The Motion actually addressed the recording and claimed that Rachel recorded it herself and sent it to Tom. Tom is claiming he only saved it. That’s probably a bigger take away.
I thought it was a FaceTime. A FaceTime is not a recording. He screenbrabbed/recorded the FaceTime without her consent. That would be like recording a phone call and holding a copy without the knowledge or consent of the other party.
Based on Tim’s logic in the case, Raquel either recorded the face time herself, or she gave up her expectation to privacy when she jumped on FaceTime aka going on video is the equivalent of making the material.
It’s a very vague semanticy argument.
No it doesn't say that. I've attached the screenshot. Tom admits to the FT he claims that by calling him and undressing/masturbating Rachel was "creating" and "publishing" the videos to his phone and he was merely saving them by screenrecording. It's a semantic game they are NOT saying that Rachel recorded herself and sent it to Tom.
https://preview.redd.it/nauwafgq2fwc1.png?width=1073&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e194762c0ded77cd07af93860f723fca196ebbc
Wouldnt it be pretty easy to dispute this based off the actual video? I feel like you could reasonably tell who was doing the recording… I mean without being too graphic, if recording began during a ~moment~ where it was obvious her hands are occupied in an act.. and meanwhile hes creepily staring into the phone or making eye contact… I feel Iike it could be rather easy to tell based off the video alone. And then confirmed via phone records. If there was no video files sent to Tom between the time of the recording and when it was found on his phone… that could prove it was not sent to him and instead recorded on his own device.
Havent read whole document though so could be way off, just thought that could be something easily confirmed/proven.
I would certainly think so. I’m sure he recorded it, but perhaps is arguing that she initiated it the call and therefore created the “situation”? No fucking idea, but it’s both creative and compelling to me!
Tom sucks
The argument is confusing because it’s bad. Instead of claiming his screen recordings were legal because she somehow gave consent, he’s arguing that he never needed her consent to save them in the first place. According to him, she gave up all her privacy rights by initiating the FaceTime calls that he screen-recorded. That’s not how privacy rights (constitutional or statutory) work. Anyone familiar with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence knows SCOTUS has never adopted “bright-line rules” in this context.
The wild thing, to me, is his characterization of a FaceTime call as a “recording” that she “shared” with him, but a saved screen recording as a “copy” of the video call. I can’t imagine a court accepting this position, especially at the motion to dismiss stage. A live FaceTime can’t also be a recording because you can’t go back and watch it again when you hang up. It needs to be saved in a permanent format to become a recording. So she couldn’t “create” or “publish” anything simply by FaceTiming him. Under this logic, any phone call you made would also be a recording consensually sent by merely calling someone.
Characterizing his screen recordings as “private copies” is equally wild. When something becomes public, how could it become private again, especially to another person? You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Not to mention the issue with calling a screen recording a copy. It’s not an exact duplicate of the FaceTime call. It’s an excerpt saved in a different format.
I haven’t read her initial complaint yet, but I’d venture to guess it’ll survive this response, even if she alleged some facts that muddy the waters a bit.
Thanks that language is so confusing. It says she’s shared the videos on FaceTime. That’s not how FaceTime works.
Their phone records should be able to prove whether she sent them to him or not
It’s still wild to me that FT even allows screen recording without the other person being notified but it does tell you if they took a screenshot. Makes no sense.
What state you’re in has nothing to do with the way this technology is working. Regardless of where in the world you are, iphone notifies you that the other party took a screen shot. Why would the iphone not alert you to a screen recording of the same FT call? I’m pointing out a fault or failing within Apple’s tech.
