John Travolta Son Secrets, Priscilla Presley Incest Claims: Bombshell Court Filings

You may have thought that allegations that Priscilla Presley was responsible for Lisa Marie and Elvis’s deaths that that was shocking.

But in a brand new filing, Priscilla Presley is now accused of having an incestuous relationship with her son.

And get this, that actress Riley Kio is the biological mother of John Travolta and Kelly Presley’s son.

Yeah, stay with me on this.

Now, look, as we’re covering a story like this and we’re trying to share this story as quickly as possible and get you these clips up as quickly as possible, if you’re in the content creation game, if you’re putting things out on social media, this is what we use.

It’s called Opus Clip.

It’s an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform through AI.

Opus Clip generates B-roll, it refframes, and it even cleans up audio.

It is so easy to use.

You just visit opus.

pro/sidebar, Pro/Sidebar.

You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you will have perfectly edited clips ready to go.

For Tik Tok, shorts, reals, OpusClip is your one-stop shop.

And having a tool like OpusClip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates instantly.

This is the most powerful tool there is to help you share ideas and edit like a pro.

So, go to opus.

pro/sidebar to create your videos today.

Okay.

Now, if you have been following us here on Sidebar for a while, you may remember that we have been covering this wild lawsuit involving Priscilla Presley.

And before I even get into what is just a shocking new set of accusations that honestly may take you a minute to wrap your head around because now it involves John Travolta, here’s the basic context.

And to be clear, it gets a little complicated, but I want you to stay with me because all of this will factor in later on.

and it will all make sense maybe into what we’re talking about later on the new updates.

Okay, so originally two people named Bridget Cruz and Kevin Fial, they are self-described entrepreneurs.

They were really big in the world of Elvis Presley memorabilia and they apparently started working with Priscilla Presley, Elvis’s ex-wife, years ago, helping her manage her brand and use her name, image, and likeness to make money.

That’s what the lawyer says.

But they also alleged that Priscilla was making moves behind their backs to get more money for herself and basically cut the two of them out of future deals.

So they’re suing her for all different kinds of legal claims.

But in these filings, they also make a lot of very serious, shocking allegations, including regarding Elvis and Elvis and Priscilla’s daughter, Lisa Marie.

Now, Elvis died in 1977, and as Lisa Marie grew up, she and her mother had a reported tumultuous relationship, at least according to these filings.

According to this lawsuit, Elvis had left his entire estate in a trust to Lisa Marie, which she inherited when she turned 25.

There is an allegation that Lisa Marie found out that Priscilla and her financial manager were mismanaging the money.

That is where it asserts that she made herself trustee and her son Ben and daughter, actress Riley Kio, as the ones who would inherit.

From there, the lawsuit claimed that when Priscilla became aware that Lisa Marie was getting ready to remove her as sole trustee of Lisa’s irrevocable life insurance trust, something really bad happens.

So, reading from the original complaint, it says, quote, “Lisa suffered cardiac arrest on Thursday, January 12th, and she was rushed to West Hills Hospital.

Priscilla, who knew that Lisa was in the process of taking steps to remove her as the sole trustee, saw an opportunity to regain control.

Priscilla rushed to West Hills Hospital and despite Lisa’s clear directive to prolong her life, Priscilla pulled the plug within hours of Lisa being admitted and before her granddaughter Riley was able to get to the hospital.

There’s also the allegation that Priscilla said to the effect of, “I’m the queen.

I’m in charge of Graceland.

” Cruz and Fial also make the allegation that Priscilla not only allegedly defraed Elvis during their divorce, but seemingly drove him to his death.

Why? In an amended complaint, it says, regarding a fight over money, quote, despite enriching herself and extorting millions of dollars from Elvis, she then placed a lean on Graceand, adding pressure to Elvis less than 4 months before he died on August 16th, 1977 from a heart attack and drug complications.

Priscilla exerted undue pressure on Elvis, pushing him to his death.

Now, why is all this relevant to Cruz and Fial? Well, one of the big allegations here is they say Priscilla didn’t have the right to use the Presley name because she sold those rights at one point in time.

And Priscilla’s representations or alleged misrepresentations that were made to Cruz and FiO, those were just to get them to invest money to help her financially because they believed her.

They spent a lot of money and time helping her grow her brand.

But if they had known the truth about what was going on, they wouldn’t have done that.

Now she owes them.

She has to pay up.

There’s other allegations, but you get the overall gist.

Okay.

