Priscilla Presley Played a Role in Elvis’s Death: Lawsuit

What was already a wild list of. allegations in a bombshell lawsuit. against Priscilla Presley has now. ballooned into an even bigger story. In. addition to their claims that Priscilla. quote pulled the plug on her own. daughter, an amended complaint accuses. Elvis's widow of contributing to his. death, too. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. [Music]. All right, so before we get started, I. got to address this elephant in the. room. Yep. This looks horrible. It's a.

sty. It is bad. It hurts. It is. disgusting. We're probably going to. cover me with a lot of B-roll throughout. the course of this episode, but I just. wanted to give you this warning. This is. why I look like this. It's going to take. a little time. Got to work it out. I. think it's bad makeup or something like. that. But yeah, that's what's happening. Let's go into the story. Well, I tell. you, Priscilla Presley just can't seem. to escape the limelight right now. And. it is thanks to increasingly salacious. details in a lawsuit from two former. business partners. and including now. that she essentially contributed or.

drove her ex-husband Elvis into an early. grave. I mean, that seems to be the. allegation. And by the way, we are going. to have on the attorney who is. representing these plaintiffs in a. little bit. Get some clarification on. what exactly the allegation here is. But. you might be saying, "Wait a minute, wait a minute. Why does this sound. familiar? Didn't you guys just cover. this?" Well, we did an episode of. Sidebar recently that broke down what. was in the original complaint that was. filed by Bridget Cruz and Kevin Fialo.

That's up right now on Long Crimes. YouTube channel, so you can go check. that out. But today, we're comparing. that original complaint with an amended. one that was filed in Los Angeles County. on September 3rd. An amended complaint. is one that's been updated or revised. And before we get into what is new, and. you can see there is a lot, I want to. catch you up on the overall claims of. the first lawsuit and what is involved. and who is involved. Okay, so we have. Bridget Cruz and Kevin Fiago. They are. self-described entrepreneurs who were. really big in the world of Elvis Presley.

memorabilia. And they apparently started. working with Priscilla Presley, right? Elvis's widow years ago, helping her. manage her brand and use her name, image, and likeness to make money. That's what the lawsuit alleges. 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. in addition to what is now 16 claims. related to this business, things like. breach of contract, intentional.

interference with prospective economic. advantage, the plaintiffs lay out a lot. of alleged drama they say was happening. behind the scenes. And those accusations. do not paint Priscilla in a flattering. light. No, no, no, no, no, no. So Elvis. and Priscilla, as you may know, had just. one child during their brief marriage, a. daughter named Lisa Marie. Elvis died in. 1977, and as Lisa Marie grew up, she and. her mother apparently had this. tumultuous relationship. Elvis had. apparently left his entire estate in a.

trust to Lisa Marie, which she inherited. when she turned 25. The original lawsuit. that we're talking about here says that. in 2010, Lisa Marie ended up listing. Priscilla and Barry Seagull as. co-rustees. So Seagull, by the way, was. Priscilla's longtime financial manager. When Lisa Marie allegedly found out that. they were reportedly mismanaging her. money, she changed the trust to make. herself trustee and listed her son Ben. and daughter Riley Kio as the ones who.

would inherit. Then we go to June of. 2022. So Lisa Marie, Priscilla, and. Riley, who's a famous actress by the. way, signed their handprints outside of. the Chinese theater in Los Angeles as. the Baz Lurman film Elvis starring. Austin Butler made its premiere. Talking. lawsuits, let me call out experts in. litigation for a minute. Our sponsor. Morgan and Morgan, America's largest. injury law firm, a firm with over a. thousand attorneys. You know why they're. so big? Because they win a lot. Get. this. They have recovered over $25.

billion dollar for more than 500,000. clients. Think about that. In the past. few months, a client in Florida received. $12 million after the insurance company. offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insured $650,000 offer. Another. client in Pennsylvania received $29. million after being offered only. $500,000. And even if you think your. case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for.

what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan. makes it so simple. You can start a. claim from your phone in just eight. clicks. So if you're injured, you can. easily start a claim at. forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. by clicking the link below or scanning. the QR code on screen. By January of 2023, things between. Priscilla and Lisa Marie had apparently. soured significantly. This is what the. lawsuit says. Quote, "Lisa and Priscilla. were each planning to attend the 2023.