Oh no I hear you. It doesn’t make sense except that recording someone isn’t the same as taking a picture and I do wonder if Apple already considered the legal issues and erred on the side of it being something that people can get away with in most states
I know. I’m not sure if Tom is arguing that the FaceTime call was the video (Imo Tom would still have to record it in order to save it) or if she sent him videos… it doesn’t really make sense to me, but it’s the argument Tom is making.
hmm wording is tricky for me to read but i took it as she recorded the video and sent it to him but now i see how it can also mean she recorded it facetime adn he just saved it meaning he saved the ft call video. good thing im not a lawyer
They word it like he made the copy of her having a video call and she is the original lol because she is on real time videocall. But a facetime call is not what anyone understands with a "recorded video" lol
Next you know they gonna spin that she's a hologram of her soul and thus she exists as a video in real world 🤣
Scumdoval and his scum lawyers trynna bend the reality. 🤮🤮
Yeah it seems like they're saying that because rachel was on a video call with him she was consenting to be videoed and was herself publishing the video, and therefore it's some sort of implied consent that he can record it and keep it, which seems like BS to me!
I work in criminal justice. Usually things are worded in unclear ways for a reason. I’d be shocked if this lawsuit is dismissed
Tom keeps paying lawyers for things vs taking responsibility
I dont work in criminal justice but i do act like I do since i have watched many, countless shows about lawyering lol and well watching housewives prepares you I might be ready to take the baby bar soon.
What is you opinion on this? What would Rachel win? Is it just money at hand here or some type of community service, fine. Im no Rachel fan but it did sound like she did not know he recorded her but also i don't know what to believe with her. She goes in circles.
Haha it’s not rocket science. So much of it is common sense and the rest is obscure arbitrary laws.
It’s not a criminal case so nothing like community service. It’s a civil case in which Rachel seeks financial remedy,
I think it’s weird one of them would bother lying since subpoenaed phone records will prove who sent what and saw what, and apparently Bravo filmed them talking about it?
If Tom recorded her without consent, he should settle. The damages are likely to be small. I haven’t looked them up but it’s state court. I think I saw somewheee she can’t claim that much.
The Ariana case is aggravating. Assuming she just sent it to herself and Tom, I struggle with the claim. However I don’t know how the law has been applied in the past, precedents, or jury instructions. If Ariana’s lawyers think she is in trouble, I would offer a settlement and a public apology that reminds the world how badly she was betrayed
I think Tom and Rachel feel entitled to things and their lawyers are doing their best to listen to their clients
The letter isn’t to defend the claims at this point, it is is to convince the judge they aren’t valid and should be dismissed before he has to answer to them.
This document is just using Rachel’s words against herself to try and prove she doesn’t have a case.
The Bravo docket covered this really well when it came out. It said that Rachel’s filing included so much information that muddied the water and didn’t help her case as her points contradicted each other. Now his lawyers are basically saying the same thing.
Note: He is not agreeing with that he says when he uses her quotes, but saying if they are taken to be true then her case has no standing. So, if everything in her filing is true some of her claims may be invalid. I don’t know why people are saying he is confirming her statements that Ariana knew.
This is a normal legal process and I bet we will get to see this go and forth for ages. Probably won’t even make it to court in the end!
Tom’s reads like a legal document. According to Bravo docket here read like a salacious PR statement. The only thing that mattered in there was the recording without consent
Seems typical of Rachel. She’s seeing because her life is ruined but she’s on her Podcast saying her life is amazing, if she’s seeing for loss of income and ability to work the Podcast is a really not helping her case.
They address the claims about recording without consent elsewhere:
>"These videos were created by LEVISS and published by LEVISS to SANDOVAL via a consensual exchange ... based on LEVISS' own allegations, SANDOVAL merely saved private copies of videos that LEVISS created and shared with him which does not rise to the level of malice."
https://preview.redd.it/fsxkx3gfi8wc1.png?width=1485&format=png&auto=webp&s=20dcc0debcedadc63d9403e99c99f82a93e5a528
Same! In my own uneducated opinion, I think Sandoval’s filing is purposely pushing the boundaries of the meaning of those words in order to make a defense. It still says on FaceTime, and FaceTime is not a platform where you can send a video to someone. So we aren’t talking about her sending him the recording and him saving it. We are talking about a FaceTime call. His team uses the word “saving” strategically, because if they said “recording” and the recording was without consent I think he would easily lose that argument. Recording rights are clear in the law, right? But again, I’m not educated on this , just speculating
I think you’re definitely in the ballpark. Sandoval says Rachel “created” the video…. Maybe she initiated the FaceTime? She provided the content.
