for bankruptcy and he has forty nine point.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Four million million dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Yes, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
I mean he spent fifty million dollars or maybe more so.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
During the bankruptcy process, there were allegations.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
What would he spent fifty million dollars clothing? I know
it's one hundred and forty four thousand year clothing.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
He said, cars, trips, lavish. I could spend fifty million
a year.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Like that, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yes, So during the bankruptcy process there were allegations of
concealed assets. Todd was accused of hiding income and failing
to disclose assets, including trust and property possibly put into
his wife's name. Prosecutors later alleged that Todd and Julie
used Julie's bank accounts and other people's names to avoid
revealing income to the bankruptcy court and to the irs.
(26:09):
This is all leading up to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
So this is all going on right. Here's the way
I understand it, and this is what I was trying
to read and decipher. It was, basically, from my understanding,
a Ponzi scheme that had to do with loans. So
they were taking out loans and then getting more loans
(26:31):
to pay back the.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Place, as you're saying, instead of getting investors to some
supposed snake oil, they were getting loans, helped pay back
other loans and then have more money, and they just
kept robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Exactly allegedly, well not allegedly, I mean they were prosecuted
for it. So this leads to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
Prosecutors charged the Chrislies with one bank fraud, submitting falsified
documents to banks to obtain large loans. So that was
the first part of this Ponzi scheme as I understand it.
First of all, in order to get all these loans,
(27:08):
they had to falsified documents to make it look like
they have more income or more assets than they do
in order to get the loans.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Second, this is why the world hates us, because people
go and get loans and spend all kinds of money
on clothes, then file bankruptcy and then thinking is walk
away right.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Second, wire fraud using fake emails and bank records to
qualify for funding. Third, tax evasion not paying federal taxes
or filing returns for multiple years, and for a conspiracy
to defraud the United States. They pled not guilty and
claimed that they were being framed by a former employee.
And this former employee also when they went to trial.
(27:45):
I think he was convicted of three years. He was
like a financial advisor or something, which you told me
when I was telling you about this. You get sick
of people blaming their financial advisors.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
I do as stupid. It's because they still have to
sign everything and they still need to be responsible. You
can't just hire a financial advisor to alleviate yourself and
create some veil where it's like, oh, I didn't know
he did it, not me, fifty million. You were stuck
on that fifty Yeah, I had no idea it was
(28:16):
fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
So then COVID comes along and delays their trial proceedings
from twenty twenty to twenty one.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Flip homes and make that kind of money, so.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
You think so you think, well, he's no. Well he
might have. He might have flipped a couple, or he
might have.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
A couple couple, but not enough to.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Have fifty million dollars in debt, not unless.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
You falsify the loan documents.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Well that's what they claim, and that's what they were
convicted of. Was falsifying loan documents. In June of twenty
twenty two, their trial began. The prosecution's main evidence was
fake bank and financial documents. Julie Crisley allegedly created fake
fake financial documents, including falsified bank statements, fake credit reports,
and altered financial audit letters. These were used to apply
(29:03):
for and receive over thirty million dollars in loans from
community and regional banks between two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
And they they got addicted. It was easy money, yeah,
and they just wanted more and more and more.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
There's so other evidences, emails and text messages. Federal agents
recovered emails and text messages between the Chrystalies and co
conspirators that revealed that Julie allegedly emailed fake financial statements
to third parties who submitted them to lenders, and Todd
and other co conspirators discussed how to trick banks into
approving their loans golly.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
And then when I go get like a loan for
a car, it seems like amount of paperwork, and I'm
like trying to state my case and make it like
I could afford it, and then these people just go
and get fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
And loans and then file for bankruptcy and not pay
back the loans and then get more. Sorry, I think
they probably get more loans to pay back as many
loans as they can. But then when they start to
get to the point where it's like loans, then you
just file for bankruptcy and you just start over, and.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
You say it's a Ponzi scheme. You know, it's called
the Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, you know the history on the guy's name was Ponzi, Yeah, Charles,
Charles Ponzi.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Yeah, in the twenties, and he was making a fortune.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
What was what was his Ponzi?
Speaker 2 (30:17):
His original business idea was valid?
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Okay, what was this? This is the twenties, the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
In the twenties, he he it was there was international
stamps posted stamps that could be used to mail internationally
to other countries. Like countries got together and agreed that
this was a universal stamp. It was cheaper in Italy
the stamps. Why then, I don't know, exchange rate or something.
(30:48):
So he was like, hey, I'll buy the stamps there,
I'll bring him to the States and I'll resell and
it'll be cheaper for the buyers, and I'll make a profit.
Totally valid.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
That's a legitimate business plan.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Legitimate business plan. Okay, it got out of control and
then he then he just ended up going into a
Ponzi scheme where now he couldn't keep up with the
demand and he was just getting investors and he wasn't
actually buying the stamps, and he was paying people back
and he was then it turned into a true Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
So a true Ponzi scheme is when you have people
invest in something and then you just use that money
to pay back some of your investors at the top,
and then you just get more people and sometimes usually.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Just pay a little bit like so, then then a
newspaper came and wrote a complaint about him that it
was a Ponzi scheme. Of course they labeled back then,
but they said it was fraud. He sued the newspaper defamation, yes,
and won five hundred thousand dollars in the twenties ties,
even though he was a crook and in that time prior,
(31:45):
I think, when the media came out and said he
was a scam, he opened up his doors and said,
I will pay all my investors back and they came
and he would pay him back with a little bit
of interest or whatever the agreement was. And then he'd
be like, see, I have money, are you sure you
wanted it back? And then they eventual he said no, no, no,
keep it, keep it, keep investing in. Yeah, and then
he won five hundred thousand dollars. And he had like
a heated pool for his mom in like the twenties
(32:08):
and all this like fancy home and electricity and cars,
and I think he had a permanent cabin on some
yacht for his mom that would go across the seas.
He was out of control. And then he got busted.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
How did he finally get caught?
Speaker 2 (32:23):
That I can't remember. Oh yeah, I can't remember.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So that's the end of the story.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
I didn't finish the book. But he didn't get caught.
He got extradited to Italy. And then Italy is supposedly
just like slapped him on the rest and said, yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
You're the bad boy.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Yeah, yeah, don't do that again next time, don't get caught.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
Right, here's some pasta all right. So other further evidence
in their original trial was testimony from a former business associate,
a former employee Mark Braddock testified against the Chrystlies in
exchange for immunity. He claimed he helped Todd commit fraud
for years and was involved in faking documents, forging signatures,
and submitting false applications. He also claimed they paid off
(33:00):
banks using newly fraudulently obtained loans, operating almost like a
Ponzi scheme, which is what we talked about. And then
there's also evidence of spending beyond their actual income. Despite
claiming little to know income on taxes and bankruptcy forms,
the Chrystlies spent tens of thousands monthly on luxury items,
paid for designer clothing, private school tuition, luxury cars, and
(33:23):
rent for multimillion dollar homes. The prosecution highlighted this to
show that the Chrystlies were not simply bad with money,
that they were intentionally living beyond their means while lying
to banks and to the government. And lastly, there was
a pattern of concealing the income. The Chrystlies use various
strategies to avoid detection, including routing income through a production
(33:44):
company controlled by Julie to shield it from the IRS,
and claiming to have little personal income while receiving thousands
per month via other entities.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Losers.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
The conviction and sentencing, the jury found them both guilty
on all counts in November of twenty twenty two. Todd
was sentenced to twelve years, Julie was sent in to
sentence to seven years, and both were also given sixteen
months of probation following their following release.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well, he had twelve years and so he got seven.
So they spent three years. Give her take what do
you mean?
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Yeah, less than three years?
