← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
Kim Kardashian Vs Ray J: Sex tape and defamation
00:36:24
The legal saga involving Kim Kardashian and her ex, Ray J
Loading summary
Transcript131 lines
- [00:00]
Shawn Kent
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot. And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.
- [00:41]
Shawn Kent
Wise, fast, safe, transparent or affordable. Bina Hidden charges Ya Achanak Badi Hui prices Indian bank account. Or Pesa Kahibi Bhai 1.5 crore customers. Aaji wise app download yeah wise.com visit terms and conditions apply.
- [01:08]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire with me, Anushka Matandad Doughty. And joining me of course, is our resident trial attorney, Mr. Shawn Kent. Hi, Shawn.
- [01:16]
Shawn Kent
Hey, Anushka. How are you doing?
- [01:17]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I'm doing well. I'm going to warn that this program contains adult themes and cuz Sean's here. Potentially strong language. I don't know. We'll see.
- [01:25]
Shawn Kent
I am working on myself as a person. I've got a crown on. I'm going to behave all day.
- [01:31]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
You should have a swear job. It should be a ridiculously high amount every time you swear.
- [01:34]
Shawn Kent
Yeah, no, that would be bad. That would be substantial.
- [01:37]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Also on the record, shout out to Hardy, Sean's unofficial daughter, who's just got engaged. Congratulations.
- [01:44]
Shawn Kent
Hardy Golf is engaged. I'm so excited for her. I'm so very happy. She's such a sweetheart.
- [01:49]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
She is. And we've got something else that you're going to enjoy today, Sean, because we're bringing you a brand new lawsuit. It's an interesting one. It's Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Ray J, rico and defamation per se, of course, which sounds like a sort of legal party you don't really want to be invited to. I should probably say for our younger listeners. Ray J is a former R B artist. He also dated Kim Kardashian briefly and is the man who is with her in her infamous sex tape. And I'm not bringing that up just because it's part of his biography. It's very central to the litigation. So Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner, the big dog of the Kardashian clan, are suing Ray J, real name William Ray Norwood Jr. For defamation and he's countersuing them for breach of contract. So first of all, we have an allegation of defamation from the. I'm going to call them Kar Jenners, because that's how they are referred to colloquially. For more than two decades, they say Ray J has engaged in a sustained campaign against plaintiffs, plaintiffs being them, in the TMZ documentary called United States versus Sean Combs. Because, of course, we have a Diddy cameo here. How could we not? Ray J says this in that documentary.
- [02:57]
Shawn Kent
If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it.
- [03:03]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
So there's that statement later on a live stream on 24th September, 2025. He goes on to say this.
- [03:10]
Shawn Kent
The federal RICO I'm about to drop on Chris and Kim is about to be crazy.
- [03:16]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
And he also says, quote, the feds is coming. He then announced, according to the lawsuit to millions of viewers, that the racketeering case against plaintiffs would be, quote, worse than Diddy, referring to the highly publicized federal RICO charges against Sean Diddy Combs. Now, I just want to jump in there and say worse than Diddy. Diddy was acquitted on the charge of rico. So, okay, but of course, the allegation there is that something is coming, a charge of. Of racketeering, which is a really serious offense from the federal government to Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner. Now, the lawsuit, their lawsuit for defamation continues, saying Ray J's public statements are blatantly false. No such federal investigation exists. No law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner. And no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations. I got a question for you, Sean, and I just want to hash it out, because it's a question we get a lot. The language of, quote, the federal RICO I'm about to drop, is that not extremely misleading? Because you can't, as a private individual, drop a federal anything.
- [04:27]
Shawn Kent
When I looked at the lawsuit, that's exactly what I thought about. Now, maybe he is bringing a federal civil claim. And so let's say that's what he is saying. And if he is saying that, then he has a right to bring a lawsuit if he thinks that's there. But you're exactly right. That is a legal misnomer saying that. I'm bringing this federal criminal came. He is not an investigative body. He is not a criminal agent. And that could be possibly one of his defenses. I can't bring a federal RICO claim against anybody. This is crazy.
- [04:53]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay, but if that was one of his defenses, wouldn't you then say, but does the general public know that you still made an assertion that you were going to do it. So it could still be defamatory, I do believe.