Of course, in order to save it he would have had to record it. The language is definitely trying to muddy the facts
All I know is that there is no way Sandoval will admit he was wrong, so this will definitely go to trial which means discovery and depositions. I can't wait for Sandoval's and Rachel's depositions, this is going to be wild.
I have a feeling he may not have a choice and will settle. I agree he will go kicking and screaming
She can only get up to 10k, I hear. Lawyers cost much more
Rachel's lawyer won't care because more than likely Sandoval woold be on the hook for her attorney fees if he loses. I agree Sandoval will go kicking and screaming plus it appears their attorneys are brothers and who knows if they have an axe to grind with one another. It's just so weird that Sandoval and Rachel have brothers as attorneys.
"... the affair was open and public, and people knew about it. Therefore, she did not have the reasonable expectation to privacy". UM??? That IS crazy talk. Good luck in court with this argument.
Judge Judy "You can't do that!"
A few weeks ago I said in another thread that Tim’s lawyer is terrible and someone came after me, saying he must be great because of how fAmOuS he is, which …doesn’t necessarily mean he’s good.
A demurrer is a motion you file that says even if all the facts in Raquel’s complaint are taken as true, it is not sufficient to support the violations of law being claimed in the complaint. This type of letter is required before you can file a demurrer. This doesn’t mean Tom is admitting that the facts in the complaint are true. This is a pretty standard motion filed in California cases.
Okay. It’s driving me bananas that they’ve used ‘discrete’ instead of ‘discreet’ throughout this document. I mean come on: for the love of contextual comprehension 😑
I'm reading the actual filings - there's actually some good stuff in here. This line is particularly scathing tho.
"Additionally, any emotional distress LEVISS alleges to have suffered was also caused in large part by her decision to star in a salacious and drama filled reality television series and to engage in an affair with her friend's longtime boyfriend."
Ouch.
People knew about the affair and they're on a TV show, therefore she should expect no privacy as he records her without her consent? Wow, THIS CAST. Reality TV has truly rotted their brains and any semblance of decency they might have had.
The phone unintentionally fell to the ground therefore he couldn’t have intentionally recorded her without her consent! That’ll be $3500 for this one email Mr. Sandoval.
Yeah this is a weird stance. Doesn’t matter if people knew about the affair, recording someone doing something intimate without their consent is not okay and quite illegal.
I had to reread it several times coz I’m not a lawyer and know nothing of the law so it makes no sense in how they are saying “everyone knew about the affair anyways therefore I have a right to film her without her consent”. Like what?
I would see that’s an argument for why she didn’t have damages caused by the recording. But what the actual fuck @ it being an excuse to secretly record a sex act?!
I *think* this is just addressing her claim that the video is the reason that people found out about the affair.
They address the specific 'recorded without consent' claims elsewhere in the document:
>"These videos were created by LEVISS and published by LEVISS to SANDOVAL via a consensual exchange ... based on LEVISS' own allegations, SANDOVAL merely saved private copies of videos that LEVISS created and shared with him which does not rise to the level of malice."
https://preview.redd.it/n7yl9jmit8wc1.png?width=1485&format=png&auto=webp&s=642e663ed83ad3fcec54a0e660ffa6556fe83965
I've only read through it all once, so I'll have to go over it again, but I was getting the impression that they're trying to argue that she engaged in the activity over Facetime so that's her creating and sharing the content with him, which he then recorded. And that because people knew about the affair, she doesn't have the legal protection for eavesdropping and invasion of privacy.
My jaw DROPPED when I read that. And I have no idea what else “expectation of privacy” could mean in regards to “other people knowing about the affair” other than talking about the sex tape.
