Reali-TEA Crime Stories: The Sex Tape That Won’t Climax! Ray J & Kim K

00:00:03
Speaker 1: 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 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 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 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?

00:01:24
Speaker 2: Hey, Carlos, is that a wife beater.

00:01:31
Speaker 3: Allowed to say that anymore?

00:01:32
Speaker 1: Oh?

00:01:33
Speaker 2: Yes, I can always tell how our episodes are going to go. Based on your wardrobe.

00:01:42
Speaker 1: Well, I feel like it's gonna go the way always go, which is fun and informative. Right, you got I it's.

00:01:53
Speaker 2: Given very adult tape.

00:01:56
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, it's definitely giving ray J. W Wait a minute, wait.

00:02:03
Speaker 1: 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, 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 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.

00:03:08
Speaker 3: Every day, and.

00:03:09
Speaker 1: 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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?

00:05:42
Speaker 3: Listen? I will give a really brief disclaimer.

00:05:47
Speaker 4: 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, 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, the negotiation.

00:06:30
Speaker 1: Of this.

00:06:32
Speaker 4: Not being released without anyone's knowledge, everyone knew.

00:06:36
Speaker 3: He's been saying the exact same thing.

00:06:40
Speaker 4: And owning the exact same truth since two thousand and five. So I will be biased in saying I believe ray J.

00:06:50
Speaker 3: Out the gate.

00:06:51
Speaker 4: 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 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 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.

00:08:01
Speaker 3: Talk about open cases. Both of these.

00:08:05
Speaker 4: 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.

00:08:17
Speaker 3: So with this being.

00:08:20
Speaker 4: A allegation of defamation, what is what is kind of required to prove a a RICO probe.

00:08:38
Speaker 3: That's being allocated, that's being.

00:08:39
Speaker 4: 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. 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.

00:09:17
Speaker 3: I am glad that.

00:09:18
Speaker 4: 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 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.

00:09:54
Speaker 1: Let's start there because I know a lot of people have questions about that I'm just.

00:09:58
Speaker 4: 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.

00:10:16
Speaker 2: There is four elements to defamation. First, you have to actually make a statement that can be provable as false or true.

00:10:27
Speaker 4: 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 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 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 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 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.

00:12:18
Speaker 3: Be brought back to that person that he.

00:12:22
Speaker 4: 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?

00:12:38
Speaker 1: 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

00:16:02
Speaker 4: 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.

00:16:22
Speaker 2: Not recurring stars, you get a release.

00:16:26
Speaker 4: And so those are things that companies generally are going to always do to make sure that they are protected and that.

00:16:34
Speaker 2: They have no liability.

00:16:36
Speaker 4: 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.

00:16:51
Speaker 2: Both parties, and then those parties and the distribution company and so.

00:16:59
Speaker 1: On.

00:17:00
Speaker 4: 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 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 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.

00:18:05
Speaker 3: Got it.

00:18:06
Speaker 4: 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 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.

00:18:41
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty three. So we do know that.

00:18:44
Speaker 4: 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.

00:18:55
Speaker 3: Okay.

00:18:56
Speaker 4: In two thousand and five, for the ip in question, there was a negotiated contract, yep.

00:19:05
Speaker 2: Okay.

00:19:06
Speaker 4: 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 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 value again.

00:19:55
Speaker 2: In order for the new contract to be valid.

00:19:59
Speaker 4: 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.

00:20:19
Speaker 2: Okay, because it is the same subject matter, right, This.

00:20:25
Speaker 1: 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 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 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.

00:21:20
Speaker 2: Friend, and I love her as well.

00:21:22
Speaker 4: Thank you to put that sex tape in the same bracket this. Come on, talk about that, Orehanna, another flanger I've seen neither.

00:21:35
Speaker 3: I can't. I can't.

00:21:37
Speaker 4: I've seen them all.

00:21:42
Speaker 1: 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 and this while we'll bring you in judge. If they were charged with racketeering charges, I'm assuming that'll be public record.

00:25:11
Speaker 2: So we talked about this before, but just again for a moment.

00:25:16
Speaker 4: 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. 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 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 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.

00:26:44
Speaker 2: And I understand that people love hypotheticals because they play well, what in the media.

00:26:51
Speaker 4: But I will say that social media is very, very loud, but the courtroom is much quieter.

00:26:59
Speaker 1: 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.

00:27:16
Speaker 3: Yes, I love that.

00:27:19
Speaker 2: One more time.

00:27:21
Speaker 4: 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 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.

00:27:56
Speaker 2: And I've said this before. Anybody can file a.

00:27:59
Speaker 4: 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 where a judge is going to have to review early on the merits of the case to say, is this case.

00:28:30
Speaker 2: Factually meyrit with factual.

00:28:35
Speaker 4: Accusations that can move forward on the merits or is this an attempt to silence someone?