- [05:04]
Shawn Kent
And this is going back to like we said with the Donald Trump situation. Step one, when we're, what do they call this? Foreshadowing? Pay attention to where we're going. Your first thing that you have to do when you're analyzing this situation is first ask, is it a defamatory statement in and of itself? Step one, one, two, is it publicized to somebody? And so if we go through it as we talk about defamation per se, that's what the Kardashians are saying. You specifically making this statement under California law is defamation in and of itself. Ray J. You can't say this stuff about people, period. And if you look at the way the world has looked at the Sean Diddy Combs case, him saying that they're worse than Diddy, and when he said it at the time, remember what everybody was thinking of? Did he? There were children, sex, parties, all this stuff bringing people in and him saying it's worse. I could see how the Kardashian are saying, you saying we are worse publicly than Diddy 100% has defamed our name.
- [06:00]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
If there was a federal case, say a grand jury had convened and a central person, I. E. In this case, Ray J. Was caught talking about it publicly on a public platform before, would that put you, I don't know if this is a UK Phrase, but would that not put you in contempt of court?
- [06:17]
Shawn Kent
Well, yeah, we've talked about that. Like, let's say for argument's sake, he is telling the truth. Let's just assume it. And let's assume that means he has been meeting with the grand jury. Grand jury meetings are supposed to be quiet and private. We've talked about that. These are not supposed to be up for the public situation. So that would be a problem. If there was a federal criminal investigation going on against the Kardashians and he was central to this case and he's on podcast talking about it, that'd be a big problem. That doesn't mean there might not be something civil he's trying to bring, but criminally, it doesn't look like there is.
- [06:49]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
And explain you just said you can raise something federally in a civil court. What does that mean?
- [06:53]
Shawn Kent
Well, you can bring a federal civil action and he can make allegations there are civil RICO claims. Believe it or not, there are civil actions. And we talked about this, that he could possibly bring in sue, but those would already be filed. I don't think they are, but he could. I'm Giving him the benefit of the doubt. He could maybe be saying, I believe they are in violation of civil RICO rules and that's what I'm doing. If you listen to the statements he said in this case, that's the thing. You have to be careful with defamation. You could read the way he is saying in two or three different ways. Because I read the complaint that you guys sent us like three different times. You could read the statements he just said a bunch of different ways. It depends on how you want to read them.
- [07:36]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
But when it comes to the bar for actual malice, and I should say we're talking about defamation per se here, which is when something is said that is so bad you don't have to prove damages like damages are assumed. Is that right? The bar for actual malice. Look at me kicking my feet and giggling.
- [07:50]
Shawn Kent
Yeah, I'm so happy.
- [07:53]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
The bar for actual malice. Saying something you knew to be false and repeating it anyway, or presenting something as the truth with reckless disregard that it might not be the truth. They say in the lawsuit, they allege Kim and Chris Ray J's publication of these serious criminal accusations without any attempt at verification or corroboration from legitimate law enforcement sources who would have readily confirmed that no such investigation exists, constitutes reckless disregard for the truth under the actual malice standard. His reliance on his own unsubstantiated assertions, despite having no factual basis or credible source for these inflammatory allegations, demonstrates a fundamental disregard for truth and a willful intent to harm plaintiffs reputations. Now, this is the bit that I'm interested in. Interested. Now the lawsuit. Their lawsuit for defamation continues. Saying, upon information and belief, Ray J personally fabricated the defamatory statements. And because they originated it entirely from his own imagination, he knew them to be false when he made them. Malice may be inferred where a story is fabricated by the defendant. I didn't know that that was a standard where you can just infer malice. If they made it up.
- [08:55]
Shawn Kent
I disagree with that. I disagree with their statement. Because remember, foreshadowing, you have to make a difference between fact versus opinion. And so that's what they have to be careful with. And we even talk about this because we're always talking about the news media. We have trouble sometimes talking about private citizens who defame individuals. And so you have to make the distinction when you're doing analysis. Is Ray J holding this out as a fact, or is Ray J holding this out as an opinion? That's a big difference. And so when they're saying he just made it up, it's Almost as if they're playing into the. This could be his opinion of what's happening. So I disagree. I read that in the lawsuit. I disagree with their analysis because you must do a strong showing of fact versus opinion. And so they're going to say he's holding this out as if it's true. He might say, this is my opinion. I think the Fed should be coming. I think they are coming. Oh, I'm wrong. Oh, well, that was my opinion. I thought they were. I mean, you and I give opinions on things every day when we talk about this.
- [09:51]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
No, you give opinion.
- [09:52]
Shawn Kent
I do give opinions.
- [09:53]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I am impartial.
- [09:54]
Shawn Kent
You are impartial.
