B (3:29)

A lawsuit is supposedly just supposed to be a notice document. It is supposed to put the other side on notice on. This is why we are suing you. This is what we're saying you did. And this is why we are owed money. You have breached a duty. You owe us money, period. That's the way it used to be and that's the way it's supposed to be. And that's what you're taught in law school. It is a notice document. It should be simple, to the point and put the other side on notice. We are now in the social media sensational era of the practice of law. And it seems like every lawsuit, the more and more you're giving are getting more and more ramped up to try to be more and more sensationalist. I think at some point in time our courts are going to have to come and shut these folks down because it's clear none of this stuff that I read in the lawsuit that you gave me establishes a breach of contract. It establishes potentially that she might be an awful person, this abhorrent person, but none of that is necessary to put the other side on notice about the lawsuit. Now, they can ask her all of these questions in a deposition, and they might actually be able to ask her all of these questions on the stand. But putting them in a lawsuit is completely superfluous and unnecessary. And I don't know why they did it. Well, we know why they did it. For what we're doing right now, we're talking about it, and that's what they wanted.

A (4:43)

But I'm talking about it, and I'm saying this just feels like character assassination. But how far is character assassination relevant when you, you know, if you're demanding a trial by jury and you say this person has a pattern of doing.

B (4:55)

This, all of the stuff that you have just said, Anushka, is stuff that is proper if Priscilla takes the stand. Because once you take the stand, your character goes on the stand with you. And so when you're testifying in front of a jury, they might be able to say exactly what you just said to the jury. The reason we believe she is likely to breach this contract is because she has breached all of these other contracts in the past, and we believe this is relevant in front of the jury. The fact that they're saying she's done all this stuff in the past, it's likely that she has done this in the future. Maybe that's their theory, calling someone a.

A (5:24)

Pit viper willing to prey on their family and a sociopath in the second sentence of a lawsuit. I mean, this is what I'm getting at. Is it like, because this is within the bounds of a civil lawsuit, you can't sue us for this. When do you say something so egregious, that's so unrelated to the claim at hand that somebody goes, actually, that is defamatory with malicious intent.

B (5:46)

You're saying the right point. And that will be the argument that at some point in time, somebody will make before a court. They will say, you have gone so far that you don't give a dang about the lawsuit. You are just crossing the threshold because you want the world at hold to think that she's an awful person. Now, their response is going to be very simple. What we always talk about with defamation, truth is defense. We believe this stuff is true. That's why we put it inside the lawsuit. We didn't make it up. This is true information.

A (6:11)

Okay, so we've got this almost like bubble wrapping of Priscilla is the devil and she's a terrible person. And she's done terrible things to her family members, and if she can do that, then who else could she kind of screw? When we get into the actual claim, this is the gist of it. We've got the plaintiffs, so the people suing Brigitte Cruz and Kevin Fialco. They tell a story of a lavish Priscilla Presley who overspends, burning through money she doesn't have. They claim that in 2022, she approached Cruz, who's an auctioneer who sold Elvis memorabilia, and Fialco, an entrepreneur, to help correct her financial affairs, which were in, they say, severe distress. They say they devote themselves full time to, quote, assisting, repairing, stabilizing and improving her financ. And a key way they do this is to exploit her name, image and likeness. So the name Priscilla Presley, what's the difference between image and likeness?

B (7:05)

They're interchangeable. We just use them because it sounds fancy together. Name, image and likeness.

A (7:08)

Now you say to me, priscilla Presley, I know her. Look, everybody knows what she looks like. You say, marilyn Monroe. I know her, look. Amy Winehouse. They are so distinguishable, they're so unique. And if you sell somebody the rights to your name, image and likeness, they own that version of you. What happens if you drastically change what you look like and you completely have a different style, different vibe, you can't even tell it's the same person. Can you kind of wriggle out of selling someone your name, image and likeness? If you're like, well, I sold you that name, image and likeness, and now I've got this name, image and likeness.