Golden Globes on January 10th, 2023 in. support of Elvis." But Lisa had no. desire to see or otherwise be near. Priscilla. Lisa had been in a longunning. dispute with Seagull, and she resented. that Priscilla stayed with Seagull, further betraying her trust. Crucially, Priscilla was aware that Lisa was. getting ready to remove her as the sole. trustee of Lisa's irrevocable life. insurance trust and was otherwise. threatening to sue her. Cruz and Biano. nevertheless worked to keep the family. together, working with Priscilla's. publicist and arranging for Lisa and.

Priscilla to walk the red carpet. together and sit next to one another at. the event. Lisa was noticeably ill, complaining to Priscilla about her. health. Priscilla ignored the warning. signs despite being only a short drive. from the worldrenowned Cedar Sinai. Medical Center. Instead, Priscilla. clasped to the spotlight, going out to. the Chateau Marman for drinks with Lisa. and then sent Lisa on a long drive to. her Calabasas home. Within just over 24. hours, 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 of Lisa's irrevocable. life insurance trust, saw an opportunity. to regain control. Priscilla rushed to. West Hills Hospital. And despite Lisa's. clear directive to quote, 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, demanding that Cruz. issue a statement to the media so she.

could control the narrative. Priscilla. demanded that a statement be released. immediately stating, "It is with a heavy. heart that I must share the devastating. news that my beautiful daughter Lisa. Marie has left us." And then they. claimed that the following week, Priscilla said, "I'm the queen. I'm in. charge of Graceand. Cruz and FiO were. heartbroken by the unsettling behavior.". That's what it says in the lawsuit. Now, in the new complaint, which refers to. Priscilla, by the way, as a quote.

calculated sociopath, a master of. deception, and a pit viper, the. plaintiffs also claim that Priscilla not. only defrauded Elvis during their. divorce, but basically contributed to. his death. It reads, quote, "Despite. projecting a soft-spoken and almost. naive image to the public, defendant. Priscilla was and always has been. ruthless and cunning. Her quest for. power is closely followed by her thirst. for money. To that end, Priscilla has a.

history of manipulating those closest to. her for her own personal gain, including. her late ex-husband Elvis Presley, her. late daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, her. granddaughter, Riley Kio, and now. plaintiffs who were directed by. Priscilla to resolve and handle all of. her personal affairs to maximize the. value of her brand and who refused to be. taken advantage of by her long-standing. pattern of schemes to defraud those. closest to her. So, yeah, not pulling. any punches, but then listen to this. Priscilla's first victim was Elvis, whom.

she married on May 1st, 1967, thereafter. giving birth to Lisa on February 1st, 1968. After just over 5 years of. marriage, Elvis and Priscilla divorced, entering into a property settlement. agreement and marital termination. agreement, each on August 15th, 1972. Under the marital dissolution. agreements, Priscilla unequivocally. waved the right to inherit anything from. Elvis's estate. And then in bold, Priscilla knew she was entitled to. inherit nothing from Elvis. So this.

lawsuit, this complaint even includes an. exhibit that appears to feature some of. that legal paperwork from the legal. battles in the 1970s showing a section. entitled waiver of right to inherit. And. this exhibit appears to be a section. from a legal agreement. And it says each. party waves any and all rights to. inherit the estate of the other at his. or her death. Okay, so let's look at how. the assets were broken down. According. to this lawsuit, it reads, "Under the.

marital dissolution agreements, Priscilla was to be paid $100,000, so. equivalent to about $772,84211. presently, broken down into two separate. payments of $50,000 each. She also. received a 1971 Mercedes-Benz, a 1969. Cadillac El Dorado, and a 1971. Harley-Davidson. Elvis agreed to pay. $500 per month in child support, equivalent to about $3,86421.