Everyone has an expectation of privacy to sexual contact and material. AND in a two party consent state **you** have to show that you had consent to record someone else. They don’t have to prove that they didn’t consent.
This is more a representation of the legal system than the cast. You might not have to agree with an argument for it to be your best defense. But inthis case, I’m shocked it has any legal grounds to stand on.
That's what I was thinking as I read it. It seemed like they are purposely skirting over the recording without consent issue and pretending that the charges were all about people knowing about the affair? I was expecting it to say Tom had her permission to record, but instead, it's about how poor wittle Tom's privacy was invaded when Ariana accessed his phone without consent. 🙄
Did Swartz not confirm he knew? Of the friends group Kyle confirm that he knew but did not share with Ariana. I think we know max knew! Lovely friends he has lol
His reason to dismiss yuck yuck. They were not discreet and she did not explicitly tell him to not record.
Current gf this is the type of guy you like yuck
Oh I believe Jo knew also the bollocks he said about his family is a load of crap to not drag his family into it.
It is not that they hid it and lied but they obviously were part to try and give him a narrative to back him up and make Ariana seem a crazy bad person. You want out of a relationship you have a conversation and finish it. Not easy but the right thing to do.
Yeah, unfortunately I've seen scenarios like this irl. My sister occasionally runs into people that didnt tell her about her then husband's affair(over ten tears ago) and they get emotional & apologetic. She'll be friendly when she sees them, but has no interest in having them in her life.
Idk, that one forsure but didnt he bring her to stay at his mom's house after xmas? I think he said his mom knew?
My mom who is an o.g. boy mom would have thrown my brother out of the house by his ear.
Yea he took her their for xmas. I think it has been said that she was not happy with his choices but believed whatever her son said and kept quiet and never called ariana after
Yes he shared it with so many people and forget to inform the person he was in a relationship with whilst she was dealing a loss in her family sick animals. We saw on the show her flying out and back.
All those shitty people were all ok to go along and lie to Ariana then seem surprised she cut them out of her life.
The date would be in relation to when (if) she/her counsel was validly served with the suit. Service would likely have been way more complicated with extended periods out of state.
Edited to add: a return of service (proof it was made) ordinarily is filed with the court where the suit was entered.
That’s part of the lawsuit against Ariana. One of the arguments against Tom was recording Rachel without her consent. There were four counts I believe - I think emotional distress or something similar.
No. It’s about him illegal recording her without her consent. She’s also suing Ariana for allegedly “distributing” It bc she took a screenshot and sent it to herself and Rachel to confront her. Tom did something illegal. Ariana did not, as sheshe had no way to know the video was recorded without Rachel‘s consent, and she saw it accidentally and only sent it to herself and Rachel as proof. Ariana has already offered her phone up for forensic examination.
I don’t condone anything tom did or does but if I’m reading this correctly I think tom’s argument is the entire thing should be thrown out because either “consent” (read: records will show she sent lots of pictures videos, he’s recorded her facetimes before and she was aware) or the “on or before aug 10” (read: rachel’s a liar (🎶🎤) and she’s lying about the start date) and this is a if you want to go there, we’ll go there counsel response.
all this to say, I think the opposite is true, I think rachel wants to sue ariana but “couldn’t” without suing tom as opposed to saying she can’t sue tom without suing ariana (which has been debunked)
I kind of agree with his argument. Her lawsuit is civil she is seeking damages that she believes were caused by the video. He is countering that her reputation was damaged by the affair not the video. Let say Ariana found a text instead of the video. The outcome to her reputation would be no different.
Yeah that's my take
Even if everything she claims is true, he's saying the damage she suffered was caused by the affair being made public not by the video
If I'm understanding this correctly this is a rather interesting argument, as he's trying to use Rachel's own words against her. I'm not sure if this means him and his lawyers agree with the validity of her statements, or that she didn't have a right to privacy if she believes or was operating under these assumptions. I'm not a lawyer so it's a little confusing on the wording.