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yes, So in January of twenty twenty three, they report
to prison. Todd reports to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, Florida,
and Julie reports to Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
So what happened to the children. At twenty five years old,
Savannah Chrisley became the legal guardian and family spokesperson. She
took custody of her younger brother, Grayson, who's sixteen, and
(34:42):
niece Chloe, who was ten. And this was Todd and
Julie's adopted granddaughter. Because Todd had two children from a
previous marriage, he was married before, so he's been married twice,
so he has two. He has two children from his
first marriage. He had a falling out I believe with
the daughter, and she was kind of a strange from
the family. I don't think she was part of the
(35:03):
reality show or anything, but I think she did offer
support for them publicly when they went to press.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
To be fair, we won't judge the family affairs because
we don't really know any Yeah, but the stealing money
is a problem, Okay, and then I'll judge all day long.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
That you're going to judge. And he also had a
son from his first marriage who had Chloe, who is
the granddaughter. And then I believe the son had some
substance abuse issues, so Todd and Julie adopted the granddaughter.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
So they prior to going to prison.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Prior to going to prison. Yes, she became the public
so we're talking about Savannah. Savannah became the public face
of the family, frequently speaking out in interviews and on
her podcast Unlocked with Savannah Chrisly about the injustice she
believed her parents faced. She continually expressed being overwhelmed. I mean,
she is taking care of the kids, so I get that,
(35:53):
but was committed to keeping the family together. Quote, I'm
helping raise two children while also dealing with the loss
of my parents being in a way, she said in
a twenty twenty three interview. Savannah's older brother, Chase, did
not become a legal guardian. However, he did support Savannah
and helping with the two younger ones, Grayson and Chloe.
So Savannah has been the one that's been working tirelessly
(36:16):
to have her parents pardon. Let's just talk about pardon
power so that we know where that comes from. So
the president's power to grant pardons comes from. It's outlined
in article yes the Constitution, Article two, Section two, Clause
one of the Constitution. I like to give you guys
(36:37):
this little bits of like interesting legal to me, it's interesting.
I love the Constitution. I actually had a small pocket
version of the Constitution that I just had in my purse.
I mean along with yeah, I would like to read
it along with like snacks and you know, sandwiches. I
also have a copy of the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Okay. I never knew that this.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Power is broad but not limitless, and it allows the
president to offer forgiveness and restore rights to individuals convicted
of federal crimes. Pardon power is explicitly limited to federal
offenses only, not state offenses, and this means the president
cannot pardon individuals for crimes committed under state or local laws.
So on May twenty seven, twenty twenty five, the presidential
(37:19):
pardon is granted. President Donald Trump issues full pardons to
both Todd and Julie Chrislely. The pardon cites claims of
unfair prosecution and procedural irregularities and the trial. The couple
is released from prison having served roughly two years. All right,
first of all, what is your thoughts. I know we
(37:40):
were having this conversation, but you were saying you didn't
think that they should be pardoned. If anything, you felt
like their sentence should have been commuted.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Right, because a pardon pretty much says you didn't do
the crime right, or you were unfairly prosecuted and you
know you shouldn't have been found guilty, or something to
that effect. I don't know. If there's there's paper trails,
it's a crime not of testimony, but of just like
their own signing documents. And I disagree based on what
(38:10):
I know, I disagree with the pardon. If anything, commuting
the sentence would have been better, because then it'd be
like Okay, you know what, that's more like, you did
the crime, You did enough time. Your sense was harsh.
This is enough. You're not a risk of society. If anything,
can be more productive, and we don't have to pay
for you to sit in jail, so you sent them out.
I think a pardon was not a good idea. I
(38:33):
disagree with that, and I think, and now that it's
fifty million dollars, I definitely think they should be in jail.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Still in jail. Do you think two years was not
enough time?
Speaker 2 (38:41):
No?
Speaker 1 (38:43):
No, you know what.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
The the should be an eye for an eye. It
should be like you're not allowed to have more than
five hundred dollars in your pocket at any given time.
You cannot be rich anymore because your phony. So you're
saying they lived a life or luxury and now they
should suffer.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
So you're saying, if someone commits fraud to live extravagant
life style, they should never be able to live in
extravagant lifestyle again, even if they earned it legitimately after
they came out of prison. You're just not allowed to
ever be rich again. That's your punishment.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
So.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
In other news, Savannah Christly addresses rumors about her parents' pardons.
Days after Todd Christly and Julie Chrisly were released from prison,
their daughter addressed conspiracy theories about her year's long efforts
to free her parents from behind bars.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Obviously, the biggest misconception right now is that I either
paid for a pardon or I slept for a pardon,
Savannah told the media.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
A lot.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
You Well, she's very attractive.
Speaker 2 (39:45):
She looks like him. He is pretty. He is pretty.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
Okay, she's pretty. They're both pretty. Savannah told the media
alongside Todd during a May thirtieth press conference.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
I just have very little sympathy for people that take
other people's money knowingly. This isn't This isn't like a
business venture that went bad or they kept throwing good
money after bad because they were.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
They were trying to have something.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
Authornically, they were genuinely trying something, even if it was
poor decision, they should have known better. Yeah, this is.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
Like intentional fraudulent. They were big fifty million dollars that
are doctored. Here's the argument, and this is where I
think people like when you talk about Menendez, there's clearly
victims and brutality. When you talk about a crime like this,
there isn't. I think people look at it people, but
I don't think people see it that way. I think
(40:36):
people see it as a victimless crime.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
It's not I don't I never really understood victim. I
guess meaning there's no individual person harmed, and I think
it's still a crime.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
I think also people I have a problem with capitalism
a lot, and they feel like people like this are
just sticking it to like the you know, banks and
you know, the like there's no there's there's no actual victim.
You know, when people don't pay their car payments and
they're like, so what so land Rover doesn't get my money?
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Or well, well that would that would be okay. If
the person was fell flat, flat on flat on their
fees at the term and they had no money and
they couldn't pay, then it's not a it's not criminal.
It's just a financial situation. This is criminal. I'm sorry,
but you take fifty million dollars or more so, you
because you think you should live a certain lifestyle. Screw them.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
She also states during a press conference that if people
knew the countless hours and money in time I spent
going to d C literally with not a meeting scheduled,
and I just got on a plane and went and said,
I'm going to be in the right room and the
right time, I meet the right people. So basically, I
know she spoke during the RNC and I think she
her She alleges that her parents were unfairly prosecuted and
(41:53):
gone after because they were supporters of Trump, so that
it was a political She was wrong.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
They were going after them because because they committed crimes
and owed fifty million dollars. She forgot that part.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, he claims in his press conference that they are
completely innocent.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
So I would But you know what, that's the thing,
the pardon. I bet you a million bucks that party
may it like, see, we didn't do anything. See that's right.
Now they can run around and claim innocence. But if
it was just commuted, then maybe they could not run
around and say we didn't do anything. They wouldn't have
that argument.
Speaker 1 (42:25):
Well, I would love for them to take the opportunity
to prove how they are innocent, because as far they.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Already had an opportunity and they sucked at it and
they went to.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
Jail for I know, but I'm saying now after the fact,
if you're going to do press conferences and continuously talk
about how you're innocent and you didn't do anything wrong
and that's why you were pardoned, then how are you innocent?