presently until Lisa reached 18 years of. age, and agreed to pay $1,000 per month. in spousal support for 5 years, equivalent to about $7,72842. per month presently. Elvis also agreed. to pay for Lisa's medical insurance and. education and agreed to secure a life. insurance policy for Lisa's benefit. So, it sounds like a pretty good deal, right? The lawsuit claims Priscilla. wasn't very happy. Quote, "Out of pure. greed, Priscilla claimed that what she.

received was quote, not enough for her. to live on, and that she attempted to. set aside the default entered against. her, seeking to effectively unwind the. marital dissolution agreements, feigning. ignorance." Priscilla claimed that Elvis. defrauded her, asserting that Elvis. promised to always take care of her. Elvis opposed Priscilla's claims, arguing that Priscilla previously urged. him, "I do not want to take you. I want. only to know that I can live. comfortably." So, the former couple went. back to the negotiating table where the.

lawsuit claims that Elvis was quote. forced into entering a modified. settlement and marital termination. agreement on October 4th, 1973. And from there, the payouts grew. considerably. Quote, Elvis was forced to. pay Priscilla $725,000. within 10 days of court approval, equal. to about $5,274,995.50. presently. And I and let me just pause. there because wow. Okay. An additional.

$720,000. That's a quick equal to about. 5,238,61622. presently. And this is broken down into. installments of $6,000 per month. Elvis. was also forced to pay Priscilla 50% of. the proceeds of the sale of his. residence at 144 Monavail Drive in Los. Angeles, California, and up to one year. of spousal support in the amount of. $4,200. per month, equal to about $30,55859.

per month presently. And then again in. bolded letters, Priscilla's thirst for. power and money was insatiable. So. that's a pretty big 180 there. Right. now, the complaint claims that Priscilla. didn't stop. The court paperwork. continues. quote, "Despite enriching. herself and extorting millions of. dollars from Elvis, she then placed a. lean on Graceand on or around April. 29th, 1977 in the amount of $494,0249,

more than $2.2 million, adding pressure. to Elvis less than four months before he. died on August 16th, 1977 from a heart. attack and drug complications." Here's. the key quote. Priscilla exerted undue. pressure on Elvis, pushing him to his. death. Wow. And this is how it may lead. back to the claims of Cruz and Fial.

because want to bring it back to the. plaintiffs. It is related seemingly to. Priscilla's name and likeness and trying. to grow her brand because according to. them, it turns out that she isn't even. supposed to be using the name Presley at. all. According to the amended complaint, quote, since Priscilla divorced Elvis, she was entitled to nothing as she was. not mentioned in Will. And in fact, pursuant to her divorce agreement, she. was supposed to stop using the surname. Presley. After Elvis died in 1977, however, Priscilla continued to use the.

Presley name as she needed to exploit. the name for her own financial gain, despite Elvis's wishes otherwise. So, as. far as the business side of things goes, Cruz and Fial are suing under more than. a dozen causes of action, including, for. example, fraud in the inducement. So, it. basically means that Presley told Cruz. and FiO that she owned the rights to use. her name and image, but actually she had. already sold those rights to someone. else. Didn't say so. Her representations. or alleged misrepresentations were made. to get them to invest money, help her.

financially because they believed her. They spend a lot of money helping her. grow her brand. That's the allegation. And if they had known the truth, the. argument would be they wouldn't have. done that. Now they're saying that. Presley's fraud cost them over $50. million and they want to be compensated, including extra punishment money because. they think she did it on purpose. There's also account of conversion where. Presley allegedly had access to a. company bank account but took money out. without permission, closed the account, messed up the company's operations. Even. though she was a member, she wasn't.

allowed to do that under the rules. And. the company wants that money back, damages for what they lost. There's also. a breach of disclosure agreement. The. claim there is that Presley allegedly. agreed to immediately tell the. plaintiffs in writing about any offers. she received about her name, image, and. likeness and get the okay before signing. contracts. Presley allegedly didn't. disclose certain deals like NBC's. Christmas of Graceand and sign contracts. without approval. Okay, so to talk about.