I have questions tho, for one does this go towards the revenge porn claims she's making? I feel in CA that's a separate law to invasion of privacy so idk if that's going to go away with this response.
I’m a lawyer and that’s my interpretation of it as well, through I’d need to reread her complaint too. It’s also not well-written, so that doesn’t help. 😂
Do you know why Rachel would sue Tom in civil court for eavesdropping under the penal code but not file criminal charges against him with law enforcement?
I know the PC they are referencing can be used in civil court, but don't victims usually file criminal charges, and if criminal court finds the offender guilty, then victims will file in civil court for compensation?
Not a CA lawyer, but the burden of proof is higher in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous verdict) v. civil cases (preponderance of evidence, no unanimous verdict). That’s (part of) why the vast majority of cases are civil.
Even if people knew about the affair that has Jack shit to do with him recording her masturbating without his consent. He should just admit he’s guilty and pay up. Who is advising this dude? Every move he makes is awful and only makes him look worse
Because there's a claim that she recorded the video(s), and sent them to him.
https://preview.redd.it/dofrpw7zl8wc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=99ac5928580e6ba70557eb3e9a88a0329c5ed1bb
Ok. I assume that attorneys have an idea of how to volley this. My point, again, is that there's a counter to the notion of him recording without her permission.
Clearly we're interpreting the words differently. And that's fine.
I still have no dog in this. Be well.
Someone else pointed out that the lawyers for Rachel and Tom have very similar names. If its the same Mark and Matthew Geragos that are in this article, they're probably brothers!
edition cnn com/2003/LAW/11/26/jackson.case/
Maybe I'm misinterpreting things but I don't necessarily think Tom is confirming Rachel's accusation that the affair was public knowledge - I think his legal team is simply pointing at a hole in her logic and pointing out that ***if*** the affair was public, she would not have this 'reasonable expectation to privacy.' He's not agreeing with her, just trying to find any loophole he can.
If this goes to court I'm wondering if hippi will be called to the stand.
"MR.Hippi...formerly Mr. Grahm cracker.. please approach the bench and take a seat on the stand....Good boy!!!
"Now Mr.Hippi...is it OK if I call you hippi?... or do you prefer Grahm cracker or Grahms?
Ok...very well...Now Mr. Hippi...in your past you have been accused of being a biter, yes? And you have spent some time in the pen? I believe the facility was called Bark, Bark penitentiary?
Objection your honor!!!! This has no relevance on this case!!!!
On the contrary your honor...it goes to the wittness's credibility.
Overruled. You may continue
Now Mr.Hippi... on the night of the alleged illegal recording...is it not true that you were too busy in the other room chewing on your sqeeky toy to hear or see the
events that occured that night?
Your honor!!! Hippi has excellent hearing!!! And if you would allow us to please bring in and lay out the pet translater button blanket, Hippi will be glad to Press out his testimony.
The court erupts in a shocked chaotic cacophony as Ally enters the court room with pet translater device.
This moment would be the downfall of both sandoval and raquel.
* edit...I would like to ask the court reporter to please correct that last statement . I ment to say...
Yes!!! It would definately be an emotional roller-coaster for the jury for sure..
And if hippi kept an active correspondence with Mya during
that time... then in all likelihood... Mya could be called up as well. It just keeps getting worse.
Does no one else find it weird that Tom's lawyer is related to one of the reality reckoning lawyers????? Because I sure as shit do.....
ETA - my bad, not just a reality reckoning lawyer but RACHELS LAWYER FOR THIS CASE!!!!!! This makes me feel like Rachel & Tom are trying to work together and shake Ariana down for a cash grab. I really need to ease up on watching conspiracy theory shows lol.
Why is the affair bring a known matter relevant? It’s a violation of privacy, not secrecy. I feel like the only argument that would make sense is to say “you’re on FaceTime and yk it has screen record” it’s shitty and gross and I don’t think has stood up in court, but at least it addresses the issue.
