November 27, 2025 • 47 mins
Happy Thursday! Carlos and the Reali-TEA Crime Stories team have a wild one for you…Before a billion-dollar brand existed, there was a relationship. Before a reality dynasty, there was a “homemade” sextape. The Ray J and Kim Kardashian saga didn’t just make headlines—it changed pop culture forever. Carlos, Courtney, and Judge Terrinee are here to unpack it all!
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 (00:03):
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode, we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Rain drives. On today's episode, Reality Crime Stories.
My co host Cotney Parker and I are back along
with our guests Josh Tyranny. Where tonight's topic is We
(00:49):
are ditting into the fact that ray J is suing
Kim Kardashian in addition to her mother, Chris jenn Her.
This is a counter suit because Chris and Kim filed
a lawsuit against ray J for defamation because ray J
(01:12):
made the allegations that they were being investigated. So look,
we want to dive right into the story. How's it
going Courtney and just Tearney?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Hey, Carlos, is that a wife beater.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Allowed to say that anymore?
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yes, I can always tell how our episodes are going
to go. Based on your wardrobe.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Well, I feel like it's gonna go the way always go,
which is fun and informative. Right, you got I it's.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Given very adult tape.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh yeah, it's definitely giving ray J. W Wait a minute, wait.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Wait a minute, ain't that Brandy's brother? Yes, one of
my favorite songs by ray J featuring the iconic, legendary
Little Kim. So, look, we have to dive into this
because Cortney and judge Tyranny. I mean, where do we begin? So,
(02:24):
as we all know, look, ray J and Kim's pass
dates back to when they were dating before the reality
show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. At this time, I
believe she was not only just known as Paris Hilton's friend,
but she also was known as Brandy's closet organizer. This
(02:45):
is this is like the early days of Kimberly Noel.
We all know about the infamous sex tape that got released.
It propelled Kim to unforeseen hight. It made ray J
so of infamous. A lot of people saw what he's
taplele love.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Every day, and.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
They were famous in other ways. And then I felt
like we all said, Okay, the jig is up. We
know what happened, and I think we all moved on
and forgot about it, courtesy of the Kardashians being this
billion dollar empire. But recently all this has come to
a hit because on the Kardashians Hulu series What Happened
(03:33):
was in the premiere episode, Kim Kardashian, who at the
time was still married to Kanye West. She talked about
how they were allegedly allegedly more footage of his sex
tape and how people were threatening to re release it.
(03:54):
Long story short, Kanye came to the rescue filmed an
episode saying he confiscated the footage and she had nothing
to worry about. Ray J then decided to go on
Instagram Live and say, look, all of this is lies.
This was a deal set up, not a scheme that
Tas set up, honey, And he's saying this was a
scheme that Chris Jenner set up, that they were all
(04:17):
in on the gig. They all got something out of it.
And as a married man who is awesome uncle and
a father of two that he's he doesn't want to
be seen as like this awful guy, which we were like, okay, understood,
But then ray J recently suggested that the Kardashians were
(04:39):
going to be charged or are being charged allegedly with
racketeering charges, and that's when the Kardashians filed a lawsuit.
The sue claims that no such federal investigation exist and
that Brady's comments are part of a long running campaign
to exploit their fame, and now ray J com against
(05:04):
the Kardashians. He is saying that the defamation suit was
fouled for a publicity power and punishment, and that the
pair violated an earlier six million dollar settlement agreement where
(05:25):
ray J is alleging that in that scene where Kanye
West alleged that he confiscated the tapes, ray J at
the lawsuit and they settled for six million dollars and
sent never to bring it up again. So this is
where we are. So, Courtney, where you going to begin
with this story?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Listen? I will give a really brief disclaimer.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I know ray J personally, I was around met him
in two thousand and five. Friends, we are friends, I
can honestly say that. And what I will say is
I don't know the ins and outs of this current settlement,
(06:08):
this current lawsuit, but I will say ray J has
been saying the exact same story since I met him
in two thousand and five. I know firsthand that the
truth never changes. And RAYJ, with respect to this incident,
(06:28):
the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Of this.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Not being released without anyone's knowledge, everyone knew.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
He's been saying the exact same thing.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
And owning the exact same truth since two thousand and five.
So I will be biased in saying I believe ray J.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Out the gate.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
I will believe I believe ray J, have always believed
ray J with respect to this. But that doesn't negate
the fact that there is two new lawsuits out here.
And Judge Tyranny is going to educate us on what
some of these terms mean, what some of the allegations
(07:16):
mean for people, and just give us a little history
on what these filings mean and how much of this
is actually something that we as audiences, that people that
love both of these people and these brands, what this
(07:40):
means for the state of what happens in the dark
coming to the really coming to the light. So, if
you don't mind, I love to kick it off with
my first question for Judge Tyranny. Okay, so if you can,
Judge Tyranny and we all know you're a famous disclaimer
about not being able to.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Talk about open cases. Both of these.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Are our charges that are claims that are open. But
you can give us a little bit of an education
on what we're looking at, what we're hearing.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
So with this being.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
A allegation of defamation, what is what is kind of
required to prove a a RICO probe.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
That's being allocated, that's being.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Alleged, like, what's what's what's the proper showing to include falsity,
fault and or damages? And and what are we looking
at when we hear things like ray j countersteing for RICO.
(09:00):
So again, it's very nice for me not to be
the only person with a disclaimer this week, So rain Drops,
you can put your knife up when you're talking about me.
Courtney gave her disclaimer first, So.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I am glad that.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Partie is sharing some of the heat this week. But yes,
as she said, as I say every week, I cannot
comment on any ongone legal matter and I cannot give
any legal advice. But what I can do and hope
to do, is help for the public and the rain
Drops to understand better what is going on in different
(09:40):
legal lawsuits so that they have a better understanding of
the actual legal system. And when you speak of we'll
jump right into the defamation.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Let's start there because I know a lot of people
have questions about that I'm just.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Tyranny perfect, and so I think that it's very important
to understand that, you know, defamation isn't just about you
said something bad about someone, or they didn't lie, or
they lied, or you know you didn't like what they said.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
There is four elements to defamation. First, you have to
actually make a statement that can be provable as false
or true.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Second, you have to actually then prove that the statement
was actually done in a public form, meaning outside of
the two people involved. Thirdly, you actually have to have
caused some harm. And then, lastly, especially when we're dealing
(10:51):
with public figures, and this is very important, you actually
also have to show that it was done with malicious
intent or reckless disregard. So let me ask this question
because I'll say the stuff that you cannot say, and
(11:14):
then Carlos, please chine in with what we know will
be your thoughts. So, in this regard, Ray j countersuing
means that whatever settlement was reached, originally the fact that
she keeps bringing it back up and he's saying there
(11:35):
is no defamation because I actually have proof that these
are lies courtesy of these text messages and all the
paper trail and paperwork that he alleges he has in
his possession, and because they keep doing it and bringing
it up on their reality shows, which is a huge
(11:59):
public platform. Arm doesn't matter where he is it that,
it doesn't matter where they were at that point in
their life. It's where he is or he may be
feeling like he is now being the father of two,
having his own businesses and just not wanting to.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Be brought back to that person that he.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Was when they were, you know, well in their twenties.