this, I have a special guest. I'm joined. right now by entertainment attorney. Jordan Matthews, who is representing the. plaintiffs that are suing Priscilla. Presley in this lawsuit. Jordan, thank. you so much for taking the time to come. here on Sidebar. Really appreciate it. >> Of course. Thank you very much for. having me, Jesse. >> Why have they decided to file this. lawsuit now? So just to be clear uh with. respect to our role, we were recently. engaged as California council and we. recently substituted into this case and.

as you can imagine there was an. extensive amount of documentation that. had to be reviewed. Um, specifically in. early August after we were engaged, we. came across some documentation that. indicated uh that there was a statute of. limitations that we had to be mindful of. and we probably would have been fine, but we wanted to make sure that we got. something on file. So, we got something. on file, but we also realized that there. was a more robust complaint that really.

needed to be on record, which is why we. amended the complaint recently to make. sure that we had a very robust record on. file uh with court. And. >> and just to be clear about that, you're. saying there were a lot of allegations. in that first complaint. What you're. saying is you looked at potential proof. to back up those claims. And one of the. reasons you filed this amended complaint. was to show that. >> Yes, absolutely. Correct. >> So, what what what are some of the ways.

because I was going to ask you, I mean, what is this two parts of this? What is. the changes in this amended complaint? What is this additional documentation uh. that you have? Um, and how did you get a. hold of it? I mean, that waiver, right? That waiver um that appears to be from. what the 70s. Hey, sorry. A how did you. get a hold of this documentation? How is. the new complaint? How why is it. amended? What is changed about it? And. um what should we be thinking about it? >> So.

really the uh there are three parts to. that question. Obviously one of the most. crucial things that we wanted to make. sure that we addressed was we wanted to. have exhibits and you don't always have. a lot of exhibits in a complaint, right? In this case, we have 40 exhibits. And. the reason why is we wanted to make it. clear that if we're going to make the. types of allegations that we're going to. make that this is really supported very. thoroughly by extensive documentation. Now, what's different about this. complaint is we went into allegations.

about the history with Priscilla and. Elvis and that whole sort of backstory. with the divorce and the lean that was. placed on Graceand. The reason why that. is significant is what we were trying to. show in this amended complaint is a. pattern, right? There is a pattern that. we observed with the documentation from. that uh interaction between Priscilla. and Elvis. We also observed uh and.

actually presented a very specific. incident in 2005 where we allege that. Priscilla had sold the rights to her. last name for an excess of $13 million. that was a conflict with her role as. trustee of Lisa's estate and so the. additional allegations were to back up. the credibility of our overall. allegations. Now with respect to the. documents and what we have uh obtained. and what we've presented our clients uh. are are very diligent and very thorough.

can't go in in totality into how I have. access to all of these documents. And we. anticipate that there's going to be a. lot more documents that are going to be. disclosed and presented in this. litigation. But the reason why it's. really crucial is we want to make it. clear that if we're making the. allegations that we're making, they are. backed by evidence that has been vetted. very thoroughly. Now, someone could look at this and say, I think the most relevant part of this. lawsuit is the relationship between the.

plaintiffs, your clients, and uh. Priscilla Presley, what their. arrangement was, what they were supposed. to do, that she had potentially or. allegedly sold the rights to her name, image, and likeness. That, you know, she. fraudulently engaged in this. relationship with them. She didn't give. them the full story. She was doing deals. on the side. That all makes sense for. for the for the claims and the causes of. action. Wouldn't a could isn't it. possible a judge could say everything. regarding Lisa Marie's death, everything.

regarding Elvis's death, everything. regarding that whole backstory, that's. irrelevant. That might be too. prejuditial uh for a jury to hear. >> Well, we don't think so. Here's actually. why it's it's significant. Our clients. were they formed several companies, right? And these companies were uh set. up specifically to really salvage and. grow and exploit for for purposes of. creating revenue uh Priscilla's brand. But in connection with that, Priscilla, according to what we allege and what.

we've evaluated, demanded that our. clients really handle every day-to-day. aspect of her life, which included. actually writing statements for her to. go to the press. And that had to deal. with managing her overall brand. That. also went into resolving a lot of. litigation that was going on which. specifically led into the litigation. that involved Priscilla and Riley and. the other family members. So what's. crucial is one of the counts, one of the. claims is a claim for common count and. it's the value of the services, right?