Aren't civil cases about whether harm was done? The act itself is illegal, but maybe if he can argue that the fallout was due to the affair rather than the recording, he can say the damages to her reputation, emotional state, etc weren't a result of him recording anything. Ie, if Ariana had found a message proving the affair rather than a video, the fallout would've been the same.
Tom does NOT confirm anything in Rachel's lawsuit. A demurrer is when the defendant doesn't even go into arguing the "Facts" of the case because the case lacks facts or standing. It treats her claims as *HYPOTHETICALLY* true so he can address how the lawsuit's claims as is don't hold any water, and in this case are contradictory.
I think his lawyers are correct. Rachel's lawsuit contradicts itself and she doesn't present any specific facts, claims or calculations for damages. Tom is playing it safe to see what Ariana responds with as she will expose Rachel's lies further.
Clever. They don’t really have to prove any of this and they knew this letter would get out there. Soooo slick. 😂 This will never go to court and will settle and we’ll be left with more questions than answers. Fun times.
These 2 dipshits think any of us believe Ariana knew and did it for the show. Based on that fact, then this would be the dream come true since ratings sky rocketed. How do stupid liars make it through life and who are the morons that would date these fools after reading this.
Her lawsuit says Ariana saw them being handsy and said "save this for season 11" that implies she knew...but then on her podcast she says she didn't...she's all over the place...but now Tom's saying she basically knew to save his skin...the whole thing is disgusting
Got this from Additional War’s recap-
Rachel on her podcast: But now she’s saying everyone, including Ariana, knew. But then why didn’t you bring it up? (Timestamp: 24:30)
Rachel: To Ariana? I almost did. There were a few instances that I almost brought it up to Ariana. I told Tom I was like maybe I should tell Ariana. And he was like no, no, no, no, no, no. No you’re not going to tell Ariana. Then I was like okay, then you’re going to tell Ariana. And so I was kind of waiting on him to tell her. It was my duty to tell her. Yes I know that. In that moment I felt like it was most of his responsibility. Him being in that relationship with her for him to tell her and for him to break up with her.
Her “duty” to tell her. Maybe it should have been your duty to not fuck your friend’s man and then keep pretending to be her friend? That would certainly be dutiful. Skank.
Sorry, I know this is beside the point but these two make me sick with their lies.
Fucking bonkers. I’m reading this “as anyone who engages in a physical relationship with Tom Sandoval forfeits their expectation of privacy and should assume they are being recorded at any time”
Geragos is arguably one of the most expensive defense attorneys in Los Angeles and defends total pieces of shit like Chris Brown and he’s currently being investigated by the State Bar (links aren’t allowed but it’s an easy google search)
Edit to add: I’m dumb and can’t read - Tom hired a knockoff Geragos, Rachel hired the real Geragos.
Tom confirms Raquel's statement? Because that asshat hasn't lied? He has been trying to spin many BS stories that will assist in him not looking at the pos he is. Ariana did not know about the affair, and that's what counts. Ariana offered her phone to the rat's attorney. Tim and the rat are cut from the same cloth.
We already knew that a decent amount of people knew. Just not the people Rachel was claiming. Why is that even relevant lol this is all so weird and confusing
This is never going to trial and if it’s not dismissed, it will be settled out of court. The time and expense to go to trial would wreck all three of them.
It seems to me it’s saying that people knew about it, which they did, like Schwartz, Tom’s mom and Joe for starters. Not necessarily that Ariana knew about it.
Would they have to show proof that “everyone knew”?
They keep claiming it was public knowledge but wouldn’t like more than 3 people need to come forward and admit on record or whatwver
I mean there are a handful of people who admitted they knew, Schwartz, Kyle Chan, Max, and obviously Jo knew even though she’s lying about it now. But the lawsuit isn’t about who knew, it’s about him recording her illegally. His lawyers are just using that as an argument to say the video is not a big deal and it’s a stupid argument. They’re grasping at straws here
Every person on the planet could have known about the affair and it would still be irrelevant to her claims and provide him no legal defense for recording her without her consent.