Is that where why he's seeking defamation? Is that what
he is considering defaming towards him?
Speaker 1 (12:38):
This is reality with the King, and I'm Carlos King.
Let's get back into the show. So the thing is
this based on the history of it, Well, what I
feel like is going on is this, and I do
you want to understand the legalities of the situation from
a blanket standpoint of when a sex tape is involved
(12:58):
and what I stand a release of a sex tape
being legalized by both parties. So according to you answer
your question, ray J is saying, look, we made this
sex tape together. It was consent. I did not go
behind your back to release this. I wasn't this creepy
(13:20):
guy that submitted this to Vivid Entertainment right like, we
were both consenting adults having this relationship on camera. Ray
J has alleged that during this process of the sex
(13:41):
tape being released, ray J is alleging that, look, we
both got paid out of this. He is alleging that
Chris Jenner said I watched it. He's a legend she
watched it. He's alleging that Chris, in addition to I
believe other people said we need reshoots because allegedly they
(14:07):
didn't like how Kim looked in the in the in
the iteration of the first video, he's a last thing,
that they did reshoots, and that after the reshoots were
done and they tried to like sell that I sell that,
but package it. Rey J is alleging that they said,
let's go with the first one. Let's go with the
(14:28):
first one. Juste tyranny from my understanding, from a legal standpoint,
or any tape, whether it's sex tape, a tape of
me and my friends having brunch okay out a restaurant.
If a major corporation, a distribution entity called Vivid Entertainment, Okay,
(14:55):
is releasing it in exchange for pay. Right, the sex
tape was made available. It wasn't like things you see
on Twitter that you're not supposed to watch, but you
watch it anyway and you record it because it's going
to be taken down. No, this was distributed for release
(15:18):
in exchange for compensation from the consumer. In order for
that to happen. What we are realizing now that we're older,
is you can't release a sex tape of two people
without their release without their consent. Right that way, he's
a legend. He's like, are you guys crazy? This was
(15:41):
not in the legal situation because the company who distributed
the sexy could have went to jail. So, just from
a legal standpoint, is that true that in order for
something to be released of his magnitude for worldwide in perpetuity,
you need the consenting release of both parties.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
So I will say that in general when anytime you
are dealing with let's just go with IP content in
any form. You both have worked on television reality or drama,
and you know that in each one of those situations,
even when you have guests who are.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Not recurring stars, you get a release.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
And so those are things that companies generally are going
to always do to make sure that they are protected
and that.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
They have no liability.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
I think we also have to talk about contractual agreements. Yeah,
and so there would have had to have probably been
in place, not probably an agreement in place between.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Both parties, and then those parties and the distribution company
and so.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
On.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
You negotiate consenting adults, negotiate agreements and terms. Then that
is really what a court is going to review to
determine if there has been a breach of that contract, right, Yeah,
and so yes, we can take you know, anytime we're
(17:21):
dealing with reality TV and celebrities, there's a lot that
goes on in the public. There are a lot of
public statements, there's a lot of gossip and father that
goes on and on and on. But remember, in a court,
we're always going to look at the evidence. It's going
to start with the documents and it is going to
finish with any authenticated evidence, not just simply going over
(17:47):
text messages. Or screenshots or headlines, and so I think
that when the audience thinks about this, they need to
realize that the legal documents are really going to control
the narrative in a courtroom.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Got it.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
So, one of the things that I've read from just
ray Ja's filing from November twenty twenty five, he's saying
that he is claiming breach of a contract based on
the alleged twenty twenty three settlement with a no discussion
provision and payment term. He cites references on the Hulu
(18:28):
show as a breach and he wants one hundred million
dollars settlement to remedy it. He's saying that there is
a breach of a settlement that was that came about.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
In twenty twenty three. So we do know that.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
There have been legal settlements that have been reached. So
I just wanted to make sure we saw this sound
and break it down for the audience.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
In two thousand and five, for the ip in question,
there was a negotiated contract, yep.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
Then we moved to twenty twenty three, and you are
saying that there is another new negotiated contract. Then we
moved to twenty twenty five, and you were saying one
of the parties has alleged a breach of that twenty
twenty three agreement. So I think it's very essential for
(19:26):
us to understand that the two thousand and five and
the twenty and twenty three agreements are separate, or they
could be an extension. But in order to revise any contract,
you do need the mutual agreement of both parties, and
in general, you're going to have to exchange something of
(19:49):
value again.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
In order for the new contract to be valid.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Otherwise the terms of the original contract would still stand.
And again we don't know or I don't know especially
any of the terms from two thousand and five or
twenty twenty three to know if it was two separate
contracts or simply an amendment.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Okay, because it is the same subject matter, right, This.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
This is the thing that I do find interesting, And
this isn't a legal question, but obviously Judge hearing, if
you want to search yourself on the legalities of this,
please feel free. Well, it's fascinating about this because when
you when you sort of sit back, you know, I
am one of the biggest Kim Kardashian fans in the
(20:45):
world like I'm Carlos with a ka sometimes with that
being said, because my lafetime is king too. But with
that being said, one thing that I've always said is, look,
there's other celebrities who had a sex tape, even her
predecessor Paris hillt right the post Kim Kardashian arrows meet
(21:10):
me files from Love and Hip Hop Atlanta. One thing
about according not too much. One thing about that's my
friend and I love her.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Friend, and I love her as well.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Thank you to put that sex tape in the same
bracket this. Come on, talk about that, Orehanna, another flanger
I've seen neither.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
I can't. I can't.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
I've seen them all.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
A legal term, we plead the fifth. Now what that
One thing that I do find fascinating is the fact that, look,
she has a mass, this billion dollar brand, and I
do believe she's a hard worker. I don't believe it's luck.
(22:05):
I don't believe in luck. I do believe in hard
work meets preparation plus obviously and foremost God's plan. I
think all of that equal success, right God first, a
great work, ethic and preparation, honey, with equal success in
any fields that you have and you can't deny that
(22:27):
this woman has achieved that, not only for herself, but
for her familyly. She is the she is the currency
that has provided this empire of wealth for her family,
right like she should be on the family crest, like
it should be her pictures saying because of this woman,
(22:49):
we are all able. Do you know what I mean?
With that being said for her? You said, what, Yes,
that's what I believe. Now with that being said, though,
this is the part that I will never understand. I
feel like all of us has forgotten about the sex
(23:11):
tape because she has done so much. Ray j has said.
This is what ray Je said. Ragjie said, Look, I'm
moved on with my life. Princess loves my wife. It's strange.
