Kim Kardashian Vs Ray J: Sex tape and defamation

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30Whole Foods Market. Make your summer sizzle.

0:33Shaun Kent:How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos? On Good Bad Billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune. He's buried himself in a coffin for days. Counted to 100 ,000 on camera. And even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man$10 ,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

1:10Shaun Kent:Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire with me, Anushka Matandadawati. And joining me, of course, is our resident trial attorney, Mr. Sean Kent. Hi, Sean. Hey, Anushka, how are you doing? I'm doing well. I'm going to warn that this program contains adult themes and because Sean's here, potentially strong language, I don't know, you'll see. I am working on myself as a person. I've got a crown on. I'm going to behave all day. You should have a swear jar, but it should be a ridiculously high amount every time you swear. Yeah, no, that would be bad. That would be substantial. Also, on the record, shout out to Hardy, Sean's unofficial daughter, who's just got engaged.

1:46Shaun Kent:Congratulations, Hardy. Hardy Goff is engaged. I'm so excited for her. I'm so very happy. She's such a sweetheart. She is. And we've got something else that you're going to enjoy today, Sean, because we're bringing you a brand new lawsuit. It's an interesting one. It's Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Ray J, Rico and Defamation Per Se, of course, which sounds like a sort of legal party you don't really want to be invited to. I should probably say for our younger listeners, Ray J is a former R &B artist. He also dated Kim Kardashian briefly and is the man who is with her in her infamous sex tape. And I'm not bringing that up just because it's part of his biography.

2:19Shaun Kent:It's very central to the litigation. so Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner the big dog of the Kardashian clan are suing Ray J real name William Ray Norwood Jr for defamation and he's counter suing them for breach of contract so first of all we have an allegation of defamation from the I'm gonna call them car Jenners because that's how they are referred to colloquially for more than two decades they say Ray J has engaged in a sustained campaign against plaintiffs plaintiffs being them in the TMZ documentary called United States versus Sean Combs, because of course we have a Diddy cameo here. How could we not?

2:57Shaun Kent:Ray J says this in that documentary. If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it. So there's that statement. Later on a live stream on the 24th of September, 2025, he goes on to say this. The federal Rico I'm about to drop on Chris and Kim is about to be crazy. And he also says, quote, the feds is coming he then announced according to the lawsuit to millions of viewers that the racketeering case against plaintiffs would be quote worse than diddy referring to the highly publicized federal rico charges against sean diddy combs now i just want to jump in there and say worse than diddy diddy was acquitted on the charge of rico so um okay but of course the allegation there is that something is coming a charge of of racketeering which is a really serious offense from the federal government to Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner.

3:52Shaun Kent:Now, the lawsuit, their lawsuit for defamation continues, saying, Ray J's public statements are blatantly false. No such federal investigation exists. No law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner, and no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations. I've got a question for you, Hushan, and I just want to hash it out because it's a question we get a lot. The language of, quote, the federal RICO I'm about to drop, is that not extremely misleading because you can't, as a private individual, drop a federal anything?

4:28When I looked at the lawsuit, that's exactly what I thought about. Now, maybe he is bringing a federal civil claim. And so let's say that's what he is saying. And if he is saying that, then he has a right to bring a lawsuit if he thinks that's there. But you're exactly right. That is a legal misnomer saying that I'm bringing this federal criminal claim. He is not an investigative body. He is not a criminal agent. And that could be possibly one of his defenses. I can't bring a federal RICO claim against anybody. This is crazy.

4:55Shaun Kent:OK, but if that was one of his defenses, wouldn't you then say, but does the general public know that you still made an assertion that you were going to do it so it could still be defamatory? I do believe and this is going back to, like we said, with the Donald Trump situation. Step one, what do they call this? Anushka, foreshadowing. Pay attention to where we're going. Your first thing that you have to do when you're analyzing this situation is first ask, is it a defamatory statement in and of itself? Step one. Two, is it publicized to somebody? And so if we go through it, as we talk about defamation per se, that's what the Kardashians are saying.

5:30You specifically making this statement under California law is defamation in and of itself. Ray J, you can't say this stuff about people, period. And if you look at the way the world has looked at the Sean Diddy Combs case, him saying that they're worse than Diddy. And when he said it at the time, remember what everybody was thinking of Diddy. There were children, sex parties, all this stuff, bringing people in. And him saying it's worse. I could see how the Kardashians are saying, you saying we are worse publicly than Diddy 100 % has defamed our name.