B (7:40)

All right, here comes the inner dork in me. You have to break this down. Because what this turns into is what are called intellectual property. You probably have heard about people's IP rights, and that's what this lawsuit is basically is about. It's about somebody's IP rights. So what ended up happening in the Priscilla situation is she had these ideas, these situations, and she went to this company and she said, I would like to sell you my intellectual property, my name, image and likelist. You can run with it. You can take these ideas and come up with these things. I think she had a movie, there was a movie called Priscilla, I think that was coming out things of these situations that she wanted to come out. Not just the idea, but she was selling her name, image and likeness so that they can run with it and create other situations. The problem is, as you know, they're saying, hold on, she already sold it to somebody else back in 2005, I think it was. And she can't sell it now. And that's where the problem came in.

A (8:35)

But could she say if she like shaved her head and went by a different name and looks completely different, could she then sell that name and gave herself a different name? Could she sell that name, image and likeness to somebody else? Or is it like, do you own the person?

B (8:49)

Well, don't forget what you just said and that you gave the great definition, image and likeness, you understand? So this is the like image of Priscilla Presley. So anything that you are doing, like when Britney Spears shaved her head, it was still Britney Spears. It was Britney Spears with the shaved head. That's her likeness. And so what these companies do is we're going to come up with a commercial based upon your shaved head. The reason the company was so mad is we put hundreds of people, thousands of dollars into creating this brand for you, Priscilla Presley, and seeing and doing all of these crazy things to make sure you weren't the loser they're saying you were beforehand because you were broke, you had no money, you came to us because you needed all this money. So we bought a portion of your name, image and likeness. We dumped a bunch of money to improving your image. And then what we were hoping to do is now that we have created this amazing image, we're going to profit off of it. The movie Priscilla was going to make a bunch of money based upon the money we dumped into it. And you screwed us because you had already sold it to other people and you were doing things that went against the contract that we had drafted. And to answer the last in the most simple way, all of the questions you asked about shading heads and things of this nature, good lawyers put that stuff down in contract. You are not going to shave your head. You are not going to do things that are going to ruin your iconic image. Priscilla, you have an iconic image. You're not going to do anything to destroy it. They can put stuff in there like, you're not going to color your hair, you're not going to cut your hair, you're not going to dye your skin, you're not going to put this much weight on because we're bunching a bunch of money into your name, image and likeness.

A (10:20)

And then like you say, they said they were going to profit off this. So the agreement says the promoters, I.e. cruz and Fialco, would use her image for merchandise booking events, NFTs. That's kind of a new way of doing this as well. Digital assets, real or virtual events, including holograms, pop up museums and virtual image technology. They also had Rights to her recollections. So her going to events and talking about stuff she experienced, I'm assuming with Elvis during that period of time, they had the exclusive rights to that in the contract that they laid out, or they alleged that they do. One of the exhibits that they give attached to the lawsuit to back this up is a memorandum of understanding. What the hell is that?

B (10:58)

It is an interview, a recollection of what happened back in the day. It's just called a memorandum of understanding of what you and I were talking about of the conversation we had.

A (11:07)

So you saying this is written after the fact. This isn't something that's drafted before and people sign it's written after something happens.

B (11:13)

Usually.

A (11:15)

Okay, usually. Okay. Why would you write it beforehand?

B (11:19)

Well, if you write it beforehand, it's just a contract that the two of you sign. Usually a memorandum of understanding just says, all right, the two of us. Let's say after this conversation that you and I are having today, later, I come to you and say, here is a memorandum of understanding that is a recollection of the conversation we just had. And then you signed. So Anushka said this, this, this, Sean said this, this, and this here is our memorandum of understanding. Do you agree that that's what the two of us talked about? Yep. Sign it up. That's how it's usually done.

A (11:47)

Okay, is this as binding as a normal contract or is it a little looser?

B (11:51)

Little looser. It still has the terms that a contract will have. It still can be potentially enforceable. It's a little looser. But remember, a contract, I'm not going to give you the definition because you always pick on me, but a contract just to have. Have clear, definite terms that both sides understand. Priscilla's argument back and forth is, this is elder abuse, you made me sign stuff. And that's going to be the battle back and forth with these contracts.