Let's see it?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Are we going to see him out? Bravo? Con I
don't know, beause I have some questions.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Todd also spoke and maintained that he and Julie did
not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Quote,
even though this pardon happened, I still was convicted of
something I did not do. It could be you, It
could be you, It could be any of you. He
said during a press conference that it.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
Could never be me because I will never take out
a loan for fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
Well it was falsified, fifi.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
I don't care whatever. I wouldn't falsify paperwork to get alane. Yeah,
so it will never be me.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
Chrisly Todd and Julie Cristly's alleged pricey demand for their
TV comeback raises eyebrows in Hollywood. This was an article
on Daily Mail. Apparently they are shopping or they're being
offered a brand new reality series documenting their return back
into their normal life post prison. According to sources, that
might not be a problem, as many TV production companies
(43:41):
are considering signing the couple. However, their price may be
a hindrance as they're seeking a seven figure payout. Recently,
some television producers opened up to The Daily Mail sharing
their thoughts about Todd and Julie's extremely high price tag. Quote,
we would love to work with them, but their price
tag is way too high.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
One the complication has no assets. Now he's got to
build up his wardrobe, right, He's got to catch up
on whatever procedures he didn't get while he was locked up.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
They also shared that they weren't entirely sure if Todd
and Joy would be worth such a huge amount, that's
the thing. Would people want to watch them? The producer asked.
Another producer revealed that the specific amount Todd and Julie
were requesting. According to them, the couple is allegedly asking
for a whopping five million dollar minimum to make a
reality show post prison. That's where their conversation starts. Five million,
(44:33):
but they're hoping for a bidding war to take the
price even higher.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
So it should be in the slammer.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
So you're not a fan, you're a fan. Listen, here's
my thoughts on pardoning. I understand and I understand the
Constitution and the president has pardon power, and I agree
with that. I feel, however, just because of the work
that I do and the things that I'm involved in.
I mean I look at cases and things, see things
all the time and meet people involved in the Innocence project.
My mind, I'm.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
Thinking, why are we at those cases?
Speaker 1 (45:02):
Why are we not taking it deeper? Are why is
there not a consultantdenzar.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
Or in addition to a pardons aar, they should have
a wrongly convicted zaar. Yeah, I would love it for
those because the lady that was appointed as the pardons are.
Speaker 1 (45:20):
Alice.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
She's awesome, she is and she's lived up to her
end of the deal of just being a good person
to society and trying to help those who you know,
need to get back up on their feet. And she's
the one that sought out the chrislies. I think in
some fashion. I mean, she was probably approached, but she
did her homework because I watched an interview with her,
(45:42):
she did her homework and she felt after doing her
homework that they were wrongly convicted or and definitely wrongly
sentenced or harshly sentenced. So I do know that she's
a pretty genuine good woman. So I hope that she
did her homework enough. But I still disagree.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Well, you disagree on I disagree.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Based on what I know, right, there might be things
I don't know. No, I know what I know, you
know what you know. I don't think I know what.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
I guess. The point of what I was saying was
in the in the field and the things that I
work in, and you have been involved in a lot
of it, and we meet a lot of people that
have been wrongfully convicted, and my question is why are
we not investing more time and energy into those cases
that the Innocence Project picks up and puts all this
time and energy.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Well, I guess the argument is if they were pardon
then the argument is they were wrongly convicted. So they were,
But I would.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
Rather I would just I would If we're going to
have pardoning power, we're going to pardon people. I would
rather pardon someone that has been in prison for a
long time that was either wrongfully.
Speaker 2 (46:43):
Convicted, like one of the cases that you help with,
or it takes they have evidence and now it still
takes yes years, yes to actually yes, get it overturned.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
I am released, right.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
But you're saying so when the president can just come in, well,
assuming it's a federal crime, when the president can come
in or the guf A R could come in his
boom and get him out.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, I just I wish there was I just needed
maybe the Christie should have a reality show where they
go around the prisons and they talk to people. That's
what they should do. Did you hear that, Todd and
Julie Chrisly if you're looking for a reality show because
they did complain. You see an interview with Todd Christly
where he does talk about the prison environment and how
(47:22):
bad it is and how bad the food is, and
he did say he said that African Americans are treated
more poorly than the white prisoners, and he said he
received privileges because he was white, and he he made
that known. He said it in an interview.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
See that's interesting. So you do your part and bring
all that to the public and expose those things and
try to make it better.
Speaker 1 (47:44):
Okay, I there, that's a good solution. We together would
get behind a reality show with the Chrislies if they
want to do prison reform or do some type of
Innocent's project or or work with wrongly convicted and.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
Then he has to give all his money back to
the bank.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Oh yes, but because he has to give the money
back to all right, that is the Chryslies will keep
you updated and on things that have to do with
Diddy and Lively and if there's any more that comes
with the Chrystlies will be aware of whether they get
their reality show or not, or whether they listen to
this podcast, and then we'll recap it, recap shot the
(48:23):
reality show. Yes, all right, thanks guys for listening to
Legally Brunette. We appreciate it. And as always a lot
of you send me dms and tell me your thoughts
about cases and cases that you think that we should
talk about. So I appreciate that, so please continue to
do that.
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today Emily Simpson with my sidekick
Jane Just Shane. We want to give you a little
update first of all, on the Lively and Baldoni case.
We haven't talked about it for a while because it
hasn't had a lot going on. You know, they go
to trial in March of twenty twenty six. However, there
(00:21):
have been some interesting things that have happened lately. So
Blake Lively has dropped the emotional distress claims against Justin Baldoni.
So I was reading about this yesterday and it was
actually kind of difficult to follow for me to actually
put a timeline together of what happened. But here's the
way I understand it. A few days ago, there was
a teleconference between both sides, which is normal when you're
(00:43):
in active litigation. Right, So you've got both sides, You've
got Baldoni's team, You've got Blake Lively's team, they have
a teleconference. I guess there was a conversation that had
to do with these emotional distress claims. There's an intentional
infliction of emotional distress and a negligent emotional distress claim
on Blake Lively's side against Justin Baldoni. And apparently during
(01:05):
this teleconference there was a conversation where Lively's attorneys had
suggested that they were going to drop those claims now
after Apparently immediately after this conference between the attorneys, Justin
Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman files emotion to compel her like
(01:26):
therapy notes or doctors against who against Blake Lively. Basically,
the way I understand it is they're like, Okay, we're
going to.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Drop these claims of distress.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So she's going to drop the claims of distress. Brian
Friedman then files a motion to compel basically stating that
she's dropping those claims in order to not comply with
their discovery requests of medical records or therapy notes.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
A medical records. That's my guess. My guess is Lively's
team was like, oh, we're going to have to provide
all these medical records or conversations or anything to.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Show that there was some type of emotional distress distress.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
And then they're and they're like, okay, Lively, can can
you start forwarding those documents? And then She's like, I
never went to the doctor. I didn't do anything because
I was not Yeah, I have some texts with Taylor
Swift where I was complaining, but I don't have anything else.
So they were probably like, then you don't have a
defense or a complaint. You can't you know, succeed on
(02:35):
this claim.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Right, Well, then so the judge dismisses the motion to
compel because the judge is like, look, they said they're
going to drop these claims, and they did dismiss them,
and so why are you filing a motion to compel?
And then obviously Blake Lively's team says the only reason
that Brian Friedman filed a motion to compel was for
what reason?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Well, it would be probably to get her to not
comply and then maybe publicly it would look bad.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Right he did. They claim it's a press stunt, you know,
sounds like a dumb press seeking another round of press coverage.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Yeah, I don't know about that. That sounds because he's
clearly experienced where if the claim is dropped, why would
you want to pursue discovery at a claim that's dropped.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Well, I guess his thinking was, Okay, they're just trying
to avoid our discovery requests, so let's do a motion
to compel. But really, you know Brian Friedman's He's excellent
at working the.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
No I know, so I'm putting my trust in him.
I'm just saying, seeing the order of events, it sounds
like it was poorly executed, but time will tell, and
I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
So Baldoni's side argued that Lively couldn't have it both
ways by making claims of emotional harm while also withholding
supporting records like medical records. In response, Lively's attorneys dismissed
the request as a publicity stunt, as reported, and this
was an entertainment weekly. Actually it was an entertainment weekly.