00:28:43
Speaker 2: So it's not a.

00:28:44
Speaker 4: 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 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?

00:29:18
Speaker 3: Who does it protect?

00:29:20
Speaker 2: Per se?

00:29:22
Speaker 4: 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 can award the other party attorneys feats.

00:29:47
Speaker 3: Okay.

00:29:48
Speaker 2: So but the whole, the whole.

00:29:51
Speaker 4: 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 that there's no federal anti slap law. God that is a state law, but depending on the state, some federal curtains will allow.

00:30:25
Speaker 2: You to present that argument.

00:30:31
Speaker 4: 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, 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, 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.

00:31:35
Speaker 3: On both sides.

00:31:36
Speaker 4: 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.

00:31:57
Speaker 3: Evolved in our own set on our own.

00:32:00
Speaker 4: Separate paths, but we also agreed to just not talk about it anymore.

00:32:07
Speaker 3: Like we've all moved on. We should have moved on.

00:32:11
Speaker 4: 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 You should not file these claims for hype and then settle quietly. You're loud with the accusations. You should be equally loud.

00:32:49
Speaker 3: And accountable for what you put out there.

00:32:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that.

00:32:58
Speaker 4: What you're saying focuses on the timing in the sense of the courtroom and the legal system.

00:33:09
Speaker 1: So again.

00:33:11
Speaker 4: You have to focus on the timeline of when all of this happened, when the alleged breach happened, and the courts.

00:33:23
Speaker 2: Are also going to consider.

00:33:27
Speaker 4: Who actually had the authority to release.

00:33:35
Speaker 2: Old footage new footage, stop.

00:33:38
Speaker 4: 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.

00:33:55
Speaker 2: That was said recently?

00:33:57
Speaker 4: 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 if there's actually a privacy of some expectation of any part of this saga.

00:34:28
Speaker 3: Carlos, I have.

00:34:29
Speaker 4: 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 play out on those on the show, similar situations have been playing out.

00:34:58
Speaker 3: Do you think and I know the rain drops.

00:35:00
Speaker 4: 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 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 any bearing.

00:35:47
Speaker 1: 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

00:38:00
Speaker 3: I'm enjoying it.

00:38:01
Speaker 1: 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, let's move on it.

00:38:24
Speaker 2: Yeah.

00:38:26
Speaker 1: 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 do something to stop this from brewing, and right, can I just.

00:38:52
Speaker 4: Put a footnote into the elementary please, dude, just.

00:38:57
Speaker 2: One more time. We talked about it when we started. But the one.

00:39:02
Speaker 4: You have to make a statement that can be proven true or false.

00:39:06
Speaker 2: It is not an opinion, okay, See, it has to be in the public form three.

00:39:16
Speaker 4: It actually has to be false. But remember there has to be harm. It can be financial or reputationally.

00:39:30
Speaker 2: But there is another element.

00:39:32
Speaker 3: When you are.

00:39:32
Speaker 4: 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. So again I want to restate that social media, the Internet, text messages, screenshots, SoundBite bites taken out of context is not evidence.

00:40:10
Speaker 2: And it may not even be admitted as evidence in a court.

00:40:15
Speaker 4: It has to be authenticated as evidence by a judge and allowed to be presented.

00:40:24
Speaker 1: How was a judge able to authenticate the validity of something like a text message.

00:40:30
Speaker 4: 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.

00:40:51
Speaker 1: Got it Okay?

00:40:53
Speaker 4: Well, listen, even though she didn't pass the bar, she is getting a lot of practice within her own personal life in dealing.

00:41:03
Speaker 2: With this madness. Courtney, shame.

00:41:10
Speaker 1: Judge, Judge is Courtney. Of course it was shade.

00:41:16
Speaker 2: Delayed response.

00:41:22
Speaker 1: 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 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 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 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 and breach of contract claims as the case proceeds.

00:42:56
Speaker 4: 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.

00:43:11
Speaker 2: That's not that long ago.

00:43:13
Speaker 1: 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 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.

00:43:56
Speaker 4: Which may would violate the no discussion provision. And based off of that settlement, what did they say?

00:44:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm doing my research now, okayfession.

00:44:10
Speaker 4: 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.

00:44:32
Speaker 2: To actually breach that contract.

00:44:35
Speaker 4: Not often, but sometimes there can be punitive damages awarded.

00:44:40
Speaker 2: Again, but the conduct would have had to be a greecious.

00:44:44
Speaker 1: 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.

00:45:08
Speaker 3: Oh and there was a settlement.

00:45:12
Speaker 4: Yeah, so then, j Okay, So that states may involved civil and criminal allegations.

00:45:19
Speaker 1: 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 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 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 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.

00:46:39
Speaker 4: 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.

00:46:53
Speaker 1: 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 partnership with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find us on my YouTube channel at the Carlos King Underscore