- [09:55]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I am a pillar of impartiality.
- [09:58]
Shawn Kent
I give opinions. I am the opposite of impartial.
- [10:01]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Unless it's on David Tennant, in which case I am swayed. But do you even know who that is? No, I don't think Americans have the pleasure like David Tennant. You know, Doctor who. David Tennant is actually the best doctor. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And the reason Sean keeps saying foreshadowing is because he's going to ask me a question from the bar and see if I can get it right. Because not just because Kim Kardashian recently didn't pass the bar, but because we do so much legal analysis on this, on this pod. Let's see. Let's see if we're as good as we think we are. That's a bold claim, actually. But it's interesting that you are saying that. I wondered, is there a defense of, like, satire or comedic? I don't know. I said that in that Diddy documentary because it's funny. Given my long history with the Kardashians. Is that a defense?
- [10:47]
Shawn Kent
Absolutely. Look at comedians. Every day we have these comedians and they make these comments about people all the time, and they're protecting your God. You hit the nail on the head. It's protected by satire, is protected by opinion. So you must, must. First thing, is it defamatory? Was it published to outside individuals? If it was published, was it fact or opinion? Opinion could be satire. I'm joking. This is for song lyrics. Drake versus Kendrick. You know, these are me being song lyrics. This is me being whatever. I'm not offering this as a factual statement. That's going to be the crux, I think, in that case, for the Kardashians.
- [11:25]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
But then my second question, though is what about venue? Because the first comment was made in a documentary and then the second one was made on a live stream. Now, in the parameters of a documentary on a serious federal case, would it not, I'm going to say a reasonable individual, because you guys use that phrase all the time. Would a reasonable individual not assume that a statement made in a documentary that was then edited and checked by lawyers, would we not assume that that statement was more truthful or was more serious in tone than something made on a live stream?
- [11:57]
Shawn Kent
That's why we have defamation per se, because we don't have to go through that strong analysis like you've just said, Anushka, because it is presumed that the statement was made and it is presumed there are damages, which takes your analysis and goes towards the end, what damages did they actually suffer? And so they'll say exactly what you've said. Because this was on a news source, because this was verifiable, people are more likely to believe it. Because they're more likely to believe it. We've been damages. It's the same thing. We have talked about the Trump situation. Same thing. We talk about all these situations and we get calls about this all the time. Everybody wants to sue for defamation because they said something or said something about someone's ugly kid or something this nature. And I say that we get through this analysis. Everything you have said is true. But what are your damages? So for the Kardashians, Ray J has been seen to say some, I want to make sure I use my British phrase, some off putting stuff from time to time. That is a little bit wild. What damages can he actually cause the Kardashians?
- [12:57]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I don't know if everyone would necessarily agree with that, because like you said, there was just a complete media storm around Diddy, assuming that he was the worst of the worst of the worst, and he was immediately guilty of all the things he'd been accused of. And so making that comment worse than Diddy, I, it did go everywhere. I did see it online. You know, Roger says the Kardashians are running a sex trafficking ring, which that's not what he actually said, but that is how some of the press picked up on it and ran with it.
- [13:25]
Shawn Kent
And if you're right, if you're looking at the damages, one of the things that would be interesting for the Kardashians, even though I don't think they'd want to admit it, but they'll say their inner circle is so tight and they have dated a couple of different men, shall we say, and nobody has ever come out with something about their inner circle. And so where it could give Ray J More truth is he is someone who has dated a Kardashian. He would have more knowledge of their inner workings, and maybe this is somebody who knows more and people will give him more credence. That's possibly where their damages could be. Just can't say my feelings are hurt. Give me money. You can't just say, give me $1 billion. You actually have to specifically have proof on what your damages actually are. If you notice in the Kardashian lawsuit, they don't put a dollar number in there.
- [14:09]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Is there a space to say it's not monetary damages? What we need, our prayer for relief in this is that he comes out and says he made it all up and that's all we're asking for.
- [14:18]
Shawn Kent
But remember, this is something that goes to a jury, and a jury can't do that. That's something you send a demand and I'm glad we talked about, you send a demand letter to him and say, we won't go forward with his lawsuit if you make a public apology. Because when you're sitting at the end of the jury trial and the jury stands up. All rise. Have y' all reached the verdict? Yes, we have. We find he needs to apologize. Juries don't do that. They make a demand of money. Now, nurse. The proven damages are so hard. You usually have to have, like, an economist, somebody who will do, believe it or not, like, a social media scrub. We've had to do these things. You hire people who figure out how damaged your reputation has been as a result of this statement. And it's the same thing with Donald Trump. The Kardashians are very polarizing. So when this economist and this social media expert and this person goes online to figure out how damaged they are, there's a lot of damage stuff about the Kardashians online. And so how did this part hurt them financially?