So, I can't actually go into explaining. the amount of time, the thousands of. hours of time and the value of that time. when I can't explain the actual events. If she's involved, if our client is. involved in actually writing statements. on the day of for Priscilla in. connection with that passing, if they. are actually involved with negotiating. and maneuvering and finessing all of the. relationships to resolve all of that. litigation, I have to explain that to.

explain the value of those overall. services. >> Okay. So, particularly with respect to. the relationship with Lisa Marie and. when she died, the statement that, you. know, Priscilla allegedly demanded be. put out. Let put let's pocket that for a. second. How is it relevant regarding. Elvis and his death and their divorce. and their financial arrangements? I just. I'm not I just want to clarify it. >> Absolutely. Very good question. So.

again, what it goes down to is one of. the claims also aside from the common. count is a claim for fraudulent. inducement. And so as as you know, that. is about material information, right? So. if there's material information that is. not disclosed before entering into a. contract into an arrangement that's. relevant to a fraud claim. So we can. look at two issues, right? We look at. the fact that our clients were investing. into the brand into the name, image, and. likeness. If it had been disclosed that.

she had sold those rights back in 2005, our clients never would have made that. investment. But also, it's about who. you're getting into business with. There's a lot of litigation that we. allege was actually occurring here, which dates back to the relationship. between Priscilla and Elvis and around. the marital arrangement and. renegotiating that and putting the lean. on the property. If our clients had been. made aware of those types of dealings, it would have made them pause. significantly and they would not have.

proceeded and actually invested the. time, resources, and money into this. relationship. So, it's about disclosure. of material information. >> and getting a little not too in the. weeds, but it's not just the allegation. is not just, hey, we we got into. business with somebody who had a parking. ticket, you know, years ago or hey, we. got into business with somebody who was. accused of, you know, child abuse years. ago or was arrested. You're saying the. relationship between Priscilla and Elvis. is so important and so material,

particularly when we're talking about. the Presley name. That is why it's. relevant to this particular agreement. between Priscilla and your clients. Right? Am I understanding that. correctly? >> Essentially, yes. It's it's the. relationship, but it's specifically the. way that the divorce proceeding and the. renegotiation and the lean. And then if. you take that, >> right, it's not an isolated incident. It's looking at that. It's looking at. how we allege Priscilla became co-rustee. of the prominade trust when Vernon.

passed away after Elvis passed away. So. Elvis passed then his father Vernon. passed and we alleged that she used that. as leverage to become trustee of the. prominade trust. So it's how she. maneuvered that. >> Gotcha. >> And all of that is a it's an overall. pattern that we've seen that again it. adds credibility to our allegations. If. we just make an allegation of an. isolated incident, that's one thing. But. if we show that this is something that's. happened more than once, you know, more.

than twice, it's crucial to. understanding the relevance and the. credibility of our allegations. >> To be clear, are your clients alleging. that Priscilla caused or is responsible. for Elvis's death? >> With respect to that allegation, what I. want to be clear about is a distinction, right? There's a nuance. There does not. need to be or rather something doesn't. need to be the sole cause to be a cause. Okay. And what we looked at is again if.

we're making an allegation, I want to be. very careful. We're not going to make an. allegation unless we have some. documentation that it supports this. And. so what we were simply looking at is the. fact that if you looked at the. renegotiation of the marital settlement, the millions of dollars that we have put. records in the amended complaint that. support that. And then if you look at. the fact that a lean for an excess of. $400,000. was placed on Graceand in 1977, that's.