I'll be it my wife, I got two kids, I'm
a loving hip hop and every single reality show on
Zoos and in the world. He has a mass money
(23:32):
for himself, honey. And at the end of the day,
my sister is Brandy. So Braggant writes brother in life, Well,
he is saying that a lot of people are like
ray J's points made. Chris Jenner was on The James
Cordon Show and she had a lie Detective Test segment
and they asked her in this lie detective test segment,
is it true that you were behind the release of
(23:52):
chem sex tape? She said no, The lo detective test
said she's telling the truth. Ray J was pissed about
that because once again he's like, I'm not a liar.
So that was that was sort of like strike what
And again you're sort of like why even ask the question? No,
we don't care. I feel like no one cares. Then
it was the Kardashian's premiere episode where Kanye came to
(24:16):
save the day. It was sort of like, I don't
need this as a storyline. I really see what happened
between you and Kanye in terms of the destruction of
your marriage. Ray J once again was like he acted
out because AJ then went as far as to do
an independent interview a legend racketeering. Do you guys and
(24:40):
again it's not a legal question, but do you guys see? Okay,
we now understand that ray J did not come out
of nowhere and proclaim this. But and when I say
proclaimed this meaning his innocence, but do we think ray
J went too far the racketeering charges? Because I think
(25:03):
and this while we'll bring you in judge. If they
were charged with racketeering charges, I'm assuming that'll be public record.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
So we talked about this before, but just again for
a moment.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Of clarity, that's understanding with reco charges there are phases.
So during a rego charge, there's an investigative phase. There
is a phase where you actually decide if you're going
to present to the grand jury, and then there is
a phase where you're going to actually indict and charge.
(25:38):
And so throughout this journey you could start off as
a person of interest and by the time they get
to the grand jury, you are a targeted person, meaning
we are looking to see if there are criminal charges
that may be filed against you. Again, without knowing any
(26:00):
of the facts or being in ray J's brain, there's
no way for the public to know what he may
or may not know, which is again, I'm assuming why
the plain of file they lawsuit to begin with. And
(26:23):
ray J answered and said his response, but that's why
you cannot use public relations or PR strategies to discuss cases.
You have to follow the facts and let these things
unfold in court.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
And I understand that people love hypotheticals because they play well,
what in the media.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
But I will say that social media is very, very loud,
but the courtroom is much quieter.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on,
hold on. This is what Oprah Winfrey calls not a
drop mic but a light bulb moment.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Yes, I love that.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
One more time.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Social media is very loud, but the courtroom is very quiet. H.
The courtroom is going to follow the evidence, and each
party is going to be able to do so. I
do think to be able to present the facts of
(27:42):
their case in a courtroom, I do think that it's
worth mentioning mentioning the anti slap laws, yes, which are
in place to make sure early on for a judge
in any lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And I've said this before. Anybody can file a.
Speaker 4 (27:59):
Lawsuit, but when we're talking about a defamation lawsuit, the
anti slap laws and statutes were put in place to
make sure that people are not filing lawsuits to silence others.
And so there may be a motion presented in court
(28:21):
where a judge is going to have to review early
on the merits of the case to say, is this case.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Factually meyrit with factual.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Accusations that can move forward on the merits or is
this an attempt to silence someone?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
So it's not a.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
Determination of who's right or who's wrong, or who did
this or who did that, And especially when you're dealing
with public figures, it's just to say, Okay, let's make
sure everyone is playing by the rules. Can you elaborate
a little bit more on what the anti slap law
(29:04):
actually is for some of us as when I read
that yesterday and while doing the research on this, I
was like, Okay, what does that really mean and how
does it protect?
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Who does it protect?
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Per se?
Speaker 4 (29:22):
It protects the public because again, is to make sure
that people do not file frivolous lawsuits. And if a
judge determines that you file this lawsuit based on the
merits or the elements of the anti slap then they
(29:43):
can award the other party attorneys feats.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
So but the whole, the whole.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
Goal is to make sure that I am not trying
to use a lawsuit to intimidate you to silence you.
And I think it's also clear to know that this
is a state by state law. Okay, So this is
(30:11):
that there's no federal anti slap law. God that is
a state law, but depending on the state, some federal
curtains will allow.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
You to present that argument.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
In this respect, the more power that a person like
a Kim Kardashian has, it could potentially it could potentially
work against her, especially if ray J is claiming that
she keeps doing all of this as a publicity ploy,
(30:53):
as a ploy for publicity, and it's it's interesting the
timing of all of this. And again I'm not alleging
that she is at fault for doing this, but I
can say just given the track record and history of
just her, like I provided for us, even in our research,
(31:17):
there was a timeline of events surrounding Kim and this
you know, this sex tape and it there have been
lots of allegations of and claims that are conveniently positioned.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
On both sides.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Actually, so my question is, as she's gained more power,
more notoriety, and ray J has been very steady in
his statements of, hey, we agree to do this thing
way back when we have both.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Evolved in our own set on our own.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Separate paths, but we also agreed to just not talk
about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Like we've all moved on. We should have moved on.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
The more popular you become one party becomes, the more antagonizing.
It also becomes for somebody such as Ray J. So
I like that these this anti slap is in place
to at least help us as the public and the
consumers of all of these stories, understand that you cannot
(32:36):
You should not file these claims for hype and then
settle quietly. You're loud with the accusations. You should be
equally loud.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
And accountable for what you put out there.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Yeah, and I think that.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
What you're saying focuses on the timing in the sense
of the courtroom and the legal system.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
So again.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
You have to focus on the timeline of when all
of this happened, when the alleged breach happened, and the courts.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Are also going to consider.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
Who actually had the authority to release.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Old footage new footage, stop.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
It from entering into the marketplace, continuing to let it
move forward. Is it new in the sense of its
newly released but it's still old footage, or is it
new something.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
That was said recently?
Speaker 4 (33:57):
So when you speak of timing, I understand what you're saying,
but every time I hear you say it, I think
about the timing of the facts of the case, and
that is what's going to play out in a courtroom
to decide if there is actually a breach in this
case to begin with, if there's actually a defamation, and
(34:18):
if there's actually a privacy of some expectation of any
part of this saga.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Carlos, I have.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
A question for you, because I don't know if you've
watched All's Fair to Kardashian's new show that fighting viciously
and ferociously for all things women, these kinds of scenarios
(34:50):
play out on those on the show, similar situations have
been playing out.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Do you think and I know the rain drops.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
I love asking questions for the rain drops because that
in that sense we think alike like the the messy
middle questions. I'm gonna ask you, Carlos, do you think
that the timing the terrible ratings that this has that
they've been getting, They've been getting a lot of I
(35:22):
like the show personally, I'm in I'm in for All's
Fair and the fashion of it all. But because it
has been getting a lot of negative, negative, negative reviews,
do you think that them filing this lawsuit, the Kardashian's
filing this lawsuit. Now Kim filing the lawsuit now has
(35:45):
any bearing.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Eye You don't, No, And I'll say why because, in
the words of just Tyranny, it's the timing of the facts. Yes,
Carlos King esquire. Yeah. The reason why I say that
is because I look at the time he governed, right,
So they the show All this fair came out October,
(36:12):
No November, it was like two weeks ago. It came
out two weeks ago. But yes, in October, though, is
when Kim and Chris fault the defamation loss to against
ray j. So that happened October, which yes, yes, yeah, yes,
is a month before the premiere. But we also have
(36:33):
to remember that what happened was in May of twenty
twenty five, is when he made these allegations, right as
he was featured in the TMZ documentary talking about the
federal case against Sean Puppy Combs where he did stay
(36:53):
and I quote, if you told me that the Kardashians
was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it. And
then you know, listen Courtney in May, quiet as a
church mouse. Nobody said Nate that right. It was then
escalated in September of twenty twenty five during a live
stream where ray J alleged that he was working with
(37:16):
federal authorities to build a racketeering case against Kim Kardashian
and Chris Jenner that was, in his worst worse than ditties.