- [15:11]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Now, I mean, to reflect what they say, Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, the Kardashian clan, they say these claims are blatantly false. And they go some way in outlining in their lawsuit what I would consider to be motive in that they say, you know, he's doing this. He's long had an issue with us. He's doing this on purpose. So they go out some way in outlining Ray J's motive for making these claims. Do you actually need to outline motives to prove defamation per se, or can you just say, this person did it? Here's the proof.
- [15:39]
Shawn Kent
No, you don't have to. And I actually read their lawsuit. I actually think it's fairly well written.
- [15:44]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
It's nice and short.
- [15:45]
Shawn Kent
Nice. And it gets your point across. Like you said, it gives the motive. It says what it is. It says the background. It gives the players. They do some things that are very clever in the lawsuit is when they identify the parties. Kim Kardashian is this global billion dollar bland who works her tail off and she does all this great stuff. Kris Jenner is such a hard worker and she is this matrix over and Ray J sucks. And that's the person who's in this lawsuit.
- [16:07]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I read that bit as well and picked up on that.
- [16:09]
Shawn Kent
Wasn't that funny?
- [16:11]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
He's utterly forgotten as a figure without Kardashian. So he needs to make explosive statements to stay in the public consciousness.
- [16:19]
Shawn Kent
Yeah, it was savage. AF is probably the way the kids say it. Oh, sure, I watched my language. You see that?
- [16:27]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Please, you're cringing me out. Save it, granddad. Let's get into this cross complaint. Cross complaint, what does that actually mean?
- [16:36]
Shawn Kent
It's just a fancy word for I'm suing you to. You sue me, I'm suing you back. That's literally all that means.
- [16:41]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Does it have to address what was said in the original lawsuit?
- [16:45]
Shawn Kent
Well, that's great because you also notice that Ray J filed an answer. Okay, did you notice that? So Ray J filed an answer that addresses the original lawsuit. And one of the interesting things, if you notice from Ray J's lawsuit, was he said it's true. Did you know? I mean, if you read the answer, he just said, this is true. It's a defense to defamation. The stuff that I said is true, which is very subtle that people won't catch on, but he flat out double. He's like, what I said is true is his answer. So he's answered their complaint and then he has cross complained and say, I am now suing you for what you have done to me and hurt me reputationally. He could have filed it separately at a separate point in time for a separate lawsuit, but the reason that he has attached it to this one is the courts like what's called judicial economy. This is all about one central thing. Let's bring one lawsuit and have it answered at one time rather than two different lawsuits floating around, since it's all about one central matter.
- [17:37]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
So in his cross complaint, I mean, he does answer go some way in responding to what they said in the cross complaint, but he does introduce other elements that he alleges of the story of him and Kim. In 2003, Ray J and Kim record a sex tape In Cabo called for the purposes of the lawsuit. The Cabo sex tape.
- [17:54]
Shawn Kent
I never heard about that.
- [17:55]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
The sex tape.
- [17:56]
Shawn Kent
There's a sex tape?
- [17:57]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
No comment.
- [17:58]
Shawn Kent
I did not know this. This is interesting. Can I Google it?
- [18:01]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
No, you can't because someone needs to put childlock on your computer.
- [18:04]
Shawn Kent
It's already, already there.
- [18:05]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Trust me.
- [18:06]
Shawn Kent
Trust me.
- [18:07]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
The question is, Sean, do you know how to Google it?
- [18:09]
Shawn Kent
No, I don't.
- [18:11]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I would be like just hitting the.
- [18:13]
Shawn Kent
Just hit my computer screen, show me, show me nudity and it doesn't work. I'd ask Siri. Hey, Siri, can I see a sex tape? The funny part is my phone just clicked on. Okay, delete history. Delete cookies. What just happened? Abort. Abort.
- [18:33]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Yeah, your missus is going to be like, what now?
- [18:36]
Shawn Kent
Could you talk to me about your search history this morning?
- [18:41]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
What do you think makes the perfect snack?
- [18:43]
Shawn Kent
Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient. Could you be more specific when it's cravenient? Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at am, pm. I'm seeing a pattern here. Well, yeah, we're talking about what I crave, which is anything from ampm. What more could you want? Stop by AMPM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience. Ampm. Too much good stuff.
