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

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, we have so.

00:00:37
Speaker 2: Much to talk about greeting and salutation, honey, that's what we're doing. So on Tonight's Live, I've listened and I'll responded, and you guys wanted me to bring back my amazing friend and amazing co host f M. K. Williams to talk about the Candy and Todd divorce proceedings. So on this one, what we're gonna do is utilize Ebony's amazing intelligence when it comes to the law and being a celebrity and how those two things sort of intersect when it comes to what happens with the celebrity divorce, the money desk at stake, children being involved, minor children at that in addition to recent information about particular allegations of possible cheating. So, Ebony, are you ready to break this all down?

00:01:35
Speaker 3: I am if I have shot approval from the rain Drops, shit, I mean, well damn.

00:01:48
Speaker 2: Well. Look, you know the range are very opinionated. So just to catch you all up to speed, what's going on? And look, this has been a situation that a lot of did not see coming. So I want to make sure to recapture you guys exactly what is happening. So rain Drops, as you all know, Candy Burristucker has decided to file for divorce on November twenty first. She has called it quiz after eleven years of marriage. She said in a statement that after deep thought a lot of prayer, she's made the decision to move forward with advores. Okay, she cited that the marriage was irretrivially broken and that she was seeking for joint cust study. So before we get into Ta's response, which truly did break the Internet ebony, some of divorces, especially celebrities, we always hear the reconcilable differences, which is pretty much like the safest thing to say about like two parties. We decided to different matters to say that it was irvally broken explain to us exactly what that particular statement means and why or why not is that important when it comes to this divorce.

00:03:19
Speaker 3: Well, the only real legal significance of that language, Carlos, and it's a good, it's a good point of clarification is that because, like you said, irreconcilable differences is a catch all, you know, it's it's a standard catch all that almost everybody uses in their uh no fault state divorces, which Georgia is. But that beyond you know, what do you call it? Reconciliation piece just kind of goes to tap the judge or the try or effect on the shoulder and let them know basically, we're not particularly interested in counts or mediation tactics that would put us on a path for reconciliation. It's basically because sometimes when you initially find you do an initial first filing of divorce, you might have a judge push you in that direction, especially when there are minor children involved, as is the case with Candy and Todd. They've got a six year old daughter Blaze, nine year old son Ace and so and especially I'm going to bring up some components rain drops, So follow me here when you're in the Bible Belt, they are in the state of Georgia. And I say this as a proud Southern girl myself, who practice family law in the state of North Carolina, you're gonna sometimes run into a judge, and the judges, y'all, have a tremendous amount of discretion in family law cases. So that's one thing to note. This is not a prosecutor and a defense This is a judge and only a judge that we'll hear from both Candy's lawyers and Todd's lawyers and decide all the elements of this case, from custody to the enforcement of the prenup, which we will get to, to all the elements. And so when you're in this type of jurisdiction, the South, the Bible Belt, where the culture of the region, y'all, and that mandates a presumption of family, a presumption especially in the political climate that we're in. I don't have to name it, y'all can put it together, okay, where there's such a energy and propensity around traditional family values and family staying together and nuclear family situations. So the inclusion by Candy's attorney and their legal team of that sentence essentially beyond reasonable chances of reconciliation is to say, hey, you're honor In case you're thinking about trying to put us on track for some type of preliminary reconciliation counseling, we can skip it. That's what that says to me.

00:05:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So one of the things that occur after that, because again the worse filings for me, and again I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a general public citizen. One thing that I thought was okay, it was a kind way of saying, this relationship cannot be you know, retrieved outside of getting back together. We do have minor children together. We are going to try to have a joint custody. She did say that. She also said that look, they have businesses together, and that any depth that they have to be split and anything else should be split. Everything seemed to be fair and everybody said, okay, that's fine. Then a few days later after that, on December second, I'm sorry an December second, what happened On December first, Tom Tucker's attorney, Randy Kessler, responded to Candy's filing, and this is where things were said, ebony that run the general public, the wrong way, not all of a sudden, but I wanted to get your thoughts on it. In the In the document, it did state that Todd would like to have in the unlike in the hopefully unlikely event that they are unable to reach a custody deal, he will be seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody, and final decision making authority. The document stated that Candy having substantial time and meaningful access to the children. He's praising her as a mother, But he also did say that because she travels a lot, he wants to be able to be the primary parent if they're unable to reach a deal. You being a love yourself, you being a working mom, yourself, you're actually on set today, yep.