an excess of millions of dollars today. So again, we understand that there's. drugs and alcohol that is a part of the. history of Elvis and his passing. But if. you think about it, what can be a cause. of pushing someone into enough of a. stressful mind state where they are. using drugs and alcohol when there's. financial pressure that is something. that is relevant. So, we are not saying. that something is necessarily the sole. cause, but we are letting people draw. their own reasonable conclusions based.

on documents that we believe support. that allegation. Just to amplify that a. little bit, are you suggesting there. might be proof, whether it's, I don't. know, witnesses or some sort of. communications that say Elvis was. feeling this pressure leading up to his. death? Or is it saying we're just. looking at the circumstances? We're. making an inference of what he might. have been going through because again, this is a very this stood out. This is. making headlines now. So, I just want to. make clear, is there going to be through.

the course of litigation, are you hoping. there's going to be proof to establish. that this financial arrangement with. Priscilla. was a cause for his behavior, was a. cause of the stress he was under? I. mean, how are you going to prove that. part? So we are we're making an. inference based on documents that we've. presented. But also we have been very. diligent and we are talking to a lot of. people that are closely connected with. um those circumstances and if it's. appropriate and if it's necessary if the.

court requires us to do so then we do. intend to present witnesses who would. substantiate these allegations. >> And as far as Lisa Marie's death the. idea of pulling the plug h how do you. intend to prove that? So there's two things again we go back. to what I had mentioned earlier right. about the fact that our client uh. specifically Brjie Cruz was responsible. for managing or not managing but. handling so many day-to-day issues for. uh Priscilla specifically writing. statements and whatnot and she was.

writing the statements on the day the. day that she passed on the day that Lisa. passed so she was integrally involved in. that so we have witness testimony from. her there's other uh witnesses is uh. family members who were actually with. Priscilla on that day, which we intend. to depose and get testimony from. But. then the other or rather the other issue. is the fact that Priscilla herself has. seemingly written about this incident in. her book that's set to publish on. September 23rd. So she's gone into this. issue in her own book.

>> Do you intend to subpoena Riley? >> Short answer, yes. Have your clients. received any support from the Presley. family or associates regarding this. lawsuit and saying they support. litigation against Priscilla? >> I will go I will say this to the extent. that I can. I would just say generally. we have received a lot of support from. from people generally. Yes. >> Let me get your response to this. So, in. response to this lawsuit, uh,

Priscilla's Priscilla's attorney, Marty. Singer, who is a very high-powered, well-known entertainment attorney, told. Fox News, I believe Fox News Digital, quote, "Priscilla did not have anything. to do with the assassination of JFK, she. did not cover up Area 51. She did not. fake the moon landing, and she is not. secretly keeping Bigfoot locked in a. cabin in Canada. Take off the aluminum. foil hat and face reality." This lawsuit. concerns Miss Presley's claims against. Miss Cruz and her co-conspirators in. which she alleges that Miss Cruz engaged.

uh in a relentless and calculated. campaign of elder abuse and fraud in. order to take control of Miss Presley's. finances for her own benefit. Miss. Cruz's allegations are absurd and. despicable, but unfortunately are not. surprising. Miss Presley looks forward. to holding Miss Cruz and her. co-conspirators liable for their. wrongful acts. Your reaction? Our. response to that is that that's nothing. but hyperbole. There's absolutely no. substance.

to that statement. And again, I want to. go back to the fact that look at the. documents. Okay? There's 40 exhibits. attached to our amended complaint. To. date, they have presented absolutely no. documentation, no substantive response whatsoever to. actually support their claims. And I. also want to look at it from this. perspective. To be frank, I find it sad. I think we. collectively feel that it's a bit of a a. sad and disappointing response to.

effectively make a mockery of Elvis and. Lisa's passing. This is a serious issue. that we've raised. Um, it's a serious. issue that we intend to litigate and. it's a bit disappointing that that was. uh the overall response, but we intend. to let the documents speak for. themselves. >> Have you received a formal legal answer. to this complaint? You know, where. someone uh they either deny the. allegations, they say they don't have.

enough information at this point to. respond, but it's a formal legal. response to a complaint just for our. viewers to know. Have you received a an. answer or some sort of legal response to. the complaint or the amended complaint? >> We have not. Uh we do believe that this. is going to be a heavily uh contested. and litigated matter. Uh but we have not. received an answer yet. Uh but that will. be forthcoming. We anticipate. >> And and based on Singer's response, and. correct me if I'm wrong, are you. anticipating. counter claims from Priscilla?