Now, before we go into the latest update, again revolving around Riley Kio and John Travolta, you also have to understand that separately there is another lawsuit against Priscilla’s son Navaron Garcia.

So, Cruz and ViO also sued him.

The original complaint said, “After Priscilla Presley approached Planiff’s Cruz and Fialo to invest in her to save her from financial ruin, Pliff’s Cruz and Fialo created various entities to be used to grow Presley’s brand.

Planiff’s Cruz and Falco invested seven figures into this endeavor for Presley’s benefit, handling numerous tasks for Presley, including by resolving various threats of litigation, resolving pending litigation, and negotiating various deals for Presley, which defendant Garcia was well aware of.

Additionally, plaintiffs were tasked with taking care of numerous issues for defendant Garcia.

Specifically, plaintiffs spent countless hours negotiating a settlement for defendant Garcia, where he was ultimately paid a sevenf figureure amount from the estate of his late halfsister, Lisa Marie Presley.

Further, Pliff spent extensive hours overseeing various business issues for Defendant Garcia’s ban, Them Guns.

To date, even though defendant Garcia was enriched by plaintiff’s services, defendant Garcia has failed to compensate plaintiffs for the value of their services.

Further on information and belief, defendant Garcia convinced Presley to cut off communications with plaintiffs cruisal and has consistently interfered with the businesses created to exploit Presley’s name, image, and likeness.

Okay.

Now, there is an amended complaint against Navon Garcia that has been filed, and that is what we need to talk about.

I’m going to lay some of this out for you, and then we’ll talk about it.

Quote, “Defendant Navaron Garcia, defendant or Navaron, Priscilla Presley’s only son, always wanted to be a star and resented his halfsister, Lisa Marie Presley’s fame, even despising Elvis.

In fact, Priscilla always told him he would be a star, even forming a production company, Navaron Productions, Inc.

, for him.

” the same year he was born.

For years, Priscilla lived off of her daughter, Lisa Marie, funneling money from her trust and using it to fund Navaron’s lifestyle and drug addiction.

So, you get the sense of where we’re going here.

And from there, it goes into what was said in the original complaint that Priscilla tasked Falco and Cruz with building up Navaron’s career.

They claimed that Navaron wanted them to fire his manager, get him a new publicist, get him press coverage.

And then there is this very disturbing part of the complaint.

After Lisa Marie’s son, Benjamin Kio, died in July 2020, Priscilla promised Navaron that he would be the king since he was now the only male singer in the family.

In reality, Priscilla’s love for Navon was and always has been incestuous.

Wow.

So, from there, what does it say? The complaint alleges that Navon demanded Cruz and Fialo get his manuscript published.

Cruz and Fialo claimed they did a lot for him.

They handled his bills.

They troubleshooted his legal and PR issues.

They handled social media issues.

They worked on his booking and travel.

And essentially, they were on call 247.

And critically, they claim for all of this, they weren’t paid.

I mean, they even allege that they had to handle his divorce and that he demanded they pay $30,000 to his soon-to-be ex-wife.

They claim they had to spend hundreds of hours catering to Navaron Garcia.

And they also claim that Naverone made their lives very difficult, that he would go on tie raids and trash Elvis and his fans, that they had to do damage control.

They refer to alleged social media posts where Navaron called Lisa Marie, his sister, a snake in the grass and master of betrayal, saying that she’s a backstabber, that her own mother doesn’t like her.

And the complaint includes these alleged posts as well.

From there, they claimed that Naverone continued to tarnish the Presley brand, that they couldn’t get him to stop, that he blamed Lisa Marie’s son’s death on her, that Lisa Marie was a lesbian, that he was out of control, that he was on drugs.

These are all the allegations.

They say that he was financially destitute.

And they also make this interesting claim, this interesting allegation that Naverone would essentially swindle old women online to give him money.

And then they claim that when Lisa Marie, again, his halfsister, was rushed to the hospital, like I mentioned before, he ended up texting Cruz and they include this apparent exchange in the complaint as well.

So, when Cruz asks him if he’s going to the hospital, he seemingly refuses and apparently writes, quote, “Not going to pretend I care about her all of a sudden.

” Okay, this is where we get into John Travolta.

So Cruz and Fialo claimed that Priscilla had filed a legal action against her granddaughter Riley Kio over control of Lisa’s estate and that Naveron demanded Cruz and Fialo negotiate a multi-million dollar settlement on his behalf.

While all this is going on, I am just going to read you this next part verbatim, okay, from the amended complaint.