But then I read several other articles because everybody jumps
(04:03):
on and starts writing about it. Also, I thought it
was really interesting that Blake Lively's side consistently argues that
everything Brian Friedman does as a publicity stunt. But let's
not forget about the facts.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Let's not forget about Lively and Reynolds and their lifestyle
as we.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Go back in time. If you remember, the original complaint
filed by Blake Lively's team was on December twentieth, twenty
twenty four, and The New York Times published a report
and published the filing on December twenty first, twenty twenty four.
So it was it's very I mean, it's easy to
see that they colluded with the New York Times, So it.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Wasn't everything they do with publicity stunt, I believe.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
So. So anyway, I also found it interesting that the
judge who is to judge Lewis J. Lyman, formally ruled
that Lively's emotional distress claims were no longer part of
the lawsuit. Baldoni's motion to compel was denied on the
grounds that Lively had already agreed to withdraw the claims.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Oh okay, I know, yeah, he meant to drop the claims.
Was informal.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
It was on that it was on the teleconference, so
it was an.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Informal right, So he probably thought, I'm going to file
the motion and compel, and I'm going to keep pursuing
my defense until you actually drop it. Yeah, So he
probably filed the motion to compel to keep the momentum
and to make.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Sure that they actually dismissed the claim.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I told you, I trust him.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, he's a good attorney. I told you anytime, if
I'm ever in trouble, who's the first call. It's quite
Brian Friedman, It's my first call. Judge Lyman also directed
both parties to reach This is where it's going to
get interesting. He directed both parties to reach a mutual
agreement together on whether the dismissed claims would be permanent
with prejudice or allow for possible refiling later, which is
(05:44):
without prejudice. Regardless, the judgement clear that Lively would not
be allowed to introduce any evidence related to emotional distress
going forward because the claims have been officially dropped from
her filing. Lively's team responded to the ruling by calling
Baldoni's motion completely unnecessary and framing the court's decision as
a favorable outcome for their site. They always do that.
(06:04):
They always take every decision this judge makes and they
turn it around into some favorable like some big win
for them. So it's it's always.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Like, so, what was this big win was that it's
dropped without prejudice?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
No, it's he did he didn't. He told them that
they have to figure out together whether the claims are dropped.
With prejudice or without. So what do you think is
going to happen there? You think they're going to happen.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Oh, they're not going to agree. Neither party is going
to Neither.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Party is going to agree to that.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Let's explain what with prejudice and without prejudice means.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Okay, so both of the emotional emotional distress claims have
been dropped. However, Lively's team is going to want them
dropped without prejudice. Now you explain what that means.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I don't know what it means. I'm just kidding you too.
Know what it means. If it's dropped with prejudice, that's
the equivalent or close to a judgment in favor of
right or it's it's as if the judge ruled on
it and they're it cannot be brought up. It cannot
be brought up without prejudice means it's just a procedural thing.
We dropped it, but you can still pursue it at
(07:06):
a later date if you wish exactly so, then with
that case, Baldoni would want it with prejudice, so that
way it cannot be brought up again. And then of
course Likely's team will want it without prejudice, and I
think it should be without without knowing much more, it
should be without prejudice because the judge didn't review anything
really not in detail.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
No, but I mean that's where I mean. The judge
is basically like, Okay, you guys work it out together
and figure out if it's with prejudice or without, and
you think these two sides are going to be able.
That's very black and white. This isn't a gray area
where they can compromise and come up with something. There's
no middle ground on this. So I good luck with
those two deciding with or without prejudice.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
So it'll allow for another update next week.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
It'll allow for more letters from Brian Friedman and more
updates from US and more updates from US. All right,
let's move on to Ditty Diddy. I thought it was
interesting that there was some testimony and Diddy that was
interesting this week. First of all, they called Eddie Garcia
to the stand, who was a security supervisor at the
(08:08):
La hotel where Combs attacked Cassie back in twenty sixteen. Now,
Eddie Garcia receives complete immunity to testify because when you
hear his testimony he clearly was involved in bribery an
obstruction of.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Justice, so he was offered immunity because you're thinking, well,
witness should just testify if but he committed crimes right
by taking a bribery and whatnot. Yeah, I mean, so
he didn't.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
He's going to perjure himself in the federal court.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
So he would just plead the fifth which is I'm
not going to be able to answer these questions because
it would be self incriminating. So they're saying, well, we
want his testimony because we want to go for the
bigger fish exactly, and so we'll grant you immunity and
then you can freely speak as to what took place
and keep your money.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, keep your money. So Eddie Garcia takes a stand
and testifies that he and two other employees at the
hotel received a lump sum of one hundred thousand dollars
in cash from Combs to keep the video surveillance under wraps.
So this is how it worked out. First of all,
he gets a phone call I think the evening after
this incident happened on his work phone, and it was
(09:19):
Ditty's assistant. Her name is Christina Korum and she reaches
out to Eddie Garcia and says, hey, like, we would
like the video, and he basically tells her the only
way you can get it is you have to speak
to higher than me or you have to subpoena. So
she gets nowhere. Then she makes a personal visit to
(09:40):
him at the hotel and she wants the video. And
this is all clearly under the direction of Ditty and
she makes it.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
So she goes to the hotel she wants she wants
like the original copy to destroy it.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Yeah, So she goes to the hotel.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Like this guy didn't make copies on his phone and
show his friend and so I don't know it until
you can pull it out.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah. So she makes a personal visit at the hotel,
speaks with Eddie Garcia, doesn't get anywhere again, and then
I guess off the record. He tells her that the
video is pretty bad. So then she goes back and
then later on he gets a third phone call on
his personal cell phone. I don't know how they got
a cell phone number, but they got a cell phone
number somehow. She gets on the phone with him again.
She puts Ditty on the phone this time and he
(10:25):
testifies that Ditty is nervous during this phone call. He's stuttering.
He's saying, hey, man, you know I'll take care of you.
How can I get a copy of this video I
need to destroy. It's going to ruin my life. And
you know I'll take care of you, which he testifies
that he understands that I'll take care of you. Is
you know I'll hook you up, I'll get you.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
You're on the party list, but you're gonna you are
now a lifetime supply baby oil.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
For you, sir, Yes, you get a Costco membership baby oil.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Costco doesn't sell baby oil. It's for freak out.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Oh that's right, that's right, that's right. We established that.
So then they meet at so I guess. So he
agrees to it, right, I guess. He goes back to
his boss, who security his boss and says the boss says, okay,
ask him for fifty grand. So he tells Ditty, okay,
I'll give you the tape for fifty grand. He shows
(11:15):
up at some building to meet Ditty and his assistant
in security. Security takes him up to a room. They
make him sign an NDA, a confidentiality agreement, basically stating
that there's no other videos that it's been destroyed, that
he is the only one. He's handing it over.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Clearly, Okay, keep going.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And if he breaches this agreement, this NDA that he's signing,
that he's gonna, you know, be in breach for a million.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Dollars up and he might kill right.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
I don't think that's any in writing, but I'm sure
that's implied in the contract. But what is in writing
is that he would owe a million dollars back. So
basically it's I mean, the guy makes ten dollars an hour,
ten to fifty an.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Hour, so he making that up? Are you really no?
Speaker 1 (11:54):
I read that. I read that he made that he
was a security guard. He was making ten dollars and
fifty cents an hour. This is back in twenty sixteen, and.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
That so how did the tape because obviously it wasn't
the only copy.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Well, let's just finish this. So he goes to the hotel,
he hands over the video that he has, He signs
the NDA, the confidentiality a confidentiality agreement. Combs comes out,
brings him one hundred thousand dollars in cash. Actually, he
counts the money on a money counter at first.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Because that's what that's what criminals do. Yeah, they have
money counters, Yeah they do.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They have I don't have one. Do you have one?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
No?
Speaker 1 (12:27):
I don't either. So he brings out a money counter,
he cash. He counts one hundred thousand in cash in
front of him. He says, do you want to count it?