00:08:07
Speaker 3: Out of state, by the way, out of state, on set out on the other side of the country. So I'm actually very similarly positioned to where Miss Candy Burgers is in terms of this type of situation. So let's start in the back, carlost let me do some issue spotting here, old school style. Everything you read, and I'm so glad you read it in its totality around uh Todd's request on the custody piece. The initial request this is around a potential child support claim. Okay, so let's let's reverse engineering. This is setting up a potential claim from Todd and his legal team to seek child support. I want everybody to immediately put spousal support on a selparate chef, a separate shelf. Spousal support and child support have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Okay. Spousal support may or may not even be at play, depending on whether or not the judge decides to uphold the existing prenuptial agreement. But child support is something that you actually cannot bypass in a pre nup, Okay, because it's not about you or you spouse or spouse. It's about who the child. So excuse me. With that framework, With this being all about a potential child support claim, that would be why Todd, through his attorney Randy Kessler, would be seeking primary physical custody, because if you don't have primary physical custody, there is little to no claim around why you should be compensated from the other parent, because the judge will typically look at that as if it's split physical custody. They will look at y'all as equals who are more or less equally positioned to care for the children through your own resources with the time you each equally have the children. But if you're saying no, no, no, no, I am the the children are with me most of the time, subject to visitation from the other spouse, then the financial presumption shifts. Carlos, see how that goes. And now the expectation is I need to be paid from the other's spouse compensated for taking on more fiscal responsibility because the children are with me more so I'm feeding them, I'm clothing them, I'm housing them, I'm paying for their extracurriculars, and I need to be paid child support to make that equitable. That's so, that's that's connecting the dots as to why he's starting from a physical custody demand and then the legal joint custody that standard because uh, there is no fiscal component to legal custody, because legal custody is not about where the physicality of the children. It's only about the decision making. So this is where they go to school, if they have health insurance, what kind testing the things of this in terms of like whatever whatever assessments the children might need as they continue you to grow and develop but then I think it's interesting. Something I don't see often, Carlos, is this final request potentially of final decision making. Because the whole point of joint legal custody is to say that we are joint in assessing what I just ran down, schooling, healthcare, the major decisions that affect the child's life. But he's saying that I actually want final decision making potentially, and that's a bit unusual. So but the first thing you said is important. We only get to me having physical primary custody, joint decision making, legal custody and final decision if and only if we can't get to a custody agreement. So that's gonna be the first step, Carlos. They're gonna sit down with maybe a mediator, an arbitrator, or even the judge and try to see if they can come up with what we tend to call a consent decree, which means we both consent mutually agree that this is going to be the custody arrangement. So that's going to be the first attempt.

00:12:01
Speaker 2: Todd, on his social media has had this sort of like social media series, nothing I would call a websode, but he has been promoting that he does a lot of daddy daycare, and he's been doing this for you know, in recent months. Do you think that was a part of strategy to show that he is the prime he is being theen based on what he's showing me as the primary care came, I don't have to.

00:12:33
Speaker 3: I don't have to think it. Well, I was gonna say, I don't have to think it, Carlos. I know it. I know it, and it's not necessarily that's not a deed, that's not nefarious, that's just quite obvious. Quite frankly, when you see people start to show up in a public setting, which social media is as public as it kind of gets right because it's real time visibility, establishing a narrative which may very well be true, may not be true, maybe a little true or and untrue, who knows, right, but they're establishing a narrative that sements them in a particular position. So he's saying publicly, hey, public and potential judge and whoever's assessing this, I need you to know that it is me that is primarily at home doing the daily caretaking of the children. I'm running the bathwater, I'm preparing the meals. I'm preparing any medicines they may take. I'm the one doing story time because why my wife, per his claim, is out of town, out of the country, promoting Broadway shows, doing press for her incredible you know, works and projects and movies and films and all the amazing things she's doing. So while she is away, kind of well, what's it getting the bacon. I'm playing daddy daycare at home, frying up the bacon, and I am holding down the home front. That is clearly Carlos what he has been trying to establish for the past several months, which bolsters his argument his legal claim that that's why I should be designated the primary physical custodian, because, like you were saying, and you know, using me as an example of what it looks like to be the working mom who's going to get the bacon. I'm out in La getting the bacon. I'm on set getting the bacon. Somebody's got to get the bacon. But also somebody has to be home to fry the bacon because the children can't eat un fried bacon, you know, using this analogy, so I would tell you, cybar, this this is sidebar. This is part of the reason that I used a donor true tide of my personal story time part Yeah. Part of the reason that I decided to be a single mom by choice, Carlos King and use a donor and not have a father for liberty, not use a friend, not have a cold parenting situation, is because I knew my circumstances professionally would put me in Candy's exact situation, and that I would very possibly end up paying child support for my own daughter. Oh apps, some motherfucking lute excuse me, I would easily be in a position to have to go in front of a judge looking just like this and plead my own case from my own daughter that I carried in birth, to say, despite my travel schedule, my work schedule, my sometimes lack of real time availability, I assure you I can make sure all of her needs are met. Because that opens the door, Carlows for exactly this where a father, despite the relationship between me and the father, despite what we even previously agreed to, could then say, your honor, look at her. She's outside. She might be outside for very wonderful, noble reasons, but she's away from home and children need, you know, mom, to be home. Mom's not available to be home, and so she has she has put her custody rights at risk from a legal standpoint, and I'm here to step into the to the to the to the pocket. I'm here to step into the role and play the primary custodian for my children. And that's a real risk, Carlos, and it is one of the reasons I'm telling you that women with high power careers that demand travel or time away. My daughter is being very well taken care of right now, rain Drops in Carlos. I assure you, I'm getting hourly updates from her nanny, who has been with her since she was four months old. She's in a lovely, you know, preschool that she's been so she's good. But if I had to argue this to a judge, it could go either way, and I wasn't willing to risk it going either way. So that's a personal decision. Every woman gets to make that decision for herself. But I hope that helps understand rain Drops why somebody would do what I did, And more and more women are electing to do it because we don't want to be in court having to potentially fight for custody of our own children simply because we chose or needed to go to work.