Quote, “Immediately after Lisa Marie’s death, the entire Presley family clamored for control of the estate and for payouts using Pliffs Cruz and Fialo as both negotiators and mediators.

Michael Lockwood, Lisa Marie’s ex-husband and the father of Harper and Finley Lockwood, approached Plainif Cruz, telling her that John Travolta’s wife, Kelly Preston, had been unable to bear her own children.

And Travolta and Presley previously used Lisa Marie’s eggs to get pregnant.

Lockwood claimed that he was eating dog food and that he and Lisa’s twin daughters, Harper and Finley, were financially destitute.

Lockwood came to Pliff Cruz’s hotel, providing her with various files that he called music in text messages so that no one else knew about the discussions.

Pliff’s Cruz and FiO tried to manage the constant chaos thrown at them by each of the Presley family members who were fighting over the respective claims against Lisa Marie’s estate.

Lockwood was incessant and claimed that Travolta needed to help salvage his career amid claims of sexual assault against other men which threatened his career as a leading man and that Travolta and Preston approached the Presley family in or around 2010 while in Hawaii.

Lockwood claimed that Travolta said he no longer wanted to use Lisa Marie’s eggs because they did not want quote eggs with heroin on them.

and they orchestrated a deal where Riley Kio gave her eggs to Travolta so that Kelly could give birth to their son Ben Travolta.

Lockwood gave Cruz a picture of Riley with her son Ben Travolta at John Travolta’s house in Maine.

Lockwood said Riley was given an old Jaguar and paid between $10,000 and $20,000 for the deal.

Plaintiffs were heartbroken by the family chaos and tried to keep the family together.

Okay, in other words, just so we can process that for a second, the claim is the allegation is that John Travolta and Kelly Preston’s youngest child is Riley Kio’s biological son.

Okay, that’s just again a lot to process and I’ll get into this with a a legal expert in a minute.

But Cruz and Fialo also claim this is an allegation that Lockwood had said that this was signed off by the Church of Scientology that they were overseeing all of this.

and they claimed that Lockwood wanted them to use this information to basically negotiate a settlement for him and his daughter that he wanted to pay off.

At the same time, they claimed that Naverone threw a tantrum that he didn’t want anyone finding out about Riley and Travolta’s son since he wanted to be the only musician in the family and the quote king.

So, all of this is going on.

Then Cruz and Fial claimed that they asked Navon give his mom Priscilla just a little time to work all this out after Lisa Marie’s death and they claimed that he refused and that is when they alleged, this is another bizarre detail that Naverone took Bam Margera, you know from the Jackass show, took him to Priscilla’s house and they claimed that Marggera posted on social media that Navaron gave him Elvis’s jewelry and bathrobe.

And this forced them, Cruz and Falco, to do a lot of PR damage control.

They then claimed that Naverone demanded they find out why Priscilla’s business manager didn’t set up a savings account for him.

And then he allegedly wanted to know how much he would inherit once Priscilla died.

And that he kept on demanding that Cruz and Fiala orchestrate a multi-million dollar settlement for him from Lisa Marie’s estate.

And they claim, look, after everything they did for him, they were able to get him a $2.

7 million settlement.

And even after that, they claim Navon still didn’t pay them.

They also alleged that Naone was very difficult, that he yelled at the publicists that they got him, that they had to manage him given his drug use, that he constantly bered them, that he created a toxic work environment, and they include all of these apparent text messages to corroborate that point.

And finally, they claimed that Naverone lied about them, including this allegation that they took money away and quote, “Wrongfully pushed his mother, Priscilla, to break all of her agreements with plaintiffs, maliciously interrupting all of their business deals and efforts to grow and exploit Priscilla’s name, image, and likeness, causing plaintiffs significant financial and reputational harm.

” What a journey we all just went on with this.

All right, before we even get into the causes of action, what the legal claims are here, let me break all this down, what we’ve just heard with Jeremy Evans, sports, entertainment, and media attorney.

Uh Jeremy, thanks for taking the time.

Look, I I will say, you know, these are very, very shocking allegations to say the least.

Um what was your reaction to reading this uh in this amended complaint? And you have to imagine, and we’ll talk about the attorney’s response in imagine in a minute, you got to imagine they have evidence to back this up.

I mean, they include uh certain messages um and certain documentation and social media posts, but to make claims like this, you you got to be careful.

Yeah.

No, I agree.