And he's like no, you know, I trust the money counter.
So he puts one hundred thousand dollars in a bag
and gives it to him. He leaves, He goes back.
He gives fifty grand to his boss, He gives twenty
to another security guard that also witnessed the tape, and
(12:49):
he gives thirty thousand to himself.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
This guy's too honest. He should have well, first of all,
he should have said I only got fifty like you asked,
and then he keeps the fifty for himself and then
he just the other fifty, right.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
But so anyway, well he's an honest man.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
He's an honest recipient of bribes.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes, so he ends up. Oh and also did he
tells him like, don't go make a big purchase, right,
So he's warning at like, you know, avoid tax fraud
and everything else. He uses a thirty thousand to buy
himself a used car in cash. So I guess it
doesn't ever show up anywhere. It doesn't look suspicious.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Apparently, why did he did he give him a tip of.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
I probably because he's just so happy the guys show.
I mean, the guy's a billionaire. One hundred thousand's like
if I found a quarter in my pocket, So I
think he's or a nickel thank you. I think he's
just it's just so he's so happy as static. This
guy showed up in hands over the video, right. So anyway,
(13:53):
apparently there was another security guard that worked that night
that ended up making a video on his phone so
he can show it to his wife. I couldn't find
I looked for articles or anything that connected it to
being in the footage that was eventually that CNN got
ahold of. So I'm assuming that's where the breach took place.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
But I mean, clearly, if he could have sold it
more to the media. For more to the media, I
don't know what media pays well, I.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Don't know, but here's where he went wrong. He could
have gotten way more than one hundred thousand dollars from Diddy.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Like this guy, I don't know, because if it's too
if he was being too greedy, then his car might
have blown up. And oh, so you're saying he just
didn't negotiate with mobs and murderers.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I think you don't know. All right, Well, then I
thought it was interesting that he testified that. Then Shawn
Combs called him on Easter to wish him a happy
Easter and call him an angel and tell him that
he was like a good guy and that good things
were going to happen to him.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
And you know, the way I.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Interpreted that, I feel like Sean Combs was being like, hey, oh.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
He was really checking in. I don't like we're buddies.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Hey, happy Easter.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
So wait, when did the deal take place? That was
Easter of the very next holiday? Like how much time
had passed it?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Well, this was like March of twenty sixteen. Maybe, yeah,
But I thought it was interesting that it was like,
that's a good Friday, happy Easter. In also there was
So there's also another victim that is scheduled to testify
that's actually today. Her name is Jane, and Jane is
a pseudonym. And we didn't talk about this on this podcast,
(15:32):
but I did have a conversation with Aubrey o Day
last week, so if you want to listen to that podcast,
you can find hers where we talked about. There was
another victim that testified last week and her name was Mia,
which was a pseudonym. Her real name isn't Mia, And
I was saying, I understand that these witnesses come forward.
She talked about sexual assault, sexual abuse. She was Ditty's
(15:53):
assistant for a long time, and there were all these
incidents of sexual abuse and assault that she talked.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
About against her or that she was.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Her personally, So she had a pseudonym in Core And
I was saying, I understand that she wants to keep
her identity on the download, but she's testifying in front
of them, and testifying in court and testifying in front.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Of the gym. The dangers people already know who she is.
That's p Diddy here knows he's not gonna.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Be like well, apparently she was trying to she was
testifying under a pseudonym to keep her name out of
the media.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
I understand.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
I mean, he clearly knows who she is.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Oh, I guess there's no cameras in the court room either,
So those crummy paintings.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Right, But what happened is, of course someone finds out
her identity and there's a YouTuber.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Okay, so hold on before you get any further. Yeah,
I was already thinking this. When people always give a
fake name and they say not their real name, they
should just pretend that that's her real name, because if
she said my name is Mia, and she didn't say
that's my pseudonym or whatever, then this whoever would try
to search for her would keep searching for Mia and
they would never come up with her.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, so you're saying they should just create a whole
false identity instead of instead of just declaring them, they're
testifying under a pseudonym because they want to protect their identity. Well,
so what happened was the pseudonym and this whole, this
whole confidentiality that the court's trying to maintain in order
to keep her identity under wraps did not work because
(17:15):
a YouTuber who was like live streaming and like talking
about the trial somehow knew her identity and released it.
And then there was a news outlet that posted her
identity on x So the prosecution was upset. They said
that Jane who is someone that's also using a pseudonym,
is scheduled to testify today, and that she was nervous
(17:37):
about testifying because it had already been breached with this
whole mia pseudonym. Now, I tried to look for it.
I couldn't find it, would you I was trying.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
To find it.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Yeah, I looked. Yeah, I was looking for her real
identity because it had been breached, but apparently they'd scrubbed
it pretty well. But the judge asked the prosecution to
draft a possible court order to bar the news outlet
from court. So there was a news outlet that released
her name on X and then.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
That was the need to do that. That's so stupid, I.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You know, I don't know, especially when the judge made
it clear that this woman was testifying, you know, under
and then then the judge the the YouTuber got kicked
out of court, like they're not allowed to come back,
but the news outlet is allowed to still be there
even though they released the name on X. And then
the judge asked the prosecution to draft a possible court
(18:31):
order to bar the news outlet. I guess if they
draft this court order and then he rules on it,
maybe he'll bar them from court. But anyway, that's people
not following. And also there was some I don't know
if you read this, but there was also some woman
that uh uh went she went a little crazy. She
was inside the courtroom yesterday. Apparently she's been at court
(18:52):
every single day. Outside of the courtroom. Then she was
in the holding area. I think she's just she's not
a news report or anything.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
She's just someone.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Yes, she ended up in the courtroom yesterday and apparently
she started screaming.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
And yelling and in whose defense.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
I don't know. I tried to read what she said.
None of it really, I couldn't tell if she was
a fan of Ditty or she was a nut. She
was a nut.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
She's probably at the Michael Jackson trial too.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Probably, And they removed her from the courtroom, but they
did not bar her from court. She's still allowed to
be in the holding area. So I didn't I was like,
I didn't really understand that. But anyway, that is Ditty.
So that is an update on Blakelee, Blakely, Blakely, Blake
Lively and Justin Baldoni, and an update on the testimony
(19:35):
that's going on in Ditty. And I will say on
track of what happens with Jane, because I want to
see what she testifies too. But well, one more thing
on Ditty. I was thinking this whole entire time we've
been talking about Ditty, how he's basically being tried not
only for well, he's being tried for RICO, which again, why.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
She tells what RICO means, I mean what it stands for.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Yeah, what is RICO samsor.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Stands for a racketeering, influence corrupt organization.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Exactly, there's a party for you, if you're standing in
line to pick up your kids, you can tell everyone
about the Didny trial and that he's being tried under
the federal statue to Rico, which was enacted for mobsters
because those guys at the top never actually commit any crime,
like al.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Capone to get him on tax fraud before Rico, right,
but before Rico.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
So now that there's Rico, you just have to establish
that there's two criminal acts within a ten year time period,
that there was a criminal enterprise, and.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
The enterprise was designed to carry out the crimes.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
And they're acting hard and they're acting on behalf of
or for a unified goal. Anyway, I was thinking in
this Ditty trial. So far, we have a lot of violence,
and we know that he's a violent man, but are
we really is the prosecution doing a good job of
establishing that this is a criminal enterprise? And I think
(20:52):
the testimony of Mia, who was under a pseudonym, was
not a girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Oh she was an assistant? Was she?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
She was an assistant? And now we have the security
guard with the hotel, with the bribery, So I feel
like the prosecution is now honing it.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
It's becoming less of a domestic case and more of
organized or sophisticated cover ups and carry out, carrying out
further crimes, exactly paying off right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
At the direction of Diddy. So I think they're they're
doing better of establishing.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
You from needing a money counter being in a cell.