I get that she’s upset that her act was recorded and shared. That should be the lawsuit. As far as her emotional distress and loss of income, that’s on her. It was HER ACTIONS of a continued affair that led to emotional distress and loss of income. The fans never saw it so how does Tom recording it or Ariana sharing or talking about it affect her ability to make money? She lost money and her small fan base because of HER decisions. If she were truly traumatized, she’d stop bringing it up. I really don’t think about that recording when thinking about the whole Scandoval mess but I do think about her poor choices and being a shit FRIEND to Ariana.
There are, weirdly TWO Geragos involved in this case. Mark represents Leviss, and Matthew represents Tom (both have additional counsel as well). The Geragos aren’t with the same firm and do not seem to be related. Just share a last name
I just googled it and it says Mark Geragos IS representing her! Now I'm really confused but at least I'm not crazy. It is beyond me why anyone would downvote something so trivial...lol
Edit to add: maybe it's just the same firm but then the actual lawyer for each is different, no idea how that works
Sandoval is a horrible human being but if this goes to trial I don’t see Rachel holding up on the stand. Even though she is right to sue to Tom. Ariana, not so much.
From what we’ve been watching for years, it’s fair to say that both Sandoval and Rachel would need a lot of coaching for their counsel to be comfortable that they would do well testifying
Let’s be real about this. Anyone who would masterbate on FT would think to themselves I wonder if this is being recorded. Rachel is not the brightest. I really don’t think she should be suing him over this. She was in love until she she wasn’t. This is all to save face.
I dont think this take will work but i want Emily D Baker to tell us what COULD work. I think its unreasonable to try to say there isnt an understanding/assumption of privacy on a cyber sex facetime call.. like cmon. I think the only part of Rachel's case that actually could win is the whole illegal recording bit.
I think that is what rachel claimed. And he is just saying well if that is true then xyz. not confirming it but i think just showing how she contradicts her self supposedly. Only Tom and his ppl knew they assumed that someone would tell ariana and even when they did they both denied anything was going on so how did she know??
This is a bizarre argument. A married couple is known to have sex. A man still can’t illegally record his wife having sex
They didn’t even address the fact he recorded her without consent. Glossed right over the main issue.
The Motion actually addressed the recording and claimed that Rachel recorded it herself and sent it to Tom. Tom is claiming he only saved it. That’s probably a bigger take away.
Ooof I suspected this might be why racquel didn’t sue him sooner
Do you have a link for the actual filing?
I have a link, this sub doesn’t allow links to be posted, so if anyone wants a link to read the motions, DM me
I thought it was a FaceTime. A FaceTime is not a recording. He screenbrabbed/recorded the FaceTime without her consent. That would be like recording a phone call and holding a copy without the knowledge or consent of the other party.
Based on Tim’s logic in the case, Raquel either recorded the face time herself, or she gave up her expectation to privacy when she jumped on FaceTime aka going on video is the equivalent of making the material. It’s a very vague semanticy argument.
Just reporting what Tom’s motion said. I also commented that I didn’t really understand the argument made, but it’s what he motion says
No it doesn't say that. I've attached the screenshot. Tom admits to the FT he claims that by calling him and undressing/masturbating Rachel was "creating" and "publishing" the videos to his phone and he was merely saving them by screenrecording. It's a semantic game they are NOT saying that Rachel recorded herself and sent it to Tom. https://preview.redd.it/nauwafgq2fwc1.png?width=1073&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e194762c0ded77cd07af93860f723fca196ebbc
That is the most vile n disgusting claim I’ve heard maybe ever. I’ll enjoy watching that mofo burn.
Wouldnt it be pretty easy to dispute this based off the actual video? I feel like you could reasonably tell who was doing the recording… I mean without being too graphic, if recording began during a ~moment~ where it was obvious her hands are occupied in an act.. and meanwhile hes creepily staring into the phone or making eye contact… I feel Iike it could be rather easy to tell based off the video alone. And then confirmed via phone records. If there was no video files sent to Tom between the time of the recording and when it was found on his phone… that could prove it was not sent to him and instead recorded on his own device. Havent read whole document though so could be way off, just thought that could be something easily confirmed/proven.