6:02Shaun Kent:If there was a federal case, say a grand jury had convened, an essential person, i.e. in this case, Ray J, was caught talking about it publicly on a public platform before, would that put you, I don't know if this is a UK phrase, but would that not put you in contempt of court? Well, yeah, we've talked about that. Like, let's say for argument's sake, he is telling the truth. Let's just assume it. And let's assume that means he has been meeting with the grand jury. Grand jury meetings are supposed to be quiet and private. We've talked about it. These are not supposed to be up for the public situation.

6:34So that would be a problem. If there was a federal criminal investigation going on against the Kardashians and he was central to this case and he's on podcast talking about it, that'd be a big problem. That doesn't mean there might not be something civilly he's trying to bring, but criminally, it doesn't look like there is.

6:51Shaun Kent:And explain, you just said you can raise something federally in a civil court. What does that mean? Well, you can bring a federal civil action and he can make allegations. There are civil RICO claims, believe it or not. There are civil actions, and we talked about this, that he could possibly bring and sue. But those would already be filed. I don't think they are. But he could. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He could maybe be saying, I believe they're in violation of civil RICO rules, and that's what I'm doing. If you listen to the statements he said in the script, that's something you have to be careful with defamation.

7:24You could read the way he is saying in two or three different ways. Because I read the complaint that you guys send us like three different times. You could read the statements he just said a bunch of different ways. It depends on how you want to read them.

7:38Shaun Kent:But when it comes to the bar for actual malice, and I should say we're talking about defamation per se here, which is when something is said that is so bad, you don't have to prove damages. Like damages are assumed. Is that right? The bar for actual malice. Look at me kicking my feet and giggling. Yeah, I'm so happy. the bar for actual malice saying something you knew to be false and repeating it anyway or presenting something as the truth with reckless disregard that it might not be the truth they say in the lawsuit they allege kim and chris ray j's publication of these serious criminal accusations without any attempt at verification or corroboration from legitimate law enforcement sources who would have readily confirmed that no such investigation exists constitutes reckless disregard for the truth under the actual malice standard his reliance on his own unsubstantiated assertions despite having no factual basis or credible source for these inflammatory allegations demonstrates a fundamental disregard for truth and a willful intent to harm plaintiffs reputations now this is the bit that i'm interested now the lawsuit their lawsuit for defamation continues saying upon information and belief ray j personally fabricated the defamatory statements and because they originated entirely from his own imagination he knew them to be false when he made them Malice may be inferred where a story is fabricated by the defendant.

8:52Shaun Kent:I didn't know that that was a standard where you could just infer malice if they made it up. I disagree with that. I disagree with their statement because remember, foreshadowing, you have to make a difference between fact versus opinion. And so that's what they have to be careful with. And we even talk about this because we're always talking about the news media. We have trouble sometimes talking about private citizens who defame individuals. And so you have to make the distinction when you're doing analysis. Is Ray J holding this out as a fact or is Ray J holding this out as an opinion? That's a big difference.

9:24And so when they're saying he just made it up, it's almost as if they're playing into that. This could be his opinion of what's happening. So I disagree. I read that in the lawsuit. I disagree with their analysis because you must do a strong showing of fact versus opinion. And so they're going to say he's holding this out as if it's true. he might say, this is my opinion. I think the Fed should be coming. I think they are coming. Oh, I'm wrong. Oh, well, that was my opinion. I thought they were. I mean, you and I give opinions on things every day when we talk about this.

9:54Shaun Kent:No, you give opinions. I do give opinions. I am impartial. You are impartial. I am a pillar of impartiality. I give opinions. I am the opposite of impartial. Unless it's on David Tennant, in which case I am swayed. But do you even know who that is? No. I don't think Americans have the pleasure. David Tennant, you know Doctor Who. David Tennant is actually the best doctor. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. And the reason Sean keeps saying foreshadowing is because he's going to ask me a question from the bar and see if I can get it right. Because not just because Kim Kardashian recently didn't pass the bar, but because we do so much legal analysis on this on this pod.

10:32Shaun Kent:Let's see. Let's see if we're as good as we think we are. That's a bold claim, actually. But it's interesting that you are saying that. I wonder, is there a defense of like satire or comedic? I don't know. I said that in that Diddy documentary because it's funny, given my long history with the Kardashians. Is that a defense? Absolutely. Look at comedians every day. We have these comedians and they make these comments about people all the time. And they're protected. You are, God, you hit the nail on the head. It's protected by satire. It's protected by opinion. So you must, must. First thing, is it defamatory?

11:05Was it published to outside individuals? If it was published, was it fact or opinion? Opinion could be satire. I'm joking. This is for song lyrics. Drake versus Kendrick. You know, these are me being song lyrics. This is me being whatever. I'm not offering this as a factual statement. That's going to be the crux, I think, in that case for the Kardashians.