00:17:01
Speaker 2: Wow. Wow, well, listen, you are preaching to the choir of the women who are working mothers. Who's working women in the group chat? With that being said, I want to ask you this because this was brought up recently and I never thought about it until one of my brain drops brought it to my attention. Does that hurt a woman in this case? So, let's sen if Candy had Blaze via surrogacy, right, yes? Does that will that hurt? Let me remind could Todd and his attorney used that as a way to establish her busy schedule and the reason why it is in the best interest for the primary custody to be in the hands of the father because of something like that. Is that something that could be used? Has it ever? Did?

00:18:01
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't think so. I appreciate the curiosity. I see where it could come from from a curiosity standpoint, but I don't believe so. I didn't follow that storyline, Cluk, I was watching this shor at the time. But from what I know period of sarrogacy, Carlos, it is almost always used for medical necessity, Candy, like myself, is now very much so considered advanced maternal age. Candy at that point had already birth Riley. Also at that point Ace and Ace she was older as well, so I could see we're medically speaking, she would have a very sound argument to say that Blaze was brought to the world lovingly and beautifully sarrogacy because not of professional obligations, you know. And she couldn't carry the baby because it was inconvenient, but due to medical reasons, so that would not I don't see any argument, Carlos where that would legally work against her.

00:18:59
Speaker 2: This is reality. He with the King, and I'm Carlos King. Let's get back into the show. Okay, So rain Drop, I'll hope that answered your question. I want to make sure to ask that, so thank you rain Dad for asking that question. I want to move into the financing.

00:19:15
Speaker 3: Can I just add something real quick because it doesn't necessarily the Candy, but it could apply to other women in these situations. Let's say Candy had used an egg donor, right, So let's say Candy was so was the legal mother of one of her children, but not the biological mother. I want to be clear, rain Drops, that does not jeopardize her custody. The law does not afford a biological parent more legal rights than a legal parent. I think that's very important to clarify.

00:19:43
Speaker 2: Okay, and I'm clarified that. And and Ebony, I'm not sure if you heard of this story that happened to Sherry Shepherd.

00:19:54
Speaker 3: Oh, yes, Sherry has told me that story herself at her own mouth.

00:19:58
Speaker 2: Yes, are you at liberty if you wanted to, because because what you said made me think about that. Because rain Drops, listen, Sherry Shepherd used a dinner egg, which was her ex husband Lamar Sally's firm, to have herself through a surrogate mother. The egg donor was selected by the agency after you know, they signed an agreement with the agency to be the legal parents. However, rain Drops, it.

00:20:25
Speaker 4: Led to a legal battle during the divorce, with a court ultimately ruling that Sherry was the legal mother of the child and have to pay.

00:20:39
Speaker 3: Child support. Sure did, Sure did? Sure did? So that's important. So anybody hearing this this thinking you're mitigating your financial responsibility by putting some biological distance between you and the child, you are not. The court said, motion denied, go ahead, Carlos.

00:20:57
Speaker 2: All right, so I want to get into the financial so good.

00:21:00
Speaker 3: This is so many issues, so many issues.

00:21:03
Speaker 2: As my team all week, I said, I am attending the University of Kay Williams because you.

00:21:12
Speaker 5: Know, I'm obsessed with you and your brilliant and just everything that I'm learning from you courtesy of this and listen, I have so much of my play.

00:21:23
Speaker 2: But I do want to go to law school now. And also just so you know, a lot of frame drops, courtesy of just watching you for years and also watching this you are. You are influencing and inspiring a lot of people at the law school. So I want you to know that, and I so love that you.

00:21:41
Speaker 3: Just so y'all know, rain drops. Of the entire legal profession, only five percent count on one hand, one two, four or five percent are Black attorneys. There are less than for men and women black men and women. There are less than sixty seven thousand Black attorneys in the United States of America. We are underrepresented in this profession and it affects us in every way from child support to a criminal court to real estate property court. When you get people's deeds stolen from underneath them, we need us so Carlos all jokes aside, brother, I will literally write your personal recommendation letters to law school. And I am hand to God, very dead serious, very soon.

00:22:19
Speaker 2: Thank you for that. And you know me, I take listen, she knows it could be worked together. Everything I do I take seriously, and I'm always preparing myself. So when the time is right, I will let you know. Okay, so rain drops. As we all know, Candy and Todd got married April fourth, twenty fourteen. Todd, in the court document, has stated that although he admits that he did sign a prenuptial agreement, he is suggesting, though, that he was pressured into signing it without his lawyers around.