At the time, he presented no evidence. So then on
October first, right, so he doubled out on it in September.
October first is when Kim Kardashian Chris Jenner filed the
(37:40):
defamation lawsuit against ray J in Los Angeles Superior Los
Angeles County Superior Course. So I don't think this has
anything to do with with the promotion of All's Fair.
All's Fair. The ratings so far have been great, the
reviews have been terrible. But like you, I'm watching it.
I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
I think I think if i'm if I'm Kim and Chris.
In May, you told TMZ in the documentary that if
we were charged with the racketeering, you would believe it. Okay,
some might say, Okay, he tried it, let's move on, Like,
(38:22):
let's move on it.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Then June July August September, four months later, you go
on live stream and you're saying you're working with federal authorities.
Now it's like you could be messing up my Skimsdale brand.
My children have to see, like, Mami, are you being
charged with the racketeering? So I think they have to
(38:47):
do something to stop this from brewing, and right, can
I just.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Put a footnote into the elementary please, dude, just.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
One more time. We talked about it when we started.
But the one.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
You have to make a statement that can be proven
true or false.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
It is not an opinion, okay, See, it has to
be in the public form three.
Speaker 4 (39:16):
It actually has to be false. But remember there has
to be harm. It can be financial or reputationally.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
But there is another element.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
When you are.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Talking about a public figure. That person had to knowingly
make a malicious statement with reckless disregard of the harmit
with costs. Those are a lot of elements to prove, right.
(39:54):
So again I want to restate that social media, the Internet,
text messages, screenshots, SoundBite bites taken out of context is
not evidence.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
And it may not even be admitted as evidence in
a court.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
It has to be authenticated as evidence by a judge
and allowed to be presented.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
How was a judge able to authenticate the validity of
something like a text message.
Speaker 4 (40:30):
Well, it's not the judge that does that actually authenticates it.
The judge makes the decision whether it is going to
be admitted as authenticated evidence. The lawyers for each side
is going to put forward an argument of why it
should be admitted.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
Got it Okay?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
Well, listen, even though she didn't pass the bar, she
is getting a lot of practice within her own personal
life in dealing.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
With this madness. Courtney, shame.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Judge, Judge is Courtney. Of course it was shade.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Delayed response.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
That's what I'm talking about. But no, listen, it's one
of those things where this is ongoing. And again I
just go back to it's so wild because you know,
this all happened so many moons ago, and I just
(41:42):
feel like we, as you know, the audience, we sort
of I feel like, listen, it goes to show you,
you know, beyond the work that she has done. And
so it has right Jah, I'm not gonna say her
by herself, Rank we we love he forgot about it
(42:02):
because this all has happened Judge Terry in two thousand
and seven, So to know that almost twenty years ago
we are dealing with. This is wild to me, but
you know, I want to make sure that I, you know,
say this legal note. The judge will be proud of
me for doing this. As of today, the legal battle
(42:26):
is ongoing. A lawyer for Kardashian Jenner has dismissed ray
J's counter suit as a frivolous and raveling distraction, and
both sides are now formally engage in litigation. The court
will need to determine the validity of both the defamation
(42:50):
and breach of contract claims as the case proceeds.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
And again, I want to go back to the timeline
because I know that you mentioned has happened so long ago, right,
But Courtney mentioned that there was a new contract that
was negotiated in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
That's not that long ago.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
Well, and just so I'm clear the contract that was
allegedly negotiate, because this is ray J's plan, was it
was a settlement for him saying he was the fame
on the Kardashians. Because I want to make sure holds.
I want to make sure I say exactly what he
(43:37):
alleged that was said on the show. One second, because
it was it was it was a word that they
used on the show, and I want to make sure
that I'd say exactly what he is saying he heard
or what they said on the show.
Speaker 4 (43:56):
Which may would violate the no discussion provision. And based
off of that settlement, what did they say?
Speaker 1 (44:04):
Yeah, I'm doing my research now, okayfession.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
Has confidentiality clauses in contracts that prevents people from speaking
about the matter. And again, generally, if you have a
breach a contract, there's going to generally be some kind
of monetary damages involved if you have been ruled.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
To actually breach that contract.
Speaker 4 (44:35):
Not often, but sometimes there can be punitive damages awarded.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Again, but the conduct would have had to be a greecious.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Yes, So this is what it was on the Kardashian
episode that aired April twenty twenty two. On the show,
it his complained. The complaint claims that Kardashian said ray
J gave their leak sex tape which he knows he
never present as to his former manager, and that he
sexually assaulted her while she was asleep.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Oh and there was a settlement.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
Yeah, so then, j Okay, So that states may involved
civil and criminal allegations.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
Yes, so ray J and this is all in the
this is all public record, ray J states that he
messaged Kardashian on Instagram in April twenty twenty two to
confront her about the remarks made about him on The
Kardashians Kardashian This is, according to him, He's alleging that
Kardashian begged him to go along with yet another false
story that she wanted to run on the show, that
(45:42):
they were working with Vivid to remove the sex tape
from the Internet, and then when ray J subsequently sued
Kardashian Jenna over the statements, the trio reached a settlement
in April twenty twenty three. Per the following According to
the cross complaint, kardashianer and their production company allegedly agreed
(46:02):
to pay ray J six million dollars to ensure that
no further mention or public reference to the sex tape
is mentioned on The Kardashians, and any further disparagement entitles
ray J two one million dollars in liquid ted damages.
So this will be ongoing. Listen, this is this is
(46:26):
like Courney said, this seems like an episode all fair
which rain droft. You can catch on Hulu every Tuesday night.
Just Tarranny Courtney Parker Corney Parker says she'll be watching.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
Yeah, and I will say it as we lead, just
because you guys loved it so much. Just remember that
the courtroom is quiet in social media because the courtroom
is where the real decisions will be made.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
Amen, herey here we all right, rain drop. That's another
episode Reality Crime Stories, and we'll see you next time
with another one. Reality with the King is executive produced
by me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a
(47:14):
partnership with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find
us on my YouTube channel at the Carlos King Underscore
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode, we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Rain drives. On today's episode, Reality Crime Stories.