That sucks.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
That's all right, So let's go into the chrystalies. This
has been all over the news lately, so I feel
like we have to go down this road and talk
about it. So, first of all, how did Todd Julie
Crisly first rise to fame? We know that they have
(22:00):
reality show, but I had to do some deep digging
because I've only seen one episode of the show. And
I'm gonna guess you've never seen them never.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Never. I've seen them in headlines all over the place
years ago and then now again. But I don't know them.
And I was surprised they were married. Yes, yes, he
does not look like he would be married.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
He doesn't look like the marrying type.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
No, let's leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Todd Chrisly and his real estate empire. So Todd Chrislely
originally built his wealth in the early two thousands through
real estate investment and development. He ran a company called
Chrisly Asset Management, which claimed to manage and liquidate distress properties.
During the housing boom, Todd made millions by flipping homes
and investing and property. He projected an image of financial success,
(22:46):
frequently referencing lavish spending, designer clothing, upscale homes, and at
their peak, the Chrystlies lived in a thirty thousand square
foot mansion Geez and traveled extensively. In twenty fourteen, they
launched They Have a Counter. I'm sure they have a
money Counter. In twenty fourteen, they launched Chrisly No's Best
on the USA Network. It was a reality show portraying
(23:08):
them as wealthy, outspoken Southern family navigating parenting, business, and faith.
It became a hit, known for Todd's dramatic personality and
strict parenting. Success from the show led to spinoffs and endorsements,
and the family made hundreds of thousands per season. Todd
and Julia used their fame to their benefit, conducting brand deals,
public appearances, and even podcasting with their show Christly Confessions
(23:31):
back in twenty eighteen. But along the way, there were
always some red flags with his family.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
So the show is what put them in the spotlight.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yes, there were nobody's normies. Normies, yes, we now know
the term Norman.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yes, ormies.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Okay, So there's some red flags throughout these years where
they're building this real estate empire, and I put empire
in quotations, enterprise, criminal, enterprise. Yes, well, so Todd filed
for Chapter seven bankruptcy back in twenty twelve. According to
court records from his bankruptcy filing, he had claimed to
have forty nine point four million in debt. He reported
(24:10):
just four point two million in assets and listed only
fifty five dollars in a checking account and one hundred
dollars in cash. His monthly expenses were more than fifty thousand,
including twelve thousand on clothing, six thousand on food, and
seventeen thousand mortgage and written other household costs. He also
owed twelve million to Regions Bank and millions more to
other lenders.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Wait, he owed twelve million, Yeah too, he found only
be four and a half million in debt.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
No, forty nine point four million.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Forty nine million.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, did you miss that? That was the first thing
I said.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
I thought you said four million.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Forty nine point four million in debt. Fifty million dollars
in debt.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
What did he do for income before his TV show? Well,
I just told you that he Yeah, tell me again
now that it's forty nine Millionay, I want to know
what he did for work.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
He was flipping homes, he was building, He building a
real estate home. Well, that's what he claims.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
He opened off the banking industry, is what he was doing.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Ran a company called Christly Asset Management where they managed
and liquidated distress properties, and apparently allegedly he made millions
by flipping homes and investing in property. Then he files
for bankruptcy and he has forty nine point.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Four million million dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Yes, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
I mean he spent fifty million dollars or maybe more so.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
During the bankruptcy process, there were allegations.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
What would he spent fifty million dollars clothing? I know
it's one hundred and forty four thousand year clothing.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
He said, cars, trips, lavish. I could spend fifty million
a year.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Like that, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yes, So during the bankruptcy process there were allegations of
concealed assets. Todd was accused of hiding income and failing
to disclose assets, including trust and property possibly put into
his wife's name. Prosecutors later alleged that Todd and Julie
used Julie's bank accounts and other people's names to avoid
revealing income to the bankruptcy court and to the irs.
(26:09):
This is all leading up to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
So this is all going on right. Here's the way
I understand it, and this is what I was trying
to read and decipher. It was, basically, from my understanding,
a Ponzi scheme that had to do with loans. So
they were taking out loans and then getting more loans
(26:31):
to pay back the.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Place, as you're saying, instead of getting investors to some
supposed snake oil, they were getting loans, helped pay back
other loans and then have more money, and they just
kept robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Exactly allegedly, well not allegedly, I mean they were prosecuted
for it. So this leads to their twenty nineteen federal indictment.
Prosecutors charged the Chrislies with one bank fraud, submitting falsified
documents to banks to obtain large loans. So that was
the first part of this Ponzi scheme as I understand it.
First of all, in order to get all these loans,
(27:08):
they had to falsified documents to make it look like
they have more income or more assets than they do
in order to get the loans.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Second, this is why the world hates us, because people
go and get loans and spend all kinds of money
on clothes, then file bankruptcy and then thinking is walk
away right.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Second, wire fraud using fake emails and bank records to
qualify for funding. Third, tax evasion not paying federal taxes
or filing returns for multiple years, and for a conspiracy
to defraud the United States. They pled not guilty and
claimed that they were being framed by a former employee.
And this former employee also when they went to trial.
(27:45):
I think he was convicted of three years. He was
like a financial advisor or something, which you told me
when I was telling you about this. You get sick
of people blaming their financial advisors.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
I do as stupid. It's because they still have to
sign everything and they still need to be responsible. You
can't just hire a financial advisor to alleviate yourself and
create some veil where it's like, oh, I didn't know
he did it, not me, fifty million. You were stuck
on that fifty Yeah, I had no idea it was
(28:16):
fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
So then COVID comes along and delays their trial proceedings
from twenty twenty to twenty one.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Flip homes and make that kind of money, so.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
You think so you think, well, he's no. Well he
might have. He might have flipped a couple, or he
might have.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
A couple couple, but not enough to.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Have fifty million dollars in debt, not unless.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
You falsify the loan documents.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Well that's what they claim, and that's what they were
convicted of. Was falsifying loan documents. In June of twenty
twenty two, their trial began. The prosecution's main evidence was
fake bank and financial documents. Julie Crisley allegedly created fake
fake financial documents, including falsified bank statements, fake credit reports,
and altered financial audit letters. These were used to apply
(29:03):
for and receive over thirty million dollars in loans from
community and regional banks between two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
And they they got addicted. It was easy money, yeah,
and they just wanted more and more and more.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
There's so other evidences, emails and text messages. Federal agents
recovered emails and text messages between the Chrystalies and co
conspirators that revealed that Julie allegedly emailed fake financial statements
to third parties who submitted them to lenders, and Todd
and other co conspirators discussed how to trick banks into
approving their loans golly.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
And then when I go get like a loan for
a car, it seems like amount of paperwork, and I'm
like trying to state my case and make it like
I could afford it, and then these people just go
and get fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
And loans and then file for bankruptcy and not pay
back the loans and then get more. Sorry, I think
they probably get more loans to pay back as many
loans as they can. But then when they start to
get to the point where it's like loans, then you
just file for bankruptcy and you just start over, and.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
You say it's a Ponzi scheme. You know, it's called
the Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, you know the history on the guy's name was Ponzi, Yeah, Charles,
Charles Ponzi.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Yeah, in the twenties, and he was making a fortune.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
What was what was his Ponzi?
Speaker 2 (30:17):
His original business idea was valid?
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Okay, what was this? This is the twenties, the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
In the twenties, he he it was there was international
stamps posted stamps that could be used to mail internationally
to other countries. Like countries got together and agreed that
this was a universal stamp. It was cheaper in Italy
the stamps. Why then, I don't know, exchange rate or something.
(30:48):
So he was like, hey, I'll buy the stamps there,
I'll bring him to the States and I'll resell and
it'll be cheaper for the buyers, and I'll make a profit.