Uh well, we don't anticipate counter. claims per se. Uh there is some. litigation going on that Marty had. initiated and so we are addressing those. claims and we you know anticipate that. we're going to continue to address those. claims. But again, what's important is. that that's actually why we we filed the. amended complaint the way we did because. again, most complaints don't contain. this level of documentation, but we. included 40 exhibits to show that we.

have evidence to really support and. backer claims. They have presented. absolutely no evidence of their claims. to date. I've seen. >> Before Before I let you go, I just want. to go back to one thing that I'm still a. little confused about. Um, so your. clients, they were very heavily involved. in Elvis's memorabilia. How did they get. into the business of working with. Priscilla, but more specifically, how. did they get into the business of. managing a brand, managing her brand? Do. they have a specialization in that? Um, and that's part one. And part two, as we.

wrap up, is what exactly have they lost? If you can elaborate on what the harm is. uh that is alleged that Priscilla. caused, what have they lost? What have. they suffered? What are their lives. like? So, a how have they got did they. get into the branding business and b. what have they lost? >> So, uh Miss Cruz um is a mother of. three, but she's a very well-known ox. auctioneer and specifically has an. expertise and uh a specific knowledge in.

the Elvis space. Uh Mr. Fio is a. veteran. Uh he is a very successful. entrepreneur and has amassed a really. impressive collection. And so it was. through relationships that they. ultimately connected with Priscilla uh. that developed into these businesses. Really what happened here is Priscilla. according to our allegations had. expressed uh to uh Miss Cruz that she. was in a financial predicament and had. some financial stress around that time.

We had made some allegations in the. complaint about an IRS debt that had to. be dealt with. And so she came to our. clients to see if they could effectively. assist and presented our clients with an. opportunity to effectively pay her a. certain amount of money per month. When. they evaluated it, they realized that. there was a lot of work that needed to. really salvage and grow this brand. They. determined that the appropriate setup. was to form these entities and form. these companies. And our clients have uh.

they have certain patents, certain IP, a. lot of expertise in uh the branding. world and they had developed a lot of. prototypes. There was a lot of beta. testing. There were uh lip balms that. were developed. There were t-shirts that. were developed. They were setting up. events and increasing the amount that. Priscilla was going to be paid with. these events. And they were facilitating. renegotiation of different deals. So. there was a lot of work that went into. that brand uh uh situation and their.

overall knowledge as entrepreneurs in. terms of what they've lost. So there's. hundreds of thousands of dollars alone. in terms of transactions that we've. presented as exhibits. There was a lot. of money that our clients put in to this. deal. In addition to that, as I mentioned. before, our clients basically put their. businesses on hold in many respects. while they were handling all of these. issues for Priscilla. And so there's.

thousands of hours in terms of the value. of their time that they've lost at this. point. But the other issue is again we. go back to the fact that if Priscilla. was getting paid to do an event, right, that money would go into the company. if. she's being paid to promote a book that. she has coming out. These things are. coming into the company. At this point, our allegation is that Priscilla has. completely circumvented this arrangement. that she entered into knowingly with. lawyers totally and completely involved.

in this situation. It was even there. were even video recordings of her. entering into this uh transaction. And. so our clients have been left out to dry. despite the fact of all the money that. they put into this and all of the time. and energy and resources that they've. put into this. >> Jordan Matthews, thank you for. clarifying it for us. Thank you for. coming on. We'll continue to follow it. Appreciate you taking the time. >> Sounds great. Thanks, Jesse. Thanks for. having me. >> All right, everybody. That's all we have. for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank. you so much for joining us. And as.

always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcast. You can follow. me on Instagram or X. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time. [Music].