A (12:13)

They then claim that is the plaintiff. So Cruz and Fialco that leading up to the launch of Sofia Coppola's film Priscilla, if we remember Jacob Elordi as Elvis, this was a huge film from Priscilla's point of view. Big, big, big movie. They say around that time, another character comes into the picture and that is Kaya Morgan. So Kaya Morgan was Marvel's Stan Lee's former business manager. Now, the lawsuit says that he and Priscilla initiate a SC smear campaign against Cruz and Fialco, destroying their business and their livelihoods. They also said that once KA Morgan comes onto the scene, Priscilla cuts contact with them. She starts moving Frosty they're disinvited from the premiere of Sofia Coppola's Priscilla movie. Kaya Morgan convinces her to ice them out. So this all happens around the premiere. They're ultimately invited. It talks about Morgan in the lawsuit. Kaya Morgan being arrested for elder abuse from Stan Lee. But it omits the fact that the elder abuse charges were dropped before the trial. So that's kind of, if you're reading it as a story, you'd be like, oh, the idea is that K. Morgan's come in and now maybe she's being led down a different path to cut them out, which is against her better interests. That's what's hinted at or alleged in this lawsuit. We approached K.M. morgan for a comment, but we didn't hear back. He previously told Rolling Stone magazine that the claims were malicious lies. And as I said before, Priscilla also denies the allegations. How strong of a breach of contract claim do you think this lawsuit is? Given the 50 different narratives that come at the beginning, like the actual crux of the issue, how strong do you think it is?

B (13:43)

When you peel back all of the onions, all of this other, I keep using the word superfluous, unnecessary stuff, it actually becomes a very simple lawsuit. It really does. The simplicity is, is there a contract? Did we have an agreement with you, Priscilla, to work, get value from your intellectual property, from your name, image and likeness? Yes. Did we spend money? Yes. Did we spend money to promote you? Yes. And then did you do things that went against terms that are in a contract? Did you do things unrelated? Yes. The reason I think it's simple is her defense back is this is elder abuse. You took advantage of me and you're asking for entirely too much money and too much of my intellectual property. This is simply not fair. You shouldn't have done this. That's why I think it's a much more simple lawsuit because of her response back to it. Her response back is elder abuse. And it is unconscionable and it should shock the court's conscience that they asked for so much money back or so much of a percentage of the money I made. We see these situations all the time in Nashko, dealing with athletes. College level athletes sell their name, image and likeness. They get these agents, the agent gives them advances on their money, and agent says something simple like, hey, look, we'll give you $1 million while you're in college, but if you become a pro, just give us 40% of all the money you make for the rest of your entire career. And then all of A sudden a guy makes $300 million and he's like, why am I giving these guys 60 million? I only got a million from them in college. It's the same type of situation that she's saying this is completely unfair. It happened, but it's unfair.

A (15:23)

Okay, so you mentioned there that Priscilla has a response. She sued them earlier for a list of complaints which included financial elder abuse, that she was isolated and manipulated and forced to sign documents that essentially put her under their control. Now, the attorney for Cruz and fialco, Jordan Matthews, told us Priscilla Presley has presented zero evidence in support of her claims and that her defensive strategy is to issue hyperbolic statements that are nonsensical, meritless and have absolutely no substance. What Priscilla lays out in her lawsuit is a similar pattern that we often see with elder abuse, which, which is to plant doubt about people that you're surrounded by, isolate you, change your networks, change your support systems and then start to control your life. And that is what she says with this elder financial abuse, which is what she's alleging. She says that Cruz took over as her manager even though that she alleges they had no management experience, that they were heavily involved in her legal issues, that they assigned her a lawyer that they believe or that Priscilla alleges was an acting in Priscilla's best interest, but was acting in the interest of Cruz, that she didn't have one on one meetings with her attorney, that her meetings took place with Cruz and the attorney in the same room. And that is ultimately where they allege she signed about 20 different documents in one sitting after a 20 minute meeting where she signs over all these rights. So do you think that makes any difference? Because if that did happen, surely she's got a claim.

B (16:45)

The question begets and becomes, did she know what she was doing? Did she voluntarily enter into it? As you know, dealing with elder abuse, if you take advantage of a vulnerable human being, whether they are a minor, they have a mental deficiency, they are of an age, they cannot properly enter into a consensual agreement, then they cannot enter into a contract. So the contract can have clear terms, it can make sense, it can be perfect because you can contract for any, anything you want a contract for. But if there are impingements to enter into a contract and you did not know what you're getting to, then the contract's void to begin with. And so what will end up happening is they can go in front of the court and said, absolutely, this contract on its face is valid, but Priscilla could not have entered into this contract And y' all took advantage of them and you knew what you were doing. So this entire lawsuit should be thrown out.