I mean, this kind of reminds me of the Michael Jackson situation and some of the other celebrities with, you know, Johnny Depp and where you have estates or um, you know, money that’s obviously being paid to managers and other legal folks.

But it just sounds like the whole thing is kind of a mess.

But I agree with you.

There’s so much to be made of what’s going on.

But I will say that this happens a lot in the entertainment space where basically a manager is claimed to have done something and then the other side is saying that it didn’t happen.

So very very um very very very interesting.

What is interesting about it is many times as I I was reading I was I had to circle back to why are they making these claims? Why are Cruz and FiO making these claims? Like how does this harm them? Is this to provide more context about the services that they employed, the work that they were doing, the family dynamic? what they were involved in, the alleged trauma uh that they were going through, the work environment they were going through, or is in a way is this, hey, do you want to take this to trial? Do you want to take this to court? Do you want more of this to be exposed? Is this a way to force a settlement? I mean, these are their allegations.

You have the other side who say this is none of this is true, right? But those were two things I was thinking about.

It was like, how does this relate back to them? Is a trial even gonna have all this or is it a way this is a sampling of what a trial could look like? You might want to settle this, right? No, that’s that’s well said and I agree with you.

I think that in any of these situations, I think a lot of this is posturing as to who, you know, who can prove what uh what facts are out there and maybe it forces the other side to uh to make a decision as to settle before trial because you’re right, these trials could be very embarrassing uh and could bring up a lot of different uh you know, factual things that again could uh could harm the estate.

So, it’s it’s very interesting and I I did notice too that the manager of the estate uh of the property of Graceand uh you know did give an interview and was talking about you know none of this was true and there was no hidden you know um uh items that were very expensive at the house.

But it’s again I agree with you.

I think a lot of this is just posturing uh getting the facts out there.

Well, now I say it and now I’m playing devil’s advocate.

I’m saying to myself, maybe they have to take it to trial to dispel this.

So, I want your your reaction to this.

This is some of the reaction.

So, uh Priscilla Presley’s attorneys, Marty Singer, Wayne Harmon, they told TMZ after losing motion after motion in this case and unsuccessfully seeking to have Presley’s council of record, Marty Singer disqualified from representing her in this matter.

Rajie Cruz, Kevin Fial, and their co-conspirators have demonstrated that there is no bar too low, no ethical line that they are unwilling to cross in an effort to cause further pain to Priscilla Presley and her family.

They added in a completely improper effort to exert undue pressure on Presley to retract her legitimate, truthful claims.

Cruz and her co-conspirators have also sued Presley’s son, cousin, and assistant.

These recent outrageous allegations have absolutely nothing to do with the claims in this case.

The conduct of Cruz and Fialo and their new lawyers.

They are on their fourth set of attorneys is shameful and it absolutely will be addressed in court.

Now, Jordan Matthews of Holtz Matthews LLP, uh, who we’ve had on this program, represents Cruz and Fialo.

He gave us this statement, gave law on crime this statement.

Breie Cruz and Kevin Fial are heartbroken that they have been forced to file their most recent amended complaint.

They have been accused of horrific acts that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

These accusations are especially painful given the enormous amount of work they performed to keep the Presley family together during an extremely difficult and divisive period of time.

Their efforts resolved all Presley family disputes in the wake of Lisa Marie’s untimely passing.

Every matter was settled.

All parties were paid and closure was achieved.

In the midst of this family dispute, they did everything they could to protect Riley and the twins from what Michael Lockwood and Priscilla’s son Navaron were trying to do.

It was only after this work was completed that Miss Cruz and Mr.

Fialco were cast aside, not paid for their work, and falsely accused of wrongdoing without any proof whatsoever.

This semantic complaint is about revealing the truth, correcting the record, and providing evidence of the work that was done in good faith to bring peace, resolution, and stability to the Presley family despite being exposed to constant volatility.

Miss Cruz and Mr.

Fial remain confident that the truth will prevail and trust that the courts will not favor one person over another simply because of one party’s celebrity status.

To that end, we will vigorously pursue justice for our clients and will not tolerate any attempt to bully or defame them.

Maybe I’m wrong, Jeremy.

Maybe they do want to go to trial, both sides.

No.

And I and to your point, Jesse, I think that anytime these parties get to a point, especially when a celebrity is involved, if you can’t prove a certain point or can’t get to a place where you can come to an agreement, it seems that and especially with these cases being so high-profile, there’s a tendency to push it to trial.

Obviously, in these cases, you’d like for them to settle before so embarrassing things don’t get out.