00:22:53
Speaker 6: Todd's lawyer said that he was presented without having council present.

00:22:58
Speaker 2: Even though Candy then counsel that communicated previously with Todd's counsel regarding a potential prenuptial agreement. What do don't want to Rang Josh to know, because I know they're dealing with business. What that means Range John's and I want ethnic to school us on this when they say that Candy's lawyers independently spoke to Todd without his lawyer's president. The reason why that could be deemed I'm not going to well, I'll just say the word is correct me if I'm wrong. The reason why that may be deemed unethical is because the moment, the moment two parties, So in this case, Candy and Todd, Candy a Todd having separate lawyers, the moment the lawyers are engaged talking to each other. As a lawyer, you're not allowed.

00:23:50
Speaker 6: To speak to the other council's client without them being president.

00:23:55
Speaker 2: Is that correct?

00:23:57
Speaker 3: That correct? Yes? Yeah, Okay, I mean that's that's that's like a one on one type of way you get sationed by the Bar association, is speaking to another attorney's client without representation present. And just the reason for that, rain Drops, is because there's a certain power dynamic at play and certain presumptions of understandings that we have with each other amongst each other as attorneys. Okay that lay people could be brilliant, could be fortune five hundred CEOs, could be multi muntime billion millionaire, celebrity whatever. It's not undermining to say they are incompetent. It's just to say, and they can actually catch this tea colors, they can actually be attorneys. It can actually be it can actually be an attorney. But if they are not the attorney representing the legal interests of that person, in that case, they are not permitted to speak to the council period.

00:24:54
Speaker 2: Yes, And what we saw on the Wedding special was Candy did call her lawyer. Tom was president. Todd tried to call his lawyer. He didn't answer, but we did see on camera that Candy's lawyer on speaker was talking with Todd. And what would happened on the wedding.

00:25:11
Speaker 3: Can we ask the flag that when Todd tried to then later in that same scene call his lawyer, Randy and tried to do the same thing, like, hey, Randy, Candy's right here with me. Can you talk to us and basically calm her down and let her know it's gonna be all right. Randy Kessler said, what I think not I will not be speaking to miss Burris without her council present. But what I can do for you, Todd is get on the phone and call Candy's attorney and we could talk lawyer to lawyers. So that's the easy way to think about it, rain drops. Lawyers should be talking lawyers to lawyers, and the party should be talking to each other, but we will not have a dynamic. A triangulation is the word where me and my lawyer are sitting on the phone with my future husband without his lawyer present. Because that in and of itself can be construed as a form of duress, a form of compounding pressure and obligation that does not afford equal representation.

00:26:12
Speaker 2: So, with all of that being said, Todd attorney in this document, okay, is the reason why he is questioning the prenuptial agreement because of the fact that he did find the document without an attorney. His attorney president. One thing that the attorney is saying, ebony is the fact that I'm gonna read a verbatim so one of his quote things right now, give me one second, okay. Tucker's counterclaim for divorce also demanded a division of all marital assets both real and personal, tangible and intangible between the parties. What does that mean?

00:27:16
Speaker 3: I'm so sorry, production was in my ear. Read that last line again, thank you, okay, just the last the last two lines.

00:27:24
Speaker 2: Okay. A division of all marital assets both real and personal, tangible and intangible between the parties.

00:27:34
Speaker 3: Well, that's just going to probably mean to cover all bases, right, because we know George is a community property state, and he's just saying, hey, listen, we want all we know what real property and assets are. That's the houses and the cars and things like that, clothing, jewelry, things like that that were purchased during the marital time which eleven years. But the intangible stuff that could be things like stop that appreciate it maybe right, or if either of them or both of them have any pension funds. So basically, you know accounts that things that are not liquid, assets that are not liquid, so whatever you know that could be any any account, money market accounts, things of that nature.

00:28:13
Speaker 2: One thing that I want to get into is the fact that people assume Evny like, hey, they signed a prenup, they got on the boards, everything should be good. It's a legal document. Tell me why that's not always the case. They weren't married for ten plus years. Somebody did say in the chat that is it true that in ten years in the state of Georgia that you may be able to renegotiate your prenup just based on all of the activities that may have occurred in the ten years. And one thing that I do want to say, Mayor J Blige ex husband can Do did sign a prenup. However, she still had to pay.