My co host Cotney Parker and I are back along
with our guests Josh Tyranny. Where tonight's topic is We
(00:49):
are ditting into the fact that ray J is suing
Kim Kardashian in addition to her mother, Chris jenn Her.
This is a counter suit because Chris and Kim filed
a lawsuit against ray J for defamation because ray J
(01:12):
made the allegations that they were being investigated. So look,
we want to dive right into the story. How's it
going Courtney and just Tearney?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Hey, Carlos, is that a wife beater.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Allowed to say that anymore?
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yes, I can always tell how our episodes are going
to go. Based on your wardrobe.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Well, I feel like it's gonna go the way always go,
which is fun and informative. Right, you got I it's.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Given very adult tape.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh yeah, it's definitely giving ray J. W Wait a minute, wait.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Wait a minute, ain't that Brandy's brother? Yes, one of
my favorite songs by ray J featuring the iconic, legendary
Little Kim. So, look, we have to dive into this
because Cortney and judge Tyranny. I mean, where do we begin? So,
(02:24):
as we all know, look, ray J and Kim's pass
dates back to when they were dating before the reality
show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. At this time, I
believe she was not only just known as Paris Hilton's friend,
but she also was known as Brandy's closet organizer. This
(02:45):
is this is like the early days of Kimberly Noel.
We all know about the infamous sex tape that got released.
It propelled Kim to unforeseen hight. It made ray J
so of infamous. A lot of people saw what he's
taplele love.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Every day, and.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
They were famous in other ways. And then I felt
like we all said, Okay, the jig is up. We
know what happened, and I think we all moved on
and forgot about it, courtesy of the Kardashians being this
billion dollar empire. But recently all this has come to
a hit because on the Kardashians Hulu series What Happened
(03:33):
was in the premiere episode, Kim Kardashian, who at the
time was still married to Kanye West. She talked about
how they were allegedly allegedly more footage of his sex
tape and how people were threatening to re release it.
(03:54):
Long story short, Kanye came to the rescue filmed an
episode saying he confiscated the footage and she had nothing
to worry about. Ray J then decided to go on
Instagram Live and say, look, all of this is lies.
This was a deal set up, not a scheme that
Tas set up, honey, And he's saying this was a
scheme that Chris Jenner set up, that they were all
(04:17):
in on the gig. They all got something out of it.
And as a married man who is awesome uncle and
a father of two that he's he doesn't want to
be seen as like this awful guy, which we were like, okay, understood,
But then ray J recently suggested that the Kardashians were
(04:39):
going to be charged or are being charged allegedly with
racketeering charges, and that's when the Kardashians filed a lawsuit.
The sue claims that no such federal investigation exist and
that Brady's comments are part of a long running campaign
to exploit their fame, and now ray J com against
(05:04):
the Kardashians. He is saying that the defamation suit was
fouled for a publicity power and punishment, and that the
pair violated an earlier six million dollar settlement agreement where
(05:25):
ray J is alleging that in that scene where Kanye
West alleged that he confiscated the tapes, ray J at
the lawsuit and they settled for six million dollars and
sent never to bring it up again. So this is
where we are. So, Courtney, where you going to begin
with this story?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Listen? I will give a really brief disclaimer.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I know ray J personally, I was around met him
in two thousand and five. Friends, we are friends, I
can honestly say that. And what I will say is
I don't know the ins and outs of this current settlement,
(06:08):
this current lawsuit, but I will say ray J has
been saying the exact same story since I met him
in two thousand and five. I know firsthand that the
truth never changes. And RAYJ, with respect to this incident,
(06:28):
the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Of this.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Not being released without anyone's knowledge, everyone knew.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
He's been saying the exact same thing.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
And owning the exact same truth since two thousand and five.
So I will be biased in saying I believe ray J.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Out the gate.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
I will believe I believe ray J, have always believed
ray J with respect to this. But that doesn't negate
the fact that there is two new lawsuits out here.
And Judge Tyranny is going to educate us on what
some of these terms mean, what some of the allegations
(07:16):
mean for people, and just give us a little history
on what these filings mean and how much of this
is actually something that we as audiences, that people that
love both of these people and these brands, what this
(07:40):
means for the state of what happens in the dark
coming to the really coming to the light. So, if
you don't mind, I love to kick it off with
my first question for Judge Tyranny. Okay, so if you can,
Judge Tyranny and we all know you're a famous disclaimer
about not being able to.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Talk about open cases. Both of these.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Are our charges that are claims that are open. But
you can give us a little bit of an education
on what we're looking at, what we're hearing.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
So with this being.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
A allegation of defamation, what is what is kind of
required to prove a a RICO probe.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
That's being allocated, that's being.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Alleged, like, what's what's what's the proper showing to include falsity,
fault and or damages? And and what are we looking
at when we hear things like ray j countersteing for RICO.
(09:00):
So again, it's very nice for me not to be
the only person with a disclaimer this week, So rain Drops,
you can put your knife up when you're talking about me.
Courtney gave her disclaimer first, So.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I am glad that.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Partie is sharing some of the heat this week. But yes,
as she said, as I say every week, I cannot
comment on any ongone legal matter and I cannot give
any legal advice. But what I can do and hope
to do, is help for the public and the rain
Drops to understand better what is going on in different
(09:40):
legal lawsuits so that they have a better understanding of
the actual legal system. And when you speak of we'll
jump right into the defamation.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Let's start there because I know a lot of people
have questions about that I'm just.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Tyranny perfect, and so I think that it's very important
to understand that, you know, defamation isn't just about you
said something bad about someone, or they didn't lie, or
they lied, or you know you didn't like what they said.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
There is four elements to defamation. First, you have to
actually make a statement that can be provable as false
or true.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Second, you have to actually then prove that the statement
was actually done in a public form, meaning outside of
the two people involved. Thirdly, you actually have to have
caused some harm. And then, lastly, especially when we're dealing
(10:51):
with public figures, and this is very important, you actually
also have to show that it was done with malicious
intent or reckless disregard. So let me ask this question
because I'll say the stuff that you cannot say, and
(11:14):
then Carlos, please chine in with what we know will
be your thoughts. So, in this regard, Ray j countersuing
means that whatever settlement was reached, originally the fact that
she keeps bringing it back up and he's saying there
(11:35):
is no defamation because I actually have proof that these
are lies courtesy of these text messages and all the
paper trail and paperwork that he alleges he has in
his possession, and because they keep doing it and bringing
it up on their reality shows, which is a huge
(11:59):
public platform. Arm doesn't matter where he is it that,
it doesn't matter where they were at that point in
their life. It's where he is or he may be
feeling like he is now being the father of two,
having his own businesses and just not wanting to.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Be brought back to that person that he.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Was when they were, you know, well in their twenties.