- [19:11]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot. And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.
- [19:44]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Yeah, so in 2006, they allegedly discussed releasing the tape publicly. It says that Kris Jenner had Kim Kardashian and Ray J sign a licensing agreement with the porn production company that released the tape. That's Vivid Entertainment llc. Referred to hereafter as just Vivid. Chris allegedly made Kim and Ray J record another tape in Santa Barbara because she felt the first one was, quote, not dirty enough. This is according to Ray J's cross complaint. It says Chris watched both tapes before they all decided to release the Cabo one. Allegedly. Then it says Kardashian, as in Kim, Kris and Vivid, agreed that Kim would file a bogus lawsuit against the porn company to create Buzz ahead of the tape's release. Vivid and Kris Jenner then leaked to TMZ that they had settled for $5 million. Ray J says there was no such settlement. Okay, that's according to him. They did not settle for $5 million. This was purely to create buzz. Ray J and Kim stayed friends after the release until Ray J's mum, Sonia, allegedly found out that members of Kim Kardashian's family had racked up charges on Ray J's family credit card. Sonia files a lawsuit about these alleged charges. Allegedly, Kim begged him to have his mum drop her off the lawsuit, but that she was okay with her siblings being sued. Now, we looked at this, and at the time, the Kardashians reportedly denied the claims of the lawsuit. The case was then dismissed with prejudice in June 2009. With prejudice. It can never be raised again. And US media at the time reported that there had been an out of court settlement. So there's a fair few different things that have been introduced here, none of which at this point in time have anything to do with the alleged RICO comment, the allegation that they're running an enterprise. And then the second comment made on the live stream. He says that the Kardashians and the Jenners go on to profit off the sex tape for nearly two decades now, in interest of presenting Kim Kardashian's side of it all. She said the sex tape release was humiliating. She's spoken about this multiple times in the press. You know her side of it. An invasion of privacy. What it's like to have your most intimate moments out there. We approached her and Kris Jenner for a response to Ray J's countersuit. Their attorney, Alex Spiro, sent us this statement, quote, after realizing he's losing the case and losing his way. This disjointed rambling distraction is not intimidating anyone. Ray J will lose this frivolous case too, Spiro. He's got a pretty high value client base. He's Jay Z's lawyer as well.
- [22:17]
Shawn Kent
I'm about to say, I need. I need his Rolodex. Yeah.
- [22:20]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I'm like, I haven't heard that name in a while, but that takes me back.
- [22:25]
Shawn Kent
Yeah, I got you. He's got them. Geez.
- [22:28]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay. Yeah. And you represent me pro bono, baby. Now, this, like, we've kind of spoken about, this has nothing to do with what the car journalists have actually alleged in their lawsuit. This is a separate set of allegations. But you've explained, put them all in one docket, settle it all at once. We then get into more revelations, which comes into the idea of the breach of contract. And just a warning, this section contains graphic sexual descriptions. So Ray J's countersuit alleges that. That after the launch of the new Kardashian show, so not keeping up with the Kardashians, but its latest iteration. He says that they created a new scandal around another sex tape to launch the series. He says that they said that Ray J gave the Santa Barbara sex tape, the second one that he says Kris Jenner made him record because the first one wasn't dirty enough, to his former manager. Now, Ray J denies ever possessing this tape. He also said that Kim Kardashian says he sexually assaulted her while she was sleeping. Kim, yay, as in Kanye and Chris. Also allegedly, according to Ray J, accused him of extorting them for a laptop containing the second sex tape. Now, I've got a question here about tone, because if you go back and you listen to the clip of what Kim says, she says, I'm 99 sure that another sex tape doesn't exist, but what if I was sleeping and he stuck a dildo up my ass and I. I don't know. It was a jokey moment. She's pretty flippant with it. But he's included it in his cross complaint. Could that not just be immediately dismissed by a judge who says, when you list. Listen to it tonally, she clearly was making sort of a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate the fact that she doesn't think anything else exists at all anyway. In regards to another sex tape.