But to your point, uh clearly there’s a long history here going back to the original uh 2016 amendment to the trust uh to where it is today and and so I agree with you.

I think maybe the these parties do want to get it out and trying to prove a point.

Did you look at the exhibits in this, the text messages, the social media posts that were attached to the end of the complaint? Um because I wonder, did those move the needle? Do you think it’s definitive proof of what Cruz and Fiat are claiming? I think that it shows that there was a conversation had.

I don’t know if it necessarily proves the validity of sort of what happened and how much money is owed and and whether there was, you know, sort of any fraud going on.

Um, I think they’re going to need to prove more than that.

I think at the end of the day, what this is really comes down to is, you know, how much are these managers owed, uh, if anything? and you know what involvement did Priscilla have uh in and is is she capable of managing the estate? I I think that’s what this really boils down to.

I don’t know if the exhibits really prove all of that.

Um you know, I think ultimately the uh the arguments at trial and whatever else is presented is going to is going to help with that, assuming it goes to trial.

Let me go through um and by the way, if it does go to trial, let me just ask you this.

Is the judge going to allow evidence of all of this? cuz this is the most complicated case I’ve heard in quite some time.

Is the judge going to streamline it, narrow it down in some way about what can and can’t be discussed? Absolutely.

And great point, Jesse, because I think that there’s no way that all the information could come in, we’d be talking about, you know, a year-long trial.

And as much as that might be great for television, it might not be great for the family and for all the folks involved, not to mention the cost.

I definitely think the judge is going to limit this.

There’s probably going to be several evidentiary hearings in terms of what’s going to be included, what’s going to be uh eliminated, what’s going to be streamlined.

So, really good point and and I agree with you that’s definitely going to happen before this before this goes to trial.

Let me go through the causes of action here.

So, the first one, the first claim for relief cause of action is common goods and services rendered cruise and fi against defendant Navaron.

So essentially, if I’m understanding correctly, that Navaron, the claim is he needs to pay them for the work that they did, like negotiating a complicated settlement for him, that they had to spend all of this time overseeing his business issues for his band, travel accommodations, handle his divorce, and they did all this, and he didn’t pay them.

Your thoughts on that one? You know, it’s it’s interesting.

I think I would go back to the point of the the 2016 um estate plan document that ultimately was settled.

And I think what has the potential to come out at this trial if it or if this continues is whether there was many mental incapacity with regard to that agreement because none of that stuff was tested as this was all settled.

So, it’s going to be interesting how that plays on whatever money was owed because I think the estate’s argument or Priscilla’s argument is that well that agreement may not be valid.

Uh and then secondly that secondly to that uh there may have been some incapacity issues cuz you know as we all know she soon you know she soon after passed away tragically.

So I think these things both play they play together because I think any cause of action towards how much money is owed goes back to whether there was mental incapacity, undue influence or anything else with regard to the the previous settlement and by the way reasonable value of the services.

What is that? Is that like how do you calculate something like that? No, good point.

I think a judge would it probably they would bring in an expert and the expert would say in this industry there’s you know this is how much the hourly fees range from this is how much somebody else got paid in a similar situated you know circumstance that’s but it would be proved through an expert.

Okay.

And then you have this second claim for relief.

It’s called constructive discharge.

So Cruz and FiACO against all defendants.

So this is all about Navaron allegedly berating them, exposing them to his tirades, alleged tyrades, volatile behavior that he demanded all these things from them, threaten them, and then convince Presley to sever ties with them, that this working environment was so bad they had to resign.

Your thoughts on constructive discharge, if there’s something there? And if I’m if I’m saying it the right way, by the way, hopefully I I analyze that the right way.

No, you did.

I I I think that, you know, again, this goes back to um whether they were paid correctly and whether they did a good job.

I think just in simple sort of layman’s terms.

And to me, I just don’t know if enough has been presented so far to show that they weren’t paid enough or that somehow they’re owed this.

I think it was $10 million or whatever the number is.

It just it seems a little I don’t want to say far-fetched, but again, I’d want to see more.

I just don’t know why a manager or even a lawyer would be making or charging that much money in this case.

Now, the end of the day, if they had a contract in play that said we’re owed this much money, then that would go to that contract.

But it sounds like a lot of what’s happening is sort of this person said this, this person said this, and this is what our expectation.

And that’s a lot harder to prove uh at trial than say here’s the four corners of a contract, right? And you so it’s that that’s the difficult part.

Yeah.

Hey, the number one thing they tell you in law school is get it in writing.