Is that where why he's seeking defamation? Is that what
he is considering defaming towards him?
Speaker 1 (12:38):
This is reality with the King, and I'm Carlos King.
Let's get back into the show. So the thing is
this based on the history of it, Well, what I
feel like is going on is this, and I do
you want to understand the legalities of the situation from
a blanket standpoint of when a sex tape is involved
(12:58):
and what I stand a release of a sex tape
being legalized by both parties. So according to you answer
your question, ray J is saying, look, we made this
sex tape together. It was consent. I did not go
behind your back to release this. I wasn't this creepy
(13:20):
guy that submitted this to Vivid Entertainment right like, we
were both consenting adults having this relationship on camera. Ray
J has alleged that during this process of the sex
(13:41):
tape being released, ray J is alleging that, look, we
both got paid out of this. He is alleging that
Chris Jenner said I watched it. He's a legend she
watched it. He's alleging that Chris, in addition to I
believe other people said we need reshoots because allegedly they
(14:07):
didn't like how Kim looked in the in the in
the iteration of the first video, he's a last thing,
that they did reshoots, and that after the reshoots were
done and they tried to like sell that I sell that,
but package it. Rey J is alleging that they said,
let's go with the first one. Let's go with the
(14:28):
first one. Juste tyranny from my understanding, from a legal standpoint,
or any tape, whether it's sex tape, a tape of
me and my friends having brunch okay out a restaurant.
If a major corporation, a distribution entity called Vivid Entertainment, Okay,
(14:55):
is releasing it in exchange for pay. Right, the sex
tape was made available. It wasn't like things you see
on Twitter that you're not supposed to watch, but you
watch it anyway and you record it because it's going
to be taken down. No, this was distributed for release
(15:18):
in exchange for compensation from the consumer. In order for
that to happen. What we are realizing now that we're older,
is you can't release a sex tape of two people
without their release without their consent. Right that way, he's
a legend. He's like, are you guys crazy? This was
(15:41):
not in the legal situation because the company who distributed
the sexy could have went to jail. So, just from
a legal standpoint, is that true that in order for
something to be released of his magnitude for worldwide in perpetuity,
you need the consenting release of both parties.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
So I will say that in general when anytime you
are dealing with let's just go with IP content in
any form. You both have worked on television reality or drama,
and you know that in each one of those situations,
even when you have guests who are.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Not recurring stars, you get a release.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
And so those are things that companies generally are going
to always do to make sure that they are protected
and that.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
They have no liability.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
I think we also have to talk about contractual agreements. Yeah,
and so there would have had to have probably been
in place, not probably an agreement in place between.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Both parties, and then those parties and the distribution company
and so.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
On.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
You negotiate consenting adults, negotiate agreements and terms. Then that
is really what a court is going to review to
determine if there has been a breach of that contract, right, Yeah,
and so yes, we can take you know, anytime we're
(17:21):
dealing with reality TV and celebrities, there's a lot that
goes on in the public. There are a lot of
public statements, there's a lot of gossip and father that
goes on and on and on. But remember, in a court,
we're always going to look at the evidence. It's going
to start with the documents and it is going to
finish with any authenticated evidence, not just simply going over
(17:47):
text messages. Or screenshots or headlines, and so I think
that when the audience thinks about this, they need to
realize that the legal documents are really going to control
the narrative in a courtroom.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Got it.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
So, one of the things that I've read from just
ray Ja's filing from November twenty twenty five, he's saying
that he is claiming breach of a contract based on
the alleged twenty twenty three settlement with a no discussion
provision and payment term. He cites references on the Hulu
(18:28):
show as a breach and he wants one hundred million
dollars settlement to remedy it. He's saying that there is
a breach of a settlement that was that came about.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
In twenty twenty three. So we do know that.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
There have been legal settlements that have been reached. So
I just wanted to make sure we saw this sound
and break it down for the audience.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
In two thousand and five, for the ip in question,
there was a negotiated contract, yep.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
Then we moved to twenty twenty three, and you are
saying that there is another new negotiated contract. Then we
moved to twenty twenty five, and you were saying one
of the parties has alleged a breach of that twenty
twenty three agreement. So I think it's very essential for
(19:26):
us to understand that the two thousand and five and
the twenty and twenty three agreements are separate, or they
could be an extension. But in order to revise any contract,
you do need the mutual agreement of both parties, and
in general, you're going to have to exchange something of
(19:49):
value again.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
In order for the new contract to be valid.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Otherwise the terms of the original contract would still stand.
And again we don't know or I don't know especially
any of the terms from two thousand and five or
twenty twenty three to know if it was two separate
contracts or simply an amendment.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Okay, because it is the same subject matter, right, This.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
This is the thing that I do find interesting, And
this isn't a legal question, but obviously Judge hearing, if
you want to search yourself on the legalities of this,
please feel free. Well, it's fascinating about this because when
you when you sort of sit back, you know, I
am one of the biggest Kim Kardashian fans in the
(20:45):
world like I'm Carlos with a ka sometimes with that
being said, because my lafetime is king too. But with
that being said, one thing that I've always said is, look,
there's other celebrities who had a sex tape, even her
predecessor Paris hillt right the post Kim Kardashian arrows meet
(21:10):
me files from Love and Hip Hop Atlanta. One thing
about according not too much. One thing about that's my
friend and I love her.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Friend, and I love her as well.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Thank you to put that sex tape in the same
bracket this. Come on, talk about that, Orehanna, another flanger
I've seen neither.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
I can't. I can't.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
I've seen them all.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
A legal term, we plead the fifth. Now what that
One thing that I do find fascinating is the fact that, look,
she has a mass, this billion dollar brand, and I
do believe she's a hard worker. I don't believe it's luck.
(22:05):
I don't believe in luck. I do believe in hard
work meets preparation plus obviously and foremost God's plan. I
think all of that equal success, right God first, a
great work, ethic and preparation, honey, with equal success in
any fields that you have and you can't deny that
(22:27):
this woman has achieved that, not only for herself, but
for her familyly. She is the she is the currency
that has provided this empire of wealth for her family,
right like she should be on the family crest, like
it should be her pictures saying because of this woman,
(22:49):
we are all able. Do you know what I mean?
With that being said for her? You said, what, Yes,
that's what I believe. Now with that being said, though,
this is the part that I will never understand. I
feel like all of us has forgotten about the sex
(23:11):
tape because she has done so much. Ray j has said.
This is what ray Je said. Ragjie said, Look, I'm
moved on with my life. Princess loves my wife. It's strange.