- [24:03]
Shawn Kent
Absolutely. And there's something on the law called summary judgment. What summary judgment means is a judge can do exactly what you just said. The Kardashians could bring a claim. Alex Spiro could bring a claim for summary judgment. He could say, judge, before this goes further, before it goes to a jury, before we engage in discovery, we believe, as a matter of law, this case should not go any further. If you look at the tone in the context, what he has written in the complaint is completely erroneous. It is wrong. It does not meet the threshold for a defamatory conduct, and it doesn't need to get to a jury. You're exactly right. Like, it doesn't meet the threshold for a crime, a civil suit, anything of that nature, throw it out. And the judges can do that as summary judgment stage. They can say, we're throwing this case out because it shouldn't get to a jury. So even though we say, Anushka, that anyone can bring a lawsuit, which they can Our judges are what we call gatekeepers. They don't let frivolous lawsuits go to the jury. So it's up to the lawyer to say, I want this thrown out on behalf of my client. This is incorrect. The tone that he is putting on this, he is making it stronger than it was intended.
- [25:09]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay, but is there a question there about how media is consumed? I mean, if you listen to it in the context of the full conversation around a second sex tape, then it's somewhat clear tone how it's presented. But what about tick tock? What about things getting clipped and taken out of context? Could he not argue that?
- [25:27]
Shawn Kent
And then his response back is going to be, look, it doesn't necessarily matter how you attended it. It matters how the viewing public saw it. In light of the fact there was already one sex tape. In light of the fact that you guys don't care for me if somebody is reading this. And let's be honest, if you read it versus if you hear it, and then they could have taken it in a different way. And it has hurt my character and your honor, for this reason, they must be more careful when they're putting this stuff out here. This was a concerted effort to increase their brand by talking about the thing that made them blow up to begin with, these sex tapes. And I think it should go to the jury.
- [26:05]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Well, he, off the back of this, Ray J says he messages Kim to confront her about the lies, his word lies broadcast on the, on the Kardashians after mediation. So they enter into mediation. He says they enter into an agreement. This includes Kim paying him $6 million. No further public statements on the sex tape. Non disparagement both ways. And if they breach that, then the breaching party has to pay a million dollars. Non disparagement agreement. I hear that a lot. What exactly is that?
- [26:31]
Shawn Kent
We don't want Kim saying nasty stuff about Ray J. And we don't want Ray J saying nasty stuff about Kim so that we don't get in these defamation esque categories that we're both going to leave each other alone. We might both hate each other, but we don't want the public jumping all over this so they can't think bad stuff about us so we can keep our brands going the way that they're going.
- [26:49]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
He says that they then go on to talk about the sex tapes again in series three in episodes one and 10. So there's the breach of contract allegation which he's filed in the cross complaint. He does address his comments, his RICO comment Now, he says he saw parallels between RICO and the alleged conspiracy between the Kardashian Jenners and Vivid Films to release the sex tape, filing the bogus lawsuit, creating publicity, all allegations. But this is what he's saying. He considered himself whether he should file his own lawsuit against the Karjenners under the civil RICO statute. So a lot of that we've just spoken about so during the TMZ show, when he throws in that aside, if this was about the Kardashians, I would believe it. His defense there is. That's my actual opinion. Based on surveying what he thinks are the facts.
- [27:37]
Shawn Kent
You got it. And that's going to be his thing. Just like, look, whether it's right or wrong, this was my opinion. This is what I thought. This is what I believe. I lived with it. From the sex tape to dealing with them. I do believe that they are the dons of the world and they are controlling their situations. From the Vivid release to all these situations, I can see a RICO situation. He could be wrong, but that's his opinion. That's why it's so important to discern fact.
- [28:00]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
And this is, I'm really interested about this bit. The second incident on a live stream, he says on September 24, 2025, he appears on a Twitch live stream. When his part ended, he walks off camera and believed that his microphone was off. And that's when he makes the off camera comment that he didn't know was being live streamed. Quote the federal rico. I'm about to drop on Chris and Kim. It's about to be crazy. If anybody knows Kim or is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now. The rain is coming. The feds is coming. It's worse than Diddy. The feds is coming to investigate because I can't be the dirty guy no more. So what about intentionality behind defamation? If he's off camera and a private comment gets caught, that's not him broadcasting those claims. So could that, Is that a defense?
- [28:43]
Shawn Kent
Well, it could be. But don't forget, when we talk about publication, it has to be public foreshadowing. It has to be published to a third party. It doesn't say it has to be published to millions of people. It has to be published to third parties. So the question is, was he mumbling to himself or was he talking to somebody else? That's one of the questions. We don't know. If he's saying it to somebody in a microphone, caught it, then it is published to a third party and maybe then your damages are Smaller. If he's muttering to himself, then your argument's going to be like, that wasn't published to anybody. Not with intent. Because intent is always an issue in these situations. So that's going to be very interesting.