Totally valid.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
That's a legitimate business plan.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Legitimate business plan. Okay, it got out of control and
then he then he just ended up going into a
Ponzi scheme where now he couldn't keep up with the
demand and he was just getting investors and he wasn't
actually buying the stamps, and he was paying people back
and he was then it turned into a true Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
So a true Ponzi scheme is when you have people
invest in something and then you just use that money
to pay back some of your investors at the top,
and then you just get more people and sometimes usually.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Just pay a little bit like so, then then a
newspaper came and wrote a complaint about him that it
was a Ponzi scheme. Of course they labeled back then,
but they said it was fraud. He sued the newspaper defamation, yes,
and won five hundred thousand dollars in the twenties ties,
even though he was a crook and in that time prior,
(31:45):
I think, when the media came out and said he
was a scam, he opened up his doors and said,
I will pay all my investors back and they came
and he would pay him back with a little bit
of interest or whatever the agreement was. And then he'd
be like, see, I have money, are you sure you
wanted it back? And then they eventual he said no, no, no,
keep it, keep it, keep investing in. Yeah, and then
he won five hundred thousand dollars. And he had like
a heated pool for his mom in like the twenties
(32:08):
and all this like fancy home and electricity and cars,
and I think he had a permanent cabin on some
yacht for his mom that would go across the seas.
He was out of control. And then he got busted.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
How did he finally get caught?
Speaker 2 (32:23):
That I can't remember. Oh yeah, I can't remember.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So that's the end of the story.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
I didn't finish the book. But he didn't get caught.
He got extradited to Italy. And then Italy is supposedly
just like slapped him on the rest and said, yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
You're the bad boy.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Yeah, yeah, don't do that again next time, don't get caught.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
Right, here's some pasta all right. So other further evidence
in their original trial was testimony from a former business associate,
a former employee Mark Braddock testified against the Chrystlies in
exchange for immunity. He claimed he helped Todd commit fraud
for years and was involved in faking documents, forging signatures,
and submitting false applications. He also claimed they paid off
(33:00):
banks using newly fraudulently obtained loans, operating almost like a
Ponzi scheme, which is what we talked about. And then
there's also evidence of spending beyond their actual income. Despite
claiming little to know income on taxes and bankruptcy forms,
the Chrystlies spent tens of thousands monthly on luxury items,
paid for designer clothing, private school tuition, luxury cars, and
(33:23):
rent for multimillion dollar homes. The prosecution highlighted this to
show that the Chrystlies were not simply bad with money,
that they were intentionally living beyond their means while lying
to banks and to the government. And lastly, there was
a pattern of concealing the income. The Chrystlies use various
strategies to avoid detection, including routing income through a production
(33:44):
company controlled by Julie to shield it from the IRS,
and claiming to have little personal income while receiving thousands
per month via other entities.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Losers.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
The conviction and sentencing, the jury found them both guilty
on all counts in November of twenty twenty two. Todd
was sentenced to twelve years, Julie was sent in to
sentence to seven years, and both were also given sixteen
months of probation following their following release.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well, he had twelve years and so he got seven.
So they spent three years. Give her take what do
you mean?
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Yeah, less than three years?
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yes, So in January of twenty twenty three, they report
to prison. Todd reports to the Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola, Florida,
and Julie reports to Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
So what happened to the children. At twenty five years old,
Savannah Chrisley became the legal guardian and family spokesperson. She
took custody of her younger brother, Grayson, who's sixteen, and
(34:42):
niece Chloe, who was ten. And this was Todd and
Julie's adopted granddaughter. Because Todd had two children from a
previous marriage, he was married before, so he's been married twice,
so he has two. He has two children from his
first marriage. He had a falling out I believe with
the daughter, and she was kind of a strange from
the family. I don't think she was part of the
(35:03):
reality show or anything, but I think she did offer
support for them publicly when they went to press.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
To be fair, we won't judge the family affairs because
we don't really know any Yeah, but the stealing money
is a problem, Okay, and then I'll judge all day long.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
That you're going to judge. And he also had a
son from his first marriage who had Chloe, who is
the granddaughter. And then I believe the son had some
substance abuse issues, so Todd and Julie adopted the granddaughter.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
So they prior to going to prison.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Prior to going to prison. Yes, she became the public
so we're talking about Savannah. Savannah became the public face
of the family, frequently speaking out in interviews and on
her podcast Unlocked with Savannah Chrisly about the injustice she
believed her parents faced. She continually expressed being overwhelmed. I mean,
she is taking care of the kids, so I get that,
(35:53):
but was committed to keeping the family together. Quote, I'm
helping raise two children while also dealing with the loss
of my parents being in a way, she said in
a twenty twenty three interview. Savannah's older brother, Chase, did
not become a legal guardian. However, he did support Savannah
and helping with the two younger ones, Grayson and Chloe.
So Savannah has been the one that's been working tirelessly
(36:16):
to have her parents pardon. Let's just talk about pardon
power so that we know where that comes from. So
the president's power to grant pardons comes from. It's outlined
in article yes the Constitution, Article two, Section two, Clause
one of the Constitution. I like to give you guys
(36:37):
this little bits of like interesting legal to me, it's interesting.
I love the Constitution. I actually had a small pocket
version of the Constitution that I just had in my purse.
I mean along with yeah, I would like to read
it along with like snacks and you know, sandwiches. I
also have a copy of the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Okay. I never knew that this.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Power is broad but not limitless, and it allows the
president to offer forgiveness and restore rights to individuals convicted
of federal crimes. Pardon power is explicitly limited to federal
offenses only, not state offenses, and this means the president
cannot pardon individuals for crimes committed under state or local laws.
So on May twenty seven, twenty twenty five, the presidential
(37:19):
pardon is granted. President Donald Trump issues full pardons to
both Todd and Julie Chrislely. The pardon cites claims of
unfair prosecution and procedural irregularities and the trial. The couple
is released from prison having served roughly two years. All right,
first of all, what is your thoughts. I know we
(37:40):
were having this conversation, but you were saying you didn't
think that they should be pardoned. If anything, you felt
like their sentence should have been commuted.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Right, because a pardon pretty much says you didn't do
the crime right, or you were unfairly prosecuted and you
know you shouldn't have been found guilty, or something to
that effect. I don't know. If there's there's paper trails,
it's a crime not of testimony, but of just like
their own signing documents. And I disagree based on what
(38:10):
I know, I disagree with the pardon. If anything, commuting
the sentence would have been better, because then it'd be
like Okay, you know what, that's more like, you did
the crime, You did enough time. Your sense was harsh.
This is enough. You're not a risk of society. If anything,
can be more productive, and we don't have to pay
for you to sit in jail, so you sent them out.
I think a pardon was not a good idea. I
(38:33):
disagree with that, and I think, and now that it's
fifty million dollars, I definitely think they should be in jail.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Still in jail. Do you think two years was not
enough time?
Speaker 2 (38:41):
No?
Speaker 1 (38:43):
No, you know what.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
The the should be an eye for an eye. It
should be like you're not allowed to have more than
five hundred dollars in your pocket at any given time.
You cannot be rich anymore because your phony. So you're
saying they lived a life or luxury and now they
should suffer.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
So you're saying, if someone commits fraud to live extravagant
life style, they should never be able to live in
extravagant lifestyle again, even if they earned it legitimately after
they came out of prison. You're just not allowed to
ever be rich again. That's your punishment.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
So.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
In other news, Savannah Christly addresses rumors about her parents' pardons.
Days after Todd Christly and Julie Chrisly were released from prison,
their daughter addressed conspiracy theories about her year's long efforts
to free her parents from behind bars.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Obviously, the biggest misconception right now is that I either
paid for a pardon or I slept for a pardon,
Savannah told the media.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
A lot.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
You Well, she's very attractive.