11:27Shaun Kent:But then my second question there is what about venue? Because the first comment was made in a documentary and then the second one was made on a live stream. Now, in the parameters of a documentary on a serious federal case, would it not, I'm going to say a reasonable individual, because you guys use that phrase all the time, would a reasonable individual not assume that a statement made in a documentary that was then edited and checked by lawyers, would we not assume that that statement was more truthful or was more serious in tone than something made on a live stream? That's why we have defamation per se, because we don't have to go through that strong analysis like you've just said, Anushka, because it is presumed that the statement was made and it is presumed there are damages, which takes your analysis and goes towards the end.

12:13What damages did they actually suffer? And so they'll say exactly what you've said. Because this was on a news source, because this was verifiable, people are more likely to believe it. Because they're more likely to believe it, we've been damaged. It's the same thing we have talked about the Trump situation. Same thing. We talk about all these situations and we get calls about this all the time. Everybody wants to sue for defamation because they've said something or said something about someone's ugly kid or something this nature. And I say we get to this analysis. Everything you have said is true.

12:43But what are your damages? So for the Kardashians, Ray J has been seen to say some. I want to make sure I use my British phrase, some off putting stuff from time to time that is a little bit wild. what damages can he actually cause the Kardashians?

12:59Shaun Kent:I don't know if everyone would necessarily agree with that because like you said there was just a complete media storm around Diddy assuming that he was the worst of the worst of the worst and he was immediately guilty of all the things he'd been accused of and so making that comment worse than Diddy it did go everywhere I did see it online Rojo says the Kardashians are running a sex trafficking ring which that's not what he actually said But that is how some of the press picked up on it and ran with it. And if you're right, if you're looking at the damages, one of the things that would be interesting for the Kardashians, even though I don't think they'd want to admit it, but they'll say their inner circle is so tight and they have dated a couple of different men, shall we say.

13:40And nobody has ever come out with something about their inner circle. And so where it could give Ray J more truth is he is someone who has dated a Kardashian. He would have more knowledge of their inner workings. And maybe this is somebody who knows more and people will give him more credence. That's possibly where their damages could be. Just can't say my feelings are hurt. Give me money. You can't just say, give me a billion dollars. You actually have to specifically have proof on what your damages actually are. If you notice in the Kardashian lawsuit, they don't put a dollar number in there.

14:10Shaun Kent:Is there a space to say it's not monetary damages. What we need, our prayer for relief in this is that he comes out and says he made it all up and that's all we're asking for. But remember, this is something that goes to a jury and a jury can't do that. That's something you send a demand. And I'm glad we talked about you send a demand letter to him and say, we won't go forward with his lawsuit if you make a public apology. Because when you're sitting at the end of the jury trial and the jury stands up, all rise, have y 'all reached a verdict? Yes, we have. We find he needs to apologize. Juries don't do that.

14:41They make a demand of money. Now, Nushka, the proven damages are so hard. You usually have to have like an economist, somebody who'll do, believe it or not, like a social media scrub. We've had to do these things. You hire people who figure out how damaged your reputation has been as a result of this statement. And it's the same thing with Donald Trump. The Kardashians are very polarizing. So when this economist and this social media expert and this person goes online to figure out how damaged they are, There's a lot of damaged stuff about the Kardashians online. And so how did this part hurt them financially?

15:13Shaun Kent:Now, I mean, to reflect what they say, Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, the Kardashian clan, they say these claims are blatantly false. And they go some way in outlining in their lawsuit what I would consider to be motive in that they say, you know, he's doing this. He's long had an issue with us. He's doing this on purpose. So they go out some way in outlining Ray J's motive for making these claims. Do you actually need to outline motive to prove defamation per se? Or can you just say this person did it? Here's the proof. No, you don't have to. And I actually read their lawsuit. I actually think it's fairly well written.

15:46It's nice and short. Nice and short. But it gets your point across. Like you said, it gives the motive. It says what it is. It says the background. It gives the players. They do some things that are very clever in the lawsuit is when they identify the parties. Kim Kardashian is this global billion-dollar bland who works her tail off, and she does all this great stuff. Kris Jenner is such a hard worker, and she is this matriarch, so forth. And Ray J sucks. And that's the person who's in this lawsuit.