00:28:56
Speaker 3: Home as Justin Ross affection affectionately called him ken don't shout out to the lovely Dustin Ross. So a few things. This ten year mark, let's clear some things up. Ten years in some states is hugely significant, like the state I'm in right now, California. In California, we saw this with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in California. Legally speaking, it's for real, for real, for real once you get to ten years, meaning it now becomes very difficult to not cash the other party out once you hit the ten year mark. Now, let's go to Georgia where this is happening. They don't have that severe of a statute where everything kind of changes it ten years, but certainly a few things do happen at ten years. Now, no sitting judge is going to presume that this was just for play play. If somebody sayed ten years, even if they were a gold digger, they were committed, so we're gonna treat them more seriously. That's a real thing. Also point in the marriage, but certainly it's more likely after the ten year mark things could be renegotiated. We even heard Ashley Darby discuss this on Real Housewives of Potomac when she was still married to Michael Darby that once they got to ten years, it essentially is thrown out, you know, this notion of we need to be real careful of how we divvy things up once you get to ten years. Again, the presumption is that everybody was operating in good faith and that this is more treated as a community of sorts and that's how it's gonna be handled. So that's the significance of the ten year piece, just so everybody's clear on that. It doesn't seismically change what's going on here, but it says that nobody the judge is not gonna look at Todd or whoever the other person is and say you just married them just for money, because most people that just married for money are in and out in a year two or three, not eleven.

00:30:58
Speaker 2: And just so we know for the record, Candy is the one that actually filed for the divorce. Todd did it. So I just wanted to make sure that fact was also presented because people are saying that all of this happened because you know Todd wanted to, you know, get the money. It's pretty much well.

00:31:15
Speaker 3: Cash out, yeah, cash out. Well, we had to add this to Carlos because I think you're right. First of all, you're exactly right. I think people look at he signed the document. It's legally binding, case closed. While that's not the now, it is important that he signed the document. I do want to be clear, it's not a nothing sandwich, okay, because he signed the document. And there's also a part in the wedding special or maybe it's an episode of the next season where he says on camera, against my attorney's advice, against my attorney's advice, I signed the document because no piece of paper I'm paraphrasing now, but no piece of paper is going to get in the way of me and Candy being together. That's not gonna be a good fact for Todd Tucker. However, it's not. But it's not going to be a good fact for him, Carlos. But it's not controlling enough to undermine his entire claim. And part of the reason why is what I'm about to tell you and point out now, both of their lawyers are going to make arguments around whether or not his signing of the prenup was what we call truly voluntary? Was it truly voluntary? And when he says what I just said, he said, against my attorney's advice, I signed it anyway. That goes to it being voluntary.

00:32:30
Speaker 2: Right.

00:32:31
Speaker 3: But you know what doesn't bode well for Candy's side of this argument and it being truly voluntary the time frame, the fact that these two were twenty four hours before their wedding, still going back and forth around the document itself clauses what this means interpretation Already, that's a flag to any judge Carlos, because ideally, for a prenup to be deemed kind of best practices, this should have been done months ago, months ago, this should have been in the can. This is what this really is supposed to look like in best practices is we set a wedding date, and we each give our lawyers the document. Your lawyer drafts it, they send it to my lawyer. We spend at least, on average, with this kind of money involved, a month to three months negotiating back and forth. What's fair? Would I like what you like? Cut this out? Or draft this? Da da da da da da. Then we agree on the document I sign, you sign, it's notarized, it's in the can at least a month, if not three or four months ahead of the wedding date. When you are just the nature of the pressure cooker of vows start in twenty four hours now, that could easily be construed as duress in its own form? Is that making sense? Just the nature of the timeline can can can be construed as an aspect of duress? Why? And I don't know that that that this is on candy, So I'm not saying that rain drops. But what I'm saying is that's going to be investigated by the judge, Miss Burris and your counsel. When did you deliver the initial draft to mister Tatar and how long did his counsel have to review it? And when did they get the revisions? And how long did you to see did you allow adequate reasonable time of review, consideration, and negotiation and execution of the document, because if the court deems you did not, and that you kind of tried to run the clock out so that you were you felt like your decision is marry the love of my life or signed the document ill advised that that wouldn't vote well for Miss Boris.

00:34:47
Speaker 2: I have to ask the question because it's in the comments and I want to get your expert opinion. A lot of people are saying that with Todd because Okay, Candy tops a claim Todd's response and said that they will use the Bravo footage of the wedding series to show that he did sign it. Now, with that being said, the fact of the matter is Todd did sign it the morning of his wedding. He did not have a lawyer present. Yes, the Bravo cameras were there, But the question does remain do you think that Todd was smart enough to know that at the end of the day, Godfribis, something may go awry. I do have this to protect myself.

00:35:37
Speaker 7: The footage to protect himself, The footage of the fact that he is signing the morning and everything and everything that led to it, him having issues with Mama Joyce, his his his mother makes you rest in peace, and Mama Joys almost getting the physical altercation the day.

00:35:55
Speaker 2: Before the wedding. He's being you know him and came again to an ur I'm gonna tell.

00:36:01
Speaker 3: You something else. I'm gonna tell you something else that would work in his favor. Again, not controlling, but just something in his bucket. There was a couple of times that morning or the day before rather where Candy was saying things like, what do you need to talk to your lawyer for? Talk to him for what? This is open? You know, this is this is simple. You're making something out of nothing. That kind of language not ideal for showing voluntariness, because what ideally would have been said is like, of course, baby, call your counsel, call him a million times, go over in a thousand times. I want you to be completely comfortable with all the terms and conditions in the document before we walk down this aisle. That's what a judge is ideally looking for, not anything that looks to try to circumvent the conversation with counsel because it's very important.