I'll be it my wife, I got two kids, I'm
a loving hip hop and every single reality show on
Zoos and in the world. He has a mass money
(23:32):
for himself, honey. And at the end of the day,
my sister is Brandy. So Braggant writes brother in life, Well,
he is saying that a lot of people are like
ray J's points made. Chris Jenner was on The James
Cordon Show and she had a lie Detective Test segment
and they asked her in this lie detective test segment,
is it true that you were behind the release of
(23:52):
chem sex tape? She said no, The lo detective test
said she's telling the truth. Ray J was pissed about
that because once again he's like, I'm not a liar.
So that was that was sort of like strike what
And again you're sort of like why even ask the question? No,
we don't care. I feel like no one cares. Then
it was the Kardashian's premiere episode where Kanye came to
(24:16):
save the day. It was sort of like, I don't
need this as a storyline. I really see what happened
between you and Kanye in terms of the destruction of
your marriage. Ray J once again was like he acted
out because AJ then went as far as to do
an independent interview a legend racketeering. Do you guys and
(24:40):
again it's not a legal question, but do you guys see? Okay,
we now understand that ray J did not come out
of nowhere and proclaim this. But and when I say
proclaimed this meaning his innocence, but do we think ray
J went too far the racketeering charges? Because I think
(25:03):
and this while we'll bring you in judge. If they
were charged with racketeering charges, I'm assuming that'll be public record.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
So we talked about this before, but just again for
a moment.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Of clarity, that's understanding with reco charges there are phases.
So during a rego charge, there's an investigative phase. There
is a phase where you actually decide if you're going
to present to the grand jury, and then there is
a phase where you're going to actually indict and charge.
(25:38):
And so throughout this journey you could start off as
a person of interest and by the time they get
to the grand jury, you are a targeted person, meaning
we are looking to see if there are criminal charges
that may be filed against you. Again, without knowing any
(26:00):
of the facts or being in ray J's brain, there's
no way for the public to know what he may
or may not know, which is again, I'm assuming why
the plain of file they lawsuit to begin with. And
(26:23):
ray J answered and said his response, but that's why
you cannot use public relations or PR strategies to discuss cases.
You have to follow the facts and let these things
unfold in court.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
And I understand that people love hypotheticals because they play well,
what in the media.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
But I will say that social media is very, very loud,
but the courtroom is much quieter.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on,
hold on. This is what Oprah Winfrey calls not a
drop mic but a light bulb moment.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Yes, I love that.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
One more time.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Social media is very loud, but the courtroom is very quiet. H.
The courtroom is going to follow the evidence, and each
party is going to be able to do so. I
do think to be able to present the facts of
(27:42):
their case in a courtroom, I do think that it's
worth mentioning mentioning the anti slap laws, yes, which are
in place to make sure early on for a judge
in any lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And I've said this before. Anybody can file a.
Speaker 4 (27:59):
Lawsuit, but when we're talking about a defamation lawsuit, the
anti slap laws and statutes were put in place to
make sure that people are not filing lawsuits to silence others.
And so there may be a motion presented in court
(28:21):
where a judge is going to have to review early
on the merits of the case to say, is this case.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Factually meyrit with factual.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Accusations that can move forward on the merits or is
this an attempt to silence someone?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
So it's not a.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
Determination of who's right or who's wrong, or who did
this or who did that, And especially when you're dealing
with public figures, it's just to say, Okay, let's make
sure everyone is playing by the rules. Can you elaborate
a little bit more on what the anti slap law
(29:04):
actually is for some of us as when I read
that yesterday and while doing the research on this, I
was like, Okay, what does that really mean and how
does it protect?
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Who does it protect?
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Per se?
Speaker 4 (29:22):
It protects the public because again, is to make sure
that people do not file frivolous lawsuits. And if a
judge determines that you file this lawsuit based on the
merits or the elements of the anti slap then they
(29:43):
can award the other party attorneys feats.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
So but the whole, the whole.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
Goal is to make sure that I am not trying
to use a lawsuit to intimidate you to silence you.
And I think it's also clear to know that this
is a state by state law. Okay, So this is
(30:11):
that there's no federal anti slap law. God that is
a state law, but depending on the state, some federal
curtains will allow.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
You to present that argument.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
In this respect, the more power that a person like
a Kim Kardashian has, it could potentially it could potentially
work against her, especially if ray J is claiming that
she keeps doing all of this as a publicity ploy,
(30:53):
as a ploy for publicity, and it's it's interesting the
timing of all of this. And again I'm not alleging
that she is at fault for doing this, but I
can say just given the track record and history of
just her, like I provided for us, even in our research,
(31:17):
there was a timeline of events surrounding Kim and this
you know, this sex tape and it there have been
lots of allegations of and claims that are conveniently positioned.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
On both sides.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Actually, so my question is, as she's gained more power,
more notoriety, and ray J has been very steady in
his statements of, hey, we agree to do this thing
way back when we have both.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Evolved in our own set on our own.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Separate paths, but we also agreed to just not talk
about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Like we've all moved on. We should have moved on.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
The more popular you become one party becomes, the more antagonizing.
It also becomes for somebody such as Ray J. So
I like that these this anti slap is in place
to at least help us as the public and the
consumers of all of these stories, understand that you cannot
(32:36):
You should not file these claims for hype and then
settle quietly. You're loud with the accusations. You should be
equally loud.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
And accountable for what you put out there.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Yeah, and I think that.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
What you're saying focuses on the timing in the sense
of the courtroom and the legal system.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
So again.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
You have to focus on the timeline of when all
of this happened, when the alleged breach happened, and the courts.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Are also going to consider.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
Who actually had the authority to release.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Old footage new footage, stop.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
It from entering into the marketplace, continuing to let it
move forward. Is it new in the sense of its
newly released but it's still old footage, or is it
new something.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
That was said recently?
Speaker 4 (33:57):
So when you speak of timing, I understand what you're saying,
but every time I hear you say it, I think
about the timing of the facts of the case, and
that is what's going to play out in a courtroom
to decide if there is actually a breach in this
case to begin with, if there's actually a defamation, and
(34:18):
if there's actually a privacy of some expectation of any
part of this saga.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Carlos, I have.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
A question for you, because I don't know if you've
watched All's Fair to Kardashian's new show that fighting viciously
and ferociously for all things women, these kinds of scenarios
(34:50):
play out on those on the show, similar situations have
been playing out.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Do you think and I know the rain drops.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
I love asking questions for the rain drops because that
in that sense we think alike like the the messy
middle questions. I'm gonna ask you, Carlos, do you think
that the timing the terrible ratings that this has that
they've been getting, They've been getting a lot of I
(35:22):
like the show personally, I'm in I'm in for All's
Fair and the fashion of it all. But because it
has been getting a lot of negative, negative, negative reviews,
do you think that them filing this lawsuit, the Kardashian's
filing this lawsuit. Now Kim filing the lawsuit now has
(35:45):
any bearing.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Eye You don't, No, And I'll say why because, in
the words of just Tyranny, it's the timing of the facts. Yes,
Carlos King esquire. Yeah. The reason why I say that
is because I look at the time he governed, right,
So they the show All this fair came out October,
(36:12):
No November, it was like two weeks ago. It came
out two weeks ago. But yes, in October, though, is
when Kim and Chris fault the defamation loss to against
ray j. So that happened October, which yes, yes, yeah, yes,
is a month before the premiere. But we also have
(36:33):
to remember that what happened was in May of twenty
twenty five, is when he made these allegations, right as
he was featured in the TMZ documentary talking about the
federal case against Sean Puppy Combs where he did stay
(36:53):
and I quote, if you told me that the Kardashians
was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it. And
then you know, listen Courtney in May, quiet as a
church mouse. Nobody said Nate that right. It was then
escalated in September of twenty twenty five during a live
stream where ray J alleged that he was working with
(37:16):
federal authorities to build a racketeering case against Kim Kardashian
and Chris Jenner that was, in his worst worse than ditties.