- [29:21]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Does it not matter at all the size of the third party? Because they're public figures? So if he said it to two people, would that still be defamation?
- [29:29]
Shawn Kent
It's defamation. But what is the last thing we always ask? What is the last question? Damages. If you publish it to two people, what are your damages if those two people hate you? Here's a $35. Go get some coffee. You understand? So the size of the publication on who it's published to affect your damages, on how people know. And the thing that we always be careful about when we represent people on defamatory comments, Anushka, when we do it personally, we always people like, oh, do you want to give a press conference? I'm like, no, because if you give a press conference, you're the one putting the defamatory comment out to the world to see. You're the one who was on BBC talking about this case. So you created this same situation. Rachel said, I talked to two people too. Like, what are your damages?
- [30:10]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Now we approach Ray J for a comment, but we haven't heard back yet. In the legal documents, he calls Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner's lawsuit a public relations charade containing malicious falsehoods. He argues it's not about defamation, but about publicity power and punishment. Oh, I do love a little bit of alliteration. I do.
- [30:27]
Shawn Kent
They're good lawyers who have drafted these lawsuits, whether you like or not. They're both well written.
- [30:31]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Now, my question here is, and it's a bit of a nebulous one, so I'm trying to phrase this right. He's saying he can see a parallel between RICO and what. What he alleges took place between Kim, Chris and Vivid. But a lot of what was going on with. What's always going on with Kim, Kylie, Courtney, Khloe and Kris is them just talking to each other, hashing things out of the dinner table because they're family. So is there not a vulnerability when it comes to family business for someone to say, well, that's an enterprise, when actually it's, you know, four sisters talking to each other and their mum. Isn't it like a gray area?
- [31:05]
Shawn Kent
Four sisters can be a family Mephilia. You can look at the mob. You can look at stuff like families can be rico. That's literally why RICO was Created because of family relationships, let's be perfectly honest. So. So yes, family can be Rico.
- [31:20]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Now, once again, we approached Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner for a response. Their attorney, Alex Spiro sent us this statement after realizing he is losing the case and losing his way. This disjointed, rambling distraction is not intimidating anyone. Ray J will lose this frivolous case. We also approached Vivid Entertainment for a comment, but we have not heard back yet. Okay, so recently it's come out that Kim has failed the bar. You know, these things don't happen quickly. If Kim manages to pass the bar, could she represent herself in this?
- [31:47]
Shawn Kent
Absolutely. And. But the phrase we always say is a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. But yes, she could technically represent herself. It'd be a massive mistake, but yes, she could.
- [31:58]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
If you were involved in an in illegal trouble, would you represent yourself?
- [32:01]
Shawn Kent
No, I would not.
- [32:02]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Who would you trust to represent you? Who would you pick?
- [32:04]
Shawn Kent
What a great question. There's some good lawyers who I really trust who would do the hard work. The problem is they would get micromanaged from me behind the scenes. Like, what's that? What's that? Are you sure you're doing that right? Like, yeah, I'd be the worst client ever. I don't know if anybody would want to represent me, but no, I would never represent myself. I'd get you. You're the best lawyer I know, so I'd have you come over and represent me. And when I'm ultimately convicted, please make sure you put some money on my canteen and tell my mom I love her.
- [32:34]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Oh, my God. My parents are going to enjoy that Anushka. You should have been a lawyer. Yes, you should have.
- [32:39]
Shawn Kent
Yes, I agree with that.
- [32:40]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
But. But could I? Is the real question. Because everybody is jumping on Kim's back about her not passing the bar because she has private tutors and she's made a few attempts to pass the baby bar, unsuccessfully, and then now she's failed the big bar. You listen to this program every week. We've been on for a year now. Could we actually, as the listeners that are host the team behind the scenes, pass the bar? Sean, like, let's put that to the test.
- [33:08]
Shawn Kent
Here we go.
- [33:09]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay. I feel like I need pen and paper.
- [33:12]
Shawn Kent
I think you're gonna be fine. I'm gonna give you an actual question from the bar. What normally happen, as you understand in this kid, it's a three day exam. The first two days are essays. You would get 90 minutes to answer this question. So of course I am not going to listen to you for 90 minutes. And the hardest part about the bar and everyone should be able to get this is not that you won't know the answer. It is analyzing both sides of the issue and make sure you can understand all the situations. So are you ready for your first bar question, Anishka?