00:36:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, okay, a few more minutes. Get back to worry. I want to I want to get into this so that so rand on us all the legalities that we know.

00:37:00
Speaker 8: As of today, December fourth, at the December fourth, sixty seven pm Eastern Tod's attorney, Brandy Kesseler has not counter claimed to Candy's response.

00:37:13
Speaker 9: Now yesterday, Ebanie the very credible People magazine revealed that a source said that Candy Birds discovered that Todd Tucker was talking to other women behind her back.

00:37:31
Speaker 2: That same day. Yesterday, Candy revealed on her Instagram a post where she said how she has been dealing with this for months and that sometime we have to check on your strong friend. She had a photo slide of her smiling and said that she was hurting and it was in pain emotionally behind these photos. Today Today today Tod posted a photo of him in a scenery background, saying how he's with somebody, a friend of his, and he's this journey has been difficult for How are the interesting time? It's the timing. Do you think these two people are using the media to influence the public perception? Did Todd cheeto Candy? I'm emotionally distressed too, not just her. Is that a factor in this that that that could help the case legally?

00:38:33
Speaker 3: I think they're doing what people in their position kind of have to do right now, Carlos, which is do two things at once. They're letting their lawyers, their actual lawyers, UH, navigate this very real issue of divorce and custody and all these things in the court of law, and because of just how hugely public Candy and now Todd are, they are working the court of public opinion at the same time. Because if they were to do the thing that we used to be told and advised to do in this business, which is let it play out in court and the public opinion piece will take care of itself, we're seeing now that that no longer is effective. Those are no longer the times we're living in, Carlos King. So they are doing what public figures of their magnitude must do. Actually, I would say, which is get in front of some of this public narrative immediately and as soon as possible. So Candy probably or her team probably I think correctly assumed that if there starts to be an argument around infidelity or bad actions on the part of Todd Tucker, his legal team would then go to her Instagram and pull all of these beautiful, gorgeous photos of Candy Burris in July, of Candy Burris in March, of Candy Burros in September, and say, for a woman who was going through all that you just told this court you're going through, I certainly can't tell this to me. I'm just telling you how it go down in the war room. Baby. I'm telling you how to go down the war room. I'm telling you how to go down in the depositions because I've sat in them. I have done the questioning. Well, ma'am, you just told me that your husband was cheating on you with your best friend, and this and that and you going through it and you got postpartum? Was this you having postpartum in Malibu? Was this you have? This is how it go down, baby. So this is Candy and her team saying, oh no, we're not gonna allow for that. We're gonna we're gonna we're going to get in front of that narrative and we're gonna say, despite what it looks like, despite all the you know, what's an eighteen hundred hark, I mean, her stylist. But but but but you know, behind the oh my god, god, dang here everything okay, back to the business. Said hey, I'm sorry, I was literally gaged despite all of that stunning, gorgeousness that you see on your screens. My heart breaking. I was absolutely devastated. I'm literally going through and then now, twenty four hours later, we're not gonna let that go un answered, if we're Todd Tucker and his team right, because certainly we're not gonna let the opposing council or you know, opposing party at this point which they are adversaries, Ladies and gentlemen. Don't be confused, not saying they hate each other, not even saying they don't still love each other. But when it comes to what this is, in this point in time, they are adversarial to one another, you better fucking believe it. Okay, So he's not gonna allow his now adversary to take that argument and run with it unanswered. So now we too have to make our case that despite what it looked like and the holding hands and the red carpets, I too was struggling, I too was going through. So we'll see something else I want to put out a far go, Carlos. What we don't know is whether or not this this prenuptial agreement had something called a bad boy clause. Okay, This said is that a part of the divvying of the assets and lat is predicated on behavior. Now, these aren't very common because they're very hard to enforce and very hard to prove, but it is.

00:42:16
Speaker 8: It is.

00:42:16
Speaker 3: It is something that we see. Sometimes it's rumored that Jessica Bill and Justin Timberlake have such a clause that says, in addition to the basic consideration who has what, who made what, who brought what to the table, and when they bought it, and da da dah, we're also gonna consider before we make the division of assets and liabilities, take into account whether one or either party committed infidelity, was a bad actor. If indeed, fidelity is even you know, a consideration in the marriage. So we don't know, and I have no reason to know because I wouldn't know, right we haven't seen the documents yet. But I just want rain drops to put that on the radar that if indeed there was a bad boy cl laws that says, all of this looks different if mister Tucker is proven to be out of fidelity, or maybe if Miss Burgess is proven to be. And sometimes they go one way, so don't assume that what's good for the goose is good for the other. I've seen bad boy clauses that only apply to the husbands. I've seen bad woman clauses that only apply to the wife because it's understood that the husband, because he's bringing the whole bag. Can do whatever he want to do. But you bitch, you better not think about it. I've seen it, so I'm just telling you.