Get it in writing.

You don’t want an oral contract.

I I mean this was interesting too.

It’s it is a lot about the money.

The third claim is uh the California waiting time penalties that under California law an employer has to pay an employee all wages that ow to that person no later than 72 hours after they’re terminated.

Claim here didn’t happen.

They sustain damages, loss of earnings, and under the law, they’re entitled to penalties, which I don’t know how much those could be, but I don’t know.

It kind of goes into your other point, Jeremy, about what are they entitled to? And this is more specific about that they weren’t paid under a specific amount of time, and maybe they can seek penalties that could be pretty bad.

I don’t know.

see that that’s a fascinating point because that would also assume that these managers were employees versus independent contractors.

So, and I think that’s an that’s an important distinction, too.

And generally, if you’re a manager, you’re probably not going to be employed.

you’re you’re going to be an independent contractor unless they gave up all of their clients and all their other employment and decided just to work for uh this particular company or this particular estate or person.

So, I think that’s important too.

What was their understanding? And according to the law, were they independent contractors or were they a uh employee? Because you’re right, if they’re an employee, then generally you do everything that’s undisputed at the time of termination.

So uh whereas an independent contractor it just becomes how much is owed and is there interest on the money that’s owed.

There’s another claim and this is direct this is kind of what we saw in the original complaint that Navaron is responsible for or or contributed to breaking up the relationship that Cruz and Fiago had with Priscilla.

So it’s a fourth claim intentional interference with contractual relations.

Again, Nav basically allegedly interfered with the contracts that Priscilla had with Cruz and FACO, the companies that were used to exploit her name, image, or likeness, and that they are entitled to punitive damages, exemplary damages.

Thoughts on that one, Jeremy? Yeah, that’s a that’s an interesting one.

And typically um lawyers who who practice in the space would say uh a very difficult claim to prove because when you’re talking about a breach of contract and you and sort of a person pushing towards breaking up a relationship.

I think the other piece to this is that let’s say for example you and I were uh trying to negotiate a contract together and then um a lawyer came along that that was representing you and decided to give you advice as to you know you shouldn’t get into this deal.

I I think that in so far as Priscilla or whoever was involved was getting advice as to how to break up this deal because it was not good for them, probably going to be pretty difficult to prove that claim.

But if this was somebody that came along that benefited from this and uh was looking to uh more than just give good advice, I think, you know, potentially could prove that claim.

But again, very very difficult to prove.

And this one’s kind of similar based on your analysis.

I I imagine you would say this is also a bit speculative.

Intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

Quote, plaintiffs and Presley were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to plaintiffs.

Defendant Navaron knew of Pliff’s relationship with Presley.

Defendant Navaron convinced Presley to cut off ties with plaintiffs Cruz and Falco, resulting in Presley breaching her obligations under the Presley agreements by convincing Presley to cut ties with plaintiffs Cruz and Falco.

defendants intended to disrupt plaintiff’s relationship with Presley or knew that disruption was certain or substantially certain to occur.

Plainif’s relationship with Presley was harmed and defendant Navaron’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

So, this is like a little bit more speculative speculative, right? Like this probably would have resulted in a really big economic benefit, but we’re not quite spelling it out.

Can you tell me how this one works? Yeah, this is even I mean I think the law in itself kind of in the title of it kind of it it it sort of explains that um because it’s prospective it’s going to be even harder to prove meaning that you’re going to have to show a contract or some sort of oral agreement something that was just yet to be signed or yet to be acted out or it was acted out in an oral context but ultimately was ended.

But I think the caveat to all of this and what a jury would probably empathize with is the fact that this is a mother dealing with family matters, right? So it’s not necessarily the argument can be made that well, it’s not that they broke up this deal for any other reason and that they were protecting the family or protecting their reputation or whatever it might be.

So again, very speculative, but if they have a contract in play and it shows that it was cancelled, maybe there’s a potential for recovery.

But even in an unrelated case, if you’re trying to look for prospective damages, again, very hard to prove.

And often judges uh and juries won’t give those types of uh damages.

Okay.

All right.

Well, this is where we stand right now.

Um let’s see what happens next.

Uh Jeremy Evans, thank you so much for taking the time.

I really appreciate.

You were great.

My pleasure.

Thanks, Jesse.

Always fun.

And that’s all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Everybody, thank you so much for joining us.

And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts.

You can follow me on X or Instagram.

I’m Jesse Weber.

I’ll speak to you next time.