- [33:42]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Yeah, can I find out. I'm looking at my senior producer, Vicky. Can I find a friend here? Yeah, go, go, go. Okay, we're ready.
- [33:50]
Shawn Kent
Here we go. Mel is a city council member and she is running for reelection.
- [33:55]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay.
- [33:56]
Shawn Kent
During her televised debate, her opponent Hardy states. She states Mel is a corrupt politician who has been taking bribes from a construction company to pass favorable zoning laws. The news media reports on the debate and the story is widely discussed online. As a result, Mel's poll numbers drop and she loses a significant amount of campaign donations. Simple question. Did Hardy commit defamation against Mel? Analyze and explain.
- [34:38]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay, so now my first question is Mel is running for. Would you call it, city council?
- [34:44]
Shawn Kent
She's running for office. She's running for reelection. City council.
- [34:47]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
She's running for re election. So she's. Okay, so this isn't her first. This isn't her first time out here. So I'm assuming that that establishes her as a public figure, which therefore makes the bar.
- [34:58]
Shawn Kent
I'm gonna start doing my correct my scoring. Go ahead.
- [35:01]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay. Which makes the bar for defamation higher because she's a public figure. Hardy, cheeky, Cheeky has come out and said that she's taken bribes from a construction company for more favorable zoning, whatever that means. But Hardy has said this. Right? So defamation, it's either she knew knew it not to be true and said it it anyway, or recklessly disregarded the fact that it's not true and presented it as a fact. So I would then be looking at Hardy and saying, is this. I don't know if good faith belief is the right thing, but have you seen evidence that therefore makes you believe that this is true? Have you done enough research into this before just broadcasting it as a fact? I think it meets the bar for defamation in the fact that it was said at a public debate, which then is picked up widely by the media because it's broadcast to a third party and that third party is wide. Therefore that could damage not just. Oh, yeah. So therefore if they lose the election, then the damages are there. That then they lost the election. But then if Hardy said, that's my honest opinion. Yeah, she'd need to show a basis for that opinion.
- [36:12]
Shawn Kent
Right.
- [36:12]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
I think I want to finish the.
- [36:14]
Shawn Kent
Answer there and you would have passed like that is hits. That hits actually every element you went through. The fact that it's a defamatory statement.
- [36:21]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Live here, guys, you would have gotten a passing score. Can you just give me a job? No, I can't.
- [36:29]
Shawn Kent
Now, by the way, that was the most rambling, incoherent answer I've ever seen. And I'm hoping that it would have been written down much more consistently.
- [36:36]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
But, Sean, I did a history degree.
- [36:38]
Shawn Kent
Babe, you hit all the elements.
- [36:40]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Okay, we'll put that on socials without the answer so people can. We'll see what they get. Guys, how did you do at home? DM me, Anushkamd on IG and TikTok. Text us how you did. Was it hard? Was it easy? Sorry that it was rambling, but at least I know the bar for defamation. So if anybody tries to defame me, I'll represent myself.
- [37:00]
Shawn Kent
You got them. Here they go. Let's go.
- [37:03]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Sean, thank you so much for joining us today.
- [37:05]
Shawn Kent
Thank you for having me. I appreciate you.
- [37:07]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
That was our resident trial attorney Shawn Kent, joining us from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications on BBC Sounds so you never miss a thing. News moves fast, but understanding takes time. In a world of misinformation and constant Updates. Currently from BBC Radio 4 presents documentaries that bring you closer to the heart of the story. And go beyond the headlines. From undiscovered truths and hidden stories to the biggest issues of the day. We go further and unravel the untold. Well, let's talk about borrowing costs and whether the Chancellor has a problem. The UK's national debt has risen dramatically. But how worried should we be? Two dramatic moments that reveal how the world really works. We bring you the stories from those closest to them. It all felt so ominous.
- [38:06]
Shawn Kent
How this vast machine built of metal by human hands could be broken by.
- [38:12]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
A simple collision with a bird. Where the world of news comes to life and your perspective changes.
- [38:20]
Shawn Kent
German politics is usually stable, but that's not true anymore.
- [38:25]
Anushka Matandad Doughty
Listen to currently on BBC Sounds. And to not miss an episode.
- [38:37]
Shawn Kent
This is the story of the 1. As head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the H Vac is humming, and his facility shines with Grainger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces. Plus 24. 7 customer support. His venue never misses a beat. Call quickgranger.com or just that by the way Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [39:07]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.