A (17:38)

How do you prove that in a court of law?

B (17:39)

Welcome to the practice of law. And that's one of the reasons why that could be the exact reason why they've amended this lawsuit to mention all of this other stuff to show that this evil, and I'm not saying she is, but it's saying this Cruella Duvel esque evil woman was always plotting. These are the things that this woman has done throughout history. She knows what she's doing. She takes advantage of situation. And this is another example of her trying to take advantage of a situation. But if you look at her history, this is what she does. She's conniving, she's smart. She was smart enough to pull the plug on her own daughter. That's the argument.

A (18:13)

But she could have been the devil incarnate 40 years ago. But even the devil gets old. Can't remember how to be evil.

B (18:19)

And that's going to be the back and forth. Think about it. What you've just done is you've just talked about the lawsuit and that's what's going to happen in the trial. They're going to be going back and forth. And we've seen this a lot of times what ends up happening. And I love that you brought this up because this happened, believe it or not, a lot with the mobile. What ended up happening is the federal government would go after mobsters about stuff that they did 40 and 50 years ago. And what happened is the mobsters would be rolled into the courtrooms as these decrepit corpse. And they're like, I'm an old man. I didn't do it. And they're like, yes, you did. And it was a battle versus what was their intent then versus what was their intent now. And so they will bring in friends, they'll bring in family members, they'll bring in clips of movies, they'll bring in junkets, they'll bring in the fact that she's so offended and so upset, but she had no problem spending all this money. Here is her on this lavish detailed vacation in Cannes, France. They'll show all of these things. The way she was acting. And now that she's broke again, she's sad and emotional now. That's the lawsuit, all the other stuff, and that part of the lawsuit.

A (19:19)

Okay, so let's take a look at the actual contract. And you tell me whether you think this is. This might be normal for name, image and likeness Maybe it's over the top. Okay. Priscilla cites in her lawsuit part of the contract referred to as her duty to disclose. Quote, immediately disclose in writing to Cruz any offer that Presley received to be an employee, independent contractor, consultant, special consultant, entity, contributor, writer, editor, trustee, board member, advisor, special advisor, producer, and any other derivatives thereof that may generate an opportunity. Included, but not limited to any offer to use her name, image and likeness, any and all other offers for use of her personal recollections, virtual recollections, the operations of the Authentic Brands Group, that's Graceland and Elvis Presley Enterprises. Now, the. That sounds to me to the untrained ear, like you have to tell us every single money making opportunity you receive in your entire life. And then her lawsuit goes on to say that it also required that Cruz had to give their signed acknowledgment and acceptance before she could take these opportunities or pursue these opportunities. That sounds to me like I say what you can do. I say where your money comes from. I say where your source of income comes from. I decide the trajectory of your career. Is that a little much or is that pretty normal?

B (20:36)

Well, let's put it this way. If somebody comes to you and you're on your destitute brokenness of all time and they said, here's $6.5 million to get you out of the problems that you have, however, we're giving you $6 million, but we got to recoup our money. I've given you six and a half million dollars. Yeah, I'm going to control everything you do because I don't want you getting an only fans page. I don't want you posing for something that we don't care for. I don't want you eating paint chips on the top of the Eiffel Tower. Because we are trying to figure out a way that we're going to get our $6.5 million back. Because to make this make sense, we now have to make $10 million off of you. So I got to control every single thing you do. So, yes, it's normal if you took the money to begin with.

A (21:22)

Okay, the bit in there. For use of her personal recollections, could she pitch up in Manchester City center, stick her hat on the floor, start talking about what it was like to be married to Elvis. She's using her own recollections. And that's a money making opportunity. Could they control it even in the most, like, small setting like that?

B (21:39)

Yes, absolutely. Because remember, these are contracts. If you have entered, don't forget. And that's the thing. And I'm not saying this is good or bad, but that's the thing. When you've entered into a contract, you made the conscious choice to enter into the contract to begin with. And we keep bringing it up. You made the deal with the devil. You took the initial money. The same thing with these college kids. You took the million dollars to buy the Range Rover to be a badass while you're on a college campus, and now you're making $400 million and you're like, oh, my God, what did I enter into? You entered into the contract. That's why we always tell people, be careful when you enter into those contracts. I don't care if it's a Netflix account. Read the small print. Because you never know what you're getting into down the damn road.