00:43:30
Speaker 2: What it is.

00:43:31
Speaker 3: Okay, Okay, So go ahead, go.

00:43:33
Speaker 2: Ahead, question questions. With that being said, With that being said, With that being said, Candy and Todd have been very public and open about inviting women in their bedroom. It's been something that they've been very open about. They this is not a secret. They have three songs. They've been very open about it. They had that understanding. If there is a bad boy cloth or bad woman claw in the in the in the prenuptial agreement, is it plausible to say if Todd decided to be with a woman independently of Candy, although Candy has allowed women to enter their bedroom together, is that considered cheating because he does have a free pass to sleep with other women based on from my understanding watching the show, if she was around, but is that considered cheating? And and and we have seen videos of them on Instagram. They been on boats with with with a third you know, with with another woman and seems to be having a good, golly time.

00:44:46
Speaker 3: So this is the height of judges discretion. Carlos and this is where you know. One thing we say in the law, and I've heard this since my first day of law school, is the law always lagged behind society, right, So what we know are these notions of whether it's threesomes or more broader polyamory. They've always existed. No one's naive to it, but the visibility and maybe the frequency is peaking. It's climaxing right part in the pun Okay, So because of that, I could see this is gonna be what judge do you get on what day? And what are their personal kind of values around this sort of thing. You can end up in front of a judge that's very kind of old school and traditional. It feels like my grandma, don't start nothing you can't finish, okay, May she rest in peace. So, hey, young lady, you allowed, you know, you broke the seal so to speak, you know, and once you break the seal and allow one woman into your bed, you are tacitly inviting unlimited women at unlimited times. And it will only be a fool that thinks she can control the nature of it once we've allowed permissible third party participation. That's one perspective you could get a more of all. We'll say judge man or woman of any age by the way, that says, hey, no, it don't go like that. The couple must be in complete agreement at all times on what the rules and participation look like. So if it's if she's known, if Ms Buris knows and she's you know, volunteering, and she's willing, then it's permissible. But any activity outside of her knowledge, outside of her permissiveness this court is gonna deem to be out of fidelity of the agreed upon relationship. So that's that's gonna ultimately be the height of a judge's discretion point.

00:46:37
Speaker 2: Okay, and my last question for you is this. You were very honest about, you know, not dating a bus driver, right and then girl.

00:46:53
Speaker 3: And it absolutely not.

00:46:56
Speaker 2: Yes, it lifted, it was split. A lot of people are decide, a lot of people are not on your side. Yes, that's how the conversation. The last question for edby k Williams at least up tonight because she will be back.

00:47:08
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.

00:47:10
Speaker 2: You are a woman of means, you are a highly educated woman, and you are a celebrity. You, like I said, have been litten about not dating the bus driver based on the fact that they're you know, the the financial difference between Candy and Todd entering the relationship, and now he's asking for you know, possible child support. Alumny, are these the reasons why you felt so strongly about not dating a bus driver to prevent yourself from being in the situation?

00:47:44
Speaker 3: But of course that's an easy answer, no shame. In my game, rain Drops, this is very much a part, not exclusively, but a very real part of why I personally this is a me decision, each woman, each man, each person gets to make this decision for themselve. But for me, this would not be a risk I would be willing to take. And that's based on a few things, right, Raindrops, It's based off my personal value system. I'm very old school. I'm very much of the traditional mindset that I think men in this nation we live in a patriarchy, and I believe that men, despite challenges that they also go through, I think they are put in best position to climb the capitalism ladder of this nation based off of male patriarchal systems. So what do I look like tethering myself legally for sure to a man that I'm out earning when the whole system is designed for you to out earn me. So I got a problem with that, and I have no problem saying that, put it on a T shirt. That's fine, fine, totally fine with it. But in addition to that, because I have practiced family law, I know what it's like to see sherry share. And I also have relationships with women who have paid child support for their own children. I have relationships with women who have paid spousal support to men for years, to multiple men. Some of these women and they're not all famous. Some of them are accountants, some of them are CEOs, some of them are you know, working healthcare positions, you know, And that's again, not a risk I am personally willing to take. So I want to be clear before anybody thinks anything funny style, I am not calling Todd Tucker a bus driver at all. I believe that Todd was a working individual, that he bought many things to the table, and Candy made sure we knew that. But the discrepancy is undisputed. The financial discrepancy between herself and Todd remained severe. And when there is a severe discrepancy from the man, the woman whoever it is this risk of money grab accusations is going to always be at play.

00:49:52
Speaker 2: Ebony, I know you got to run. Thank you so much, my love for breaking this down for you are listen, she knows this already.

00:49:59
Speaker 6: You will have been heavy requested your arms were president, and.

00:50:04
Speaker 2: I know you're busy on the West coast, but I want to say thank you so much for taking time out.

00:50:08
Speaker 3: I love you, and I.

00:50:10
Speaker 2: Get my best a Liberty and I will see you some of my.

00:50:12
Speaker 3: Live I will love you. Rain Drops y'alls by Sweetie Bye Carlos.