Speaker 2 (39:45):
She looks like him. He is pretty. He is pretty.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
Okay, she's pretty. They're both pretty. Savannah told the media
alongside Todd during a May thirtieth press conference.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
I just have very little sympathy for people that take
other people's money knowingly. This isn't This isn't like a
business venture that went bad or they kept throwing good
money after bad because they were.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
They were trying to have something.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
Authornically, they were genuinely trying something, even if it was
poor decision, they should have known better. Yeah, this is.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
Like intentional fraudulent. They were big fifty million dollars that
are doctored. Here's the argument, and this is where I
think people like when you talk about Menendez, there's clearly
victims and brutality. When you talk about a crime like this,
there isn't. I think people look at it people, but
I don't think people see it that way. I think
(40:36):
people see it as a victimless crime.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
It's not I don't I never really understood victim. I
guess meaning there's no individual person harmed, and I think
it's still a crime.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
I think also people I have a problem with capitalism
a lot, and they feel like people like this are
just sticking it to like the you know, banks and
you know, the like there's no there's there's no actual victim.
You know, when people don't pay their car payments and
they're like, so what so land Rover doesn't get my money?
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Or well, well that would that would be okay. If
the person was fell flat, flat on flat on their
fees at the term and they had no money and
they couldn't pay, then it's not a it's not criminal.
It's just a financial situation. This is criminal. I'm sorry,
but you take fifty million dollars or more so, you
because you think you should live a certain lifestyle. Screw them.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
She also states during a press conference that if people
knew the countless hours and money in time I spent
going to d C literally with not a meeting scheduled,
and I just got on a plane and went and said,
I'm going to be in the right room and the
right time, I meet the right people. So basically, I
know she spoke during the RNC and I think she
her She alleges that her parents were unfairly prosecuted and
(41:53):
gone after because they were supporters of Trump, so that
it was a political She was wrong.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
They were going after them because because they committed crimes
and owed fifty million dollars. She forgot that part.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, he claims in his press conference that they are
completely innocent.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
So I would But you know what, that's the thing,
the pardon. I bet you a million bucks that party
may it like, see, we didn't do anything. See that's right.
Now they can run around and claim innocence. But if
it was just commuted, then maybe they could not run
around and say we didn't do anything. They wouldn't have
that argument.
Speaker 1 (42:25):
Well, I would love for them to take the opportunity
to prove how they are innocent, because as far they.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Already had an opportunity and they sucked at it and
they went to.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
Jail for I know, but I'm saying now after the fact,
if you're going to do press conferences and continuously talk
about how you're innocent and you didn't do anything wrong
and that's why you were pardoned, then how are you innocent?
Let's see it?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Are we going to see him out? Bravo? Con I
don't know, beause I have some questions.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Todd also spoke and maintained that he and Julie did
not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Quote,
even though this pardon happened, I still was convicted of
something I did not do. It could be you, It
could be you, It could be any of you. He
said during a press conference that it.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
Could never be me because I will never take out
a loan for fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
Well it was falsified, fifi.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
I don't care whatever. I wouldn't falsify paperwork to get alane. Yeah,
so it will never be me.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
Chrisly Todd and Julie Cristly's alleged pricey demand for their
TV comeback raises eyebrows in Hollywood. This was an article
on Daily Mail. Apparently they are shopping or they're being
offered a brand new reality series documenting their return back
into their normal life post prison. According to sources, that
might not be a problem, as many TV production companies
(43:41):
are considering signing the couple. However, their price may be
a hindrance as they're seeking a seven figure payout. Recently,
some television producers opened up to The Daily Mail sharing
their thoughts about Todd and Julie's extremely high price tag. Quote,
we would love to work with them, but their price
tag is way too high.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
One the complication has no assets. Now he's got to
build up his wardrobe, right, He's got to catch up
on whatever procedures he didn't get while he was locked up.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
They also shared that they weren't entirely sure if Todd
and Joy would be worth such a huge amount, that's
the thing. Would people want to watch them? The producer asked.
Another producer revealed that the specific amount Todd and Julie
were requesting. According to them, the couple is allegedly asking
for a whopping five million dollar minimum to make a
reality show post prison. That's where their conversation starts. Five million,
(44:33):
but they're hoping for a bidding war to take the
price even higher.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
So it should be in the slammer.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
So you're not a fan, you're a fan. Listen, here's
my thoughts on pardoning. I understand and I understand the
Constitution and the president has pardon power, and I agree
with that. I feel, however, just because of the work
that I do and the things that I'm involved in.
I mean I look at cases and things, see things
all the time and meet people involved in the Innocence project.
My mind, I'm.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
Thinking, why are we at those cases?
Speaker 1 (45:02):
Why are we not taking it deeper? Are why is
there not a consultantdenzar.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
Or in addition to a pardons aar, they should have
a wrongly convicted zaar. Yeah, I would love it for
those because the lady that was appointed as the pardons are.
Speaker 1 (45:20):
Alice.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
She's awesome, she is and she's lived up to her
end of the deal of just being a good person
to society and trying to help those who you know,
need to get back up on their feet. And she's
the one that sought out the chrislies. I think in
some fashion. I mean, she was probably approached, but she
did her homework because I watched an interview with her,
(45:42):
she did her homework and she felt after doing her
homework that they were wrongly convicted or and definitely wrongly
sentenced or harshly sentenced. So I do know that she's
a pretty genuine good woman. So I hope that she
did her homework enough. But I still disagree.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Well, you disagree on I disagree.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Based on what I know, right, there might be things
I don't know. No, I know what I know, you
know what you know. I don't think I know what.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
I guess. The point of what I was saying was
in the in the field and the things that I
work in, and you have been involved in a lot
of it, and we meet a lot of people that
have been wrongfully convicted, and my question is why are
we not investing more time and energy into those cases
that the Innocence Project picks up and puts all this
time and energy.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Well, I guess the argument is if they were pardon
then the argument is they were wrongly convicted. So they were,
But I would.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
Rather I would just I would If we're going to
have pardoning power, we're going to pardon people. I would
rather pardon someone that has been in prison for a
long time that was either wrongfully.
Speaker 2 (46:43):
Convicted, like one of the cases that you help with,
or it takes they have evidence and now it still
takes yes years, yes to actually yes, get it overturned.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
I am released, right.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
But you're saying so when the president can just come in, well,
assuming it's a federal crime, when the president can come
in or the guf A R could come in his
boom and get him out.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, I just I wish there was I just needed
maybe the Christie should have a reality show where they
go around the prisons and they talk to people. That's
what they should do. Did you hear that, Todd and
Julie Chrisly if you're looking for a reality show because
they did complain. You see an interview with Todd Christly
where he does talk about the prison environment and how
(47:22):
bad it is and how bad the food is, and
he did say he said that African Americans are treated
more poorly than the white prisoners, and he said he
received privileges because he was white, and he he made
that known. He said it in an interview.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
See that's interesting. So you do your part and bring
all that to the public and expose those things and
try to make it better.
Speaker 1 (47:44):
Okay, I there, that's a good solution. We together would
get behind a reality show with the Chrislies if they
want to do prison reform or do some type of
Innocent's project or or work with wrongly convicted and.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
Then he has to give all his money back to
the bank.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Oh yes, but because he has to give the money
back to all right, that is the Chryslies will keep
you updated and on things that have to do with
Diddy and Lively and if there's any more that comes
with the Chrystlies will be aware of whether they get
their reality show or not, or whether they listen to
this podcast, and then we'll recap it, recap shot the
(48:23):
reality show. Yes, all right, thanks guys for listening to
Legally Brunette. We appreciate it. And as always a lot
of you send me dms and tell me your thoughts
about cases and cases that you think that we should
talk about. So I appreciate that, so please continue to
do that.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.