A (22:22)

The interesting thing is that in the amended complaint that Cruz and Fialco have filed, one of the exhibits is a letter from Priscilla's granddaughter. And in that letter, she's talking about the fact that Lisa Marie has just passed away and that she's started to receive conversations about the will coming from Priscilla, conversations about money. And she's saying, you know, she calls her Nona. Nona, this is really sad that you're doing this so quickly, but I'm assuming it's because you are being advised to do this and you're taking bad advice. And I just thought that in the exhibit kind of played more to Priscilla's side of things, because her own granddaughter there is kind of hinting at the fact that she might not have people around her who are giving her the best advice. I don't know if that is the kind of thing that would help Priscilla's claim or whether it needs to be way more explosive than that. But it seemed to back up what she was saying more.

B (23:07)

I think Riley is going to be the most important witness in this entire case. I really do. Because she is the one who's going to be around her the most. She can testify about her faculties. She can test about the strained relationship, she can talk about. Grandma could not have entered. Those are the type of folks who juries listen to the most. The actual family member who has tears in their eyes. And just like she's not herself, she wouldn't have known. We don't let her do these things. She doesn't drive by herself. Or the opposite. Grandmama's fine. I saw Grandmama smoking weed the other day riding a Harley down Central Boulevard. It goes both ways. The family member is the one who can testify. The Most about were they able to properly enter into these contracts.

A (23:46)

And Riley, who, like you've said, is the granddaughter there, issued a joint statement with Priscilla to People magazine saying, quote, we are aware of the latest alle from Brigitte Cruz. These claims are not only untrue, but also deeply hurtful. Our family is and always has been united in love and respect for one another. Our shared priority remains honoring Lisa Marie's memory and protecting Elvis's legacy with dignity. We will not allow outside voices to divide us or to diminish the strength of our bond as a family. So if that statement is any indication of who's going to get up on that stand and work in Priscilla's favor, then, I mean, it may be a case closed situation.

B (24:20)

Absolutely.

A (24:21)

This is interesting. It's not necessarily for the explosive reasons in the first couple of paragraphs and, you know, the use of the adjectives and similes and comparing her to a pit viper and whatever. It's the actual back and forth of signing away kind of your. Yourself.

B (24:38)

When you look at these contracts, you got to realize no one gets into a name, image, likeness deal or one of these intellectual property deals if they don't need the money. And so by definition, when you're having someone sign these contracts, they're at their lowest point in time or they're at a point where they need the financial resources. You know that your landlord is looking for money. You know, the electric bill is looking for money. Somebody comes and offers you $10,000, you just start signing. You're like, I need this money to do it.

A (25:07)

But, Sean, why is that not financial coercion?

B (25:09)

That's going to be the battle. But the problem is you have entered into the contract voluntarily. You made the choice. And that's what always happens when these mortgage lenders, when these people come with these high interest rates, they're like, you entered into it. And we have the same argument. That was so unfair. That is such a gouging. That is such coercion that these things should be unconscionable. And usually courts don't strike them down. They just reduce them to the levels that they should be.

A (25:36)

This is. Yeah, well, you're on fire today. Come on. Yeah, yeah. Here he is. Here he is, folks. I mean, yeah. So interesting. Obviously, we'll keep you guys updated with what's happening with that. And if they make it to trial, then we'll follow along with what's going on there. Sean, thank you so much for joining us today.

B (25:52)

Thank you for having me. I appreciate you.

A (25:56)

That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, joining us from South Carolina. And that's it for Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds, with me, Anushka Mutandadowty. Keep sending in your questions or ideas for your stories you you'd like us to cover. You can get us on WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. It's not funny. It's true. Lily Allen and Makita Oliver Keats, I've got some questions for you, BBC Sounds. Tell me what you've enjoyed about our podcast so far. I like that you've got more and more comfortable in this space and I've watched you show all parts of yourself. We've both cried. Miss Me with Lily Allen and Makita Oliver. We're just us having a chat. Feels like we've been doing it forever. We kind of have. Listen on BBC Sounds.