16:09Shaun Kent:I read that bit as well and picked up on that. Wasn't that funny? He's utterly forgotten as a figure without Kardashian, so he needs to make explosive statements to stay in the public consciousness. Yeah, it was sad. It was saddick AF is probably the way the kids say it. Oh, Sean. I watched my language. Did you see that? Please. You're cringing me out. Save it, Granddad. Let's get into this cross complaint. Cross complaint. What does that actually mean? It's just a fancy word for I'm suing you too. You sue me, I'm suing you back. That's literally all that means. Does it have to address what was said in the original lawsuit?

16:47Well, that's great because you also notice that Ray J filed an answer. Okay. Did you notice that? So Ray J filed an answer. That addresses the original lawsuit. And one of the interesting things, if you notice from Ray J's lawsuit, was he said, it's true. Did you know? I mean, if you read the answer, he just said, this is true. It's a defense to defamation. The stuff that I said is true, which is very subtle that people won't catch on. But he flat out doubled down. He's like, what I said is true is his answer. So he's answered their complaint. And then he has cross complained and say, I am now suing you for what you have done to me and hurt me reputationally.

17:21He could have filed it separately. at a separate point in time for a separate lawsuit. But the reason that he is attached to this one is the courts like what's called judicial economy. This is all about one central thing. Let's bring one lawsuit and have it answered at one time rather than two different lawsuits floating around since it's all about one central matter.

17:39Shaun Kent:So in his cross complaint, I mean, he does answer, it goes some way in responding to what they said in the cross complaint, but he does introduce other elements that he alleges of the story of him and Kim. In 2003, Ray J and Kim record a sex tape in Carbo called, for the purposes of the lawsuit, the Carbo sex tape. I never heard about that. The sex tape? There's a sex tape? No comment. I did not know this. This is interesting. Can I Google it? No, you can't because someone needs to put child lock on your computer. It's already there. It's already there. Trust me. Trust me. The question is, Sean, do you know how to Google it?

18:12Shaun Kent:No, I don't. You flipping dinosaur. I would be just hitting the, just hitting my computer screen. Show me nudity. And if it doesn't work, I'd ask Siri. Hey, Siri, Can I see a sex date? Wow, the funny part is my phone just clicked on. She actually... Okay, delete history. Delete cookies. What just happened? Abort, abort. Yeah, your missus is going to be like, what now? She's like, could you talk to me about your search history this morning? The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients. At Whole Foods Market, no antibiotics ever. burgers and kebabs are prepped and ready to throw on the grill.

18:53Fire up a juicy ribeye, grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department, and round it all out with 365 brand condiments, chips and dips at everyday low prices. Whole Foods Market, make your summer sizzle. She was the sister who went unnoticed. A daffodil might look plain next to a lily, but on its own there is much to be admired. Now, her greatest chapter is yet to come. The most important thing is to be yourself. From the world of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice comes a new Britbox original drama. Mary, you will flourish. Based on the best-selling novel The Other Bennett Sister, now streaming only on Britbox.

19:38Watch for the free trial at Britbox.com.

19:44Shaun Kent:um yeah so in 2006 they allegedly discussed releasing the tape publicly it says that Kris Jenner had Kim Kardashian and Ray J sign a licensing agreement with the porn production company that released the tape that's Vivid Entertainment LLC referred to hereafter as just Vivid Kris allegedly made Kim and Ray J record another tape in Santa Barbara because she felt the first one was quote not dirty enough this is according to ray j's cross complaint it says chris watched both tapes before they all decided to release the carbo one allegedly then it says kardashian as in kim chris and vivid agreed that kim would file a bogus lawsuit against the porn company to create buzz ahead of the tapes release vivid and kris jenner then leaked to TMZ that they had settled for$5 million.

20:36Shaun Kent:Ray J says there was no such settlement. Okay, that's according to him. They did not settle for$5 million. This was purely to create buzz. Ray J and Kim stayed friends after the release until Ray J's mum, Sonia, allegedly found out that members of Kim Kardashian's family had racked up charges on Ray J's family's credit card. Sonia files a lawsuit about these alleged charges. Allegedly, Kim begged him to have his mum drop her of the lawsuit, but that she was okay with her siblings being sued. Now we looked at this and at the time the Kardashians reportedly denied the claims of the lawsuit. The case was then dismissed with prejudice in June 2009.

21:13Shaun Kent:With prejudice, it can never be raised again. And US media at the time reported that there had been an out of court settlement. So there's a fair few different things that have been introduced here, none of which at this point in time have anything to do with the alleged Rico comment, the allegation that they're running an enterprise, and then the second comment made on the live stream. He says that the Kardashians and the Jenners go on to profit off the sex tape for nearly two decades. Now, in interest of presenting Kim Kardashian's side of it all, she said the sex tape release was humiliating.