00:50:16
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so rain drops, you have it here.

00:50:24
Speaker 6: Ebony broke it down. Ebony broke it down. Ebney broke it down. Ebony broke it down.

00:50:30
Speaker 2: I want to read the super chat really fast before I have to run myself job to get my food. I gotta eat tu seven o'clock job.

00:50:42
Speaker 6: Sweet talks the Mama Joyce's behavior along with the pressure of being filmed at to the duress.

00:50:48
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I think what we're seeing now is I thought Candy's filing for divorce was very straight and narrow. It wasn't anything that I thought was relacious. Then Todd responded, and Todd, I think what Todd asked for.

00:51:10
Speaker 6: If they're unable to agree to joint to the custody of the kids, then.

00:51:14
Speaker 2: You know people want X, Y and Z. I think that's when people started parkling, like what's going on? And then when he challenged the prenup, challenging, challenging, excuse me the prenup, I think the audience was like, oh, this is about to get a little messy. So to answer your question, sweet Tea talks, I don't know. I think I think more is going to come out. And one thing I will say about being in the media is this okay, And and hear me, Lillington brain drops when you see things like bread crumbs being dropped, something big is about to happen when you see like little bread crumbs. And People Magazine is very different than I don't want to I want to mention outlet because I'm not trying to like say one is high to the other. But what I will say is People Magazine in order for them to publish a story, and I know this for a fact, I am a journalist. Hey, porscha, People Magazine is the most credible entertainment magazine in the world. In order for them to publish anything from a source, they need more than two sources. And that's just the fact, me sweating job, that's a fact. You need more than two sources for People Magazine to publish anything. They're not gonna take a phone call from Edna because she heard on the streets. M okay at First Avenue or you know she read on the YouTube streets. Child, what, No, they're not going to which I think a lot of people should not do. But I digress.

00:53:02
Speaker 6: Stop reporting on things that isn't substantial anyway. They're not going to report on anything unless they get multiple sources. So what happened yesterday?

00:53:13
Speaker 2: I was like, People Magazine, my people, So that happened? And then I know you got look, wait a minute, Carlos. Miss Edna's reliable too, Yes, child, But I'm just saying not when it comes to sources that People Magazine is gonna take without talking to miss Edna in addition to two more people. Child, That's all I'm saying. Okay, So when I saw that, I was like, oh, these are breadcrumbs, cause that's how the video works. It is with this child. Okay, Oh I missed this. This This is a question for Ebony when Leina and c Hey, Carlos and Ebony. If toad Chie could he still get alamoney love y'all, I'll bring you know what I want to do. Actually, I won't.

00:54:09
Speaker 6: Me and Ebony to come back and then maybe bring on a Georgia divorce lawyer to talk.

00:54:20
Speaker 2: To ebd and I because I like that. Because the thing is this, Everything is contingent on the state. When you get married. State laws are different. As you all though. That's that, all right. Last question from page four one two eight Carlos as a producer for Candy's wedding special, how did you feel about Candy gimming Todd the pre nup forty eight hours forty eight hours before the wedding. I saw that the comment. First of all, I have no feelings in terms of I follow me as a producer, I follow the reality. I don't I don't invoke my personal opinion based on the reality of the people were filming. So I wastly busy following it in real time. I did see the comments built A lot of you guys are saying that she gave him the prenup forty eight hours before they got married. I don't. I don't know if that is true, I have to I have to go back and watch the season. Based on my memory, I think he had it. I don't listen, I would, I don't think. Listen. I don't think Todd had a first draft of the prenup forty eight hours before they were married. I don't think that's the case. I think what may have been the case is maybe the final draft on Candy's part was sent to him forty eight hours. But I don't think he received a first draft forty eight hours. So you know, but who, okay who? We watched the wedding special here, Okay, the diva just me said. I heard he got it three weeks before.

00:56:12
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm what I'm gonna do is look at the the wedding special again, because I don't remember.

00:56:24
Speaker 2: I don't remember, but I do not. I'm ninety nine percent sure he did not receive a first draft forty eight hours. I don't think so at all. I don't think that. But he did receive the final document the morning of the wedding.

00:56:42
Speaker 6: Because we were there filming it. So all right, ray listen, I'll hope you guys enjoyed this episode. We will be back more and when more information occurs, and thank you guys so much, and I'm dropping.

00:56:54
Speaker 2: I'm driving another episode tomorrow. Okay, so make sure you guys go on Patreon, Patreon, doctor Hevle and I. Every week we are recapping Maritime Medicine. Sign on to Patreon to watch Heaveley and I recap Mariton Medicine, and sign out to Patreon to see Marlo Hampton and we do our fashion recaps. Okay, all right, that's patreon dot com slash b Carlos King. All right, love you guys so much. I'll see y'all late time.

00:57:32
Speaker 1: Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.

00:57:40
Speaker 2: With the Lack Effect Network.

00:57:42
Speaker 1: You can also find us on my YouTube channel at be Carlos King Underscore