At the time, he presented no evidence. So then on
October first, right, so he doubled out on it in September.
October first is when Kim Kardashian Chris Jenner filed the
(37:40):
defamation lawsuit against ray J in Los Angeles Superior Los
Angeles County Superior Course. So I don't think this has
anything to do with with the promotion of All's Fair.
All's Fair. The ratings so far have been great, the
reviews have been terrible. But like you, I'm watching it.
I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
I think I think if i'm if I'm Kim and Chris.
In May, you told TMZ in the documentary that if
we were charged with the racketeering, you would believe it. Okay,
some might say, Okay, he tried it, let's move on, Like,
(38:22):
let's move on it.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Then June July August September, four months later, you go
on live stream and you're saying you're working with federal authorities.
Now it's like you could be messing up my Skimsdale brand.
My children have to see, like, Mami, are you being
charged with the racketeering? So I think they have to
(38:47):
do something to stop this from brewing, and right, can
I just.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Put a footnote into the elementary please, dude, just.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
One more time. We talked about it when we started.
But the one.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
You have to make a statement that can be proven
true or false.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
It is not an opinion, okay, See, it has to
be in the public form three.
Speaker 4 (39:16):
It actually has to be false. But remember there has
to be harm. It can be financial or reputationally.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
But there is another element.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
When you are.
Speaker 4 (39:32):
Talking about a public figure. That person had to knowingly
make a malicious statement with reckless disregard of the harmit
with costs. Those are a lot of elements to prove, right.
(39:54):
So again I want to restate that social media, the Internet,
text messages, screenshots, SoundBite bites taken out of context is
not evidence.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
And it may not even be admitted as evidence in
a court.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
It has to be authenticated as evidence by a judge
and allowed to be presented.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
How was a judge able to authenticate the validity of
something like a text message.
Speaker 4 (40:30):
Well, it's not the judge that does that actually authenticates it.
The judge makes the decision whether it is going to
be admitted as authenticated evidence. The lawyers for each side
is going to put forward an argument of why it
should be admitted.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
Got it Okay?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
Well, listen, even though she didn't pass the bar, she
is getting a lot of practice within her own personal
life in dealing.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
With this madness. Courtney, shame.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Judge, Judge is Courtney. Of course it was shade.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Delayed response.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
That's what I'm talking about. But no, listen, it's one
of those things where this is ongoing. And again I
just go back to it's so wild because you know,
this all happened so many moons ago, and I just
(41:42):
feel like we, as you know, the audience, we sort
of I feel like, listen, it goes to show you,
you know, beyond the work that she has done. And
so it has right Jah, I'm not gonna say her
by herself, Rank we we love he forgot about it
(42:02):
because this all has happened Judge Terry in two thousand
and seven, So to know that almost twenty years ago
we are dealing with. This is wild to me, but
you know, I want to make sure that I, you know,
say this legal note. The judge will be proud of
me for doing this. As of today, the legal battle
(42:26):
is ongoing. A lawyer for Kardashian Jenner has dismissed ray
J's counter suit as a frivolous and raveling distraction, and
both sides are now formally engage in litigation. The court
will need to determine the validity of both the defamation
(42:50):
and breach of contract claims as the case proceeds.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
And again, I want to go back to the timeline
because I know that you mentioned has happened so long ago, right,
But Courtney mentioned that there was a new contract that
was negotiated in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
That's not that long ago.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
Well, and just so I'm clear the contract that was
allegedly negotiate, because this is ray J's plan, was it
was a settlement for him saying he was the fame
on the Kardashians. Because I want to make sure holds.
I want to make sure I say exactly what he
(43:37):
alleged that was said on the show. One second, because
it was it was it was a word that they
used on the show, and I want to make sure
that I'd say exactly what he is saying he heard
or what they said on the show.
Speaker 4 (43:56):
Which may would violate the no discussion provision. And based
off of that settlement, what did they say?
Speaker 1 (44:04):
Yeah, I'm doing my research now, okayfession.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
Has confidentiality clauses in contracts that prevents people from speaking
about the matter. And again, generally, if you have a
breach a contract, there's going to generally be some kind
of monetary damages involved if you have been ruled.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
To actually breach that contract.
Speaker 4 (44:35):
Not often, but sometimes there can be punitive damages awarded.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Again, but the conduct would have had to be a greecious.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Yes, So this is what it was on the Kardashian
episode that aired April twenty twenty two. On the show,
it his complained. The complaint claims that Kardashian said ray
J gave their leak sex tape which he knows he
never present as to his former manager, and that he
sexually assaulted her while she was asleep.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Oh and there was a settlement.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
Yeah, so then, j Okay, So that states may involved
civil and criminal allegations.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
Yes, so ray J and this is all in the
this is all public record, ray J states that he
messaged Kardashian on Instagram in April twenty twenty two to
confront her about the remarks made about him on The
Kardashians Kardashian This is, according to him, He's alleging that
Kardashian begged him to go along with yet another false
story that she wanted to run on the show, that
(45:42):
they were working with Vivid to remove the sex tape
from the Internet, and then when ray J subsequently sued
Kardashian Jenna over the statements, the trio reached a settlement
in April twenty twenty three. Per the following According to
the cross complaint, kardashianer and their production company allegedly agreed
(46:02):
to pay ray J six million dollars to ensure that
no further mention or public reference to the sex tape
is mentioned on The Kardashians, and any further disparagement entitles
ray J two one million dollars in liquid ted damages.
So this will be ongoing. Listen, this is this is
(46:26):
like Courney said, this seems like an episode all fair
which rain droft. You can catch on Hulu every Tuesday night.
Just Tarranny Courtney Parker Corney Parker says she'll be watching.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
Yeah, and I will say it as we lead, just
because you guys loved it so much. Just remember that
the courtroom is quiet in social media because the courtroom
is where the real decisions will be made.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
Amen, herey here we all right, rain drop. That's another
episode Reality Crime Stories, and we'll see you next time
with another one. Reality with the King is executive produced
by me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a
(47:14):
partnership with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find
us on my YouTube channel at the Carlos King Underscore
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.