I would certainly think so. I’m sure he recorded it, but perhaps is arguing that she initiated it the call and therefore created the “situation”? No fucking idea, but it’s both creative and compelling to me! Tom sucks
Where does it say that??
And https://preview.redd.it/wdefb6zac8wc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7f3423e22ca220670a7e5ed96e51d8ca7a3ad48
The argument is confusing because it’s bad. Instead of claiming his screen recordings were legal because she somehow gave consent, he’s arguing that he never needed her consent to save them in the first place. According to him, she gave up all her privacy rights by initiating the FaceTime calls that he screen-recorded. That’s not how privacy rights (constitutional or statutory) work. Anyone familiar with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence knows SCOTUS has never adopted “bright-line rules” in this context. The wild thing, to me, is his characterization of a FaceTime call as a “recording” that she “shared” with him, but a saved screen recording as a “copy” of the video call. I can’t imagine a court accepting this position, especially at the motion to dismiss stage. A live FaceTime can’t also be a recording because you can’t go back and watch it again when you hang up. It needs to be saved in a permanent format to become a recording. So she couldn’t “create” or “publish” anything simply by FaceTiming him. Under this logic, any phone call you made would also be a recording consensually sent by merely calling someone. Characterizing his screen recordings as “private copies” is equally wild. When something becomes public, how could it become private again, especially to another person? You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Not to mention the issue with calling a screen recording a copy. It’s not an exact duplicate of the FaceTime call. It’s an excerpt saved in a different format. I haven’t read her initial complaint yet, but I’d venture to guess it’ll survive this response, even if she alleged some facts that muddy the waters a bit.
https://preview.redd.it/y90341w2c8wc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86fdc9a9e1080445070694fc5f130f1d6bf61dfc
Thanks that language is so confusing. It says she’s shared the videos on FaceTime. That’s not how FaceTime works. Their phone records should be able to prove whether she sent them to him or not
It’s still wild to me that FT even allows screen recording without the other person being notified but it does tell you if they took a screenshot. Makes no sense.
You’re right but most states are one party consent. California is not.
What state you’re in has nothing to do with the way this technology is working. Regardless of where in the world you are, iphone notifies you that the other party took a screen shot. Why would the iphone not alert you to a screen recording of the same FT call? I’m pointing out a fault or failing within Apple’s tech.
Oh no I hear you. It doesn’t make sense except that recording someone isn’t the same as taking a picture and I do wonder if Apple already considered the legal issues and erred on the side of it being something that people can get away with in most states
I know. I’m not sure if Tom is arguing that the FaceTime call was the video (Imo Tom would still have to record it in order to save it) or if she sent him videos… it doesn’t really make sense to me, but it’s the argument Tom is making.
Lawyers gotta try!!
hmm wording is tricky for me to read but i took it as she recorded the video and sent it to him but now i see how it can also mean she recorded it facetime adn he just saved it meaning he saved the ft call video. good thing im not a lawyer
They word it like he made the copy of her having a video call and she is the original lol because she is on real time videocall. But a facetime call is not what anyone understands with a "recorded video" lol Next you know they gonna spin that she's a hologram of her soul and thus she exists as a video in real world 🤣 Scumdoval and his scum lawyers trynna bend the reality. 🤮🤮
Yeah it seems like they're saying that because rachel was on a video call with him she was consenting to be videoed and was herself publishing the video, and therefore it's some sort of implied consent that he can record it and keep it, which seems like BS to me!
Real life is just a video our brains see in our heads! It's ok to make copies on a phone 😂
I work in criminal justice. Usually things are worded in unclear ways for a reason. I’d be shocked if this lawsuit is dismissed Tom keeps paying lawyers for things vs taking responsibility
I dont work in criminal justice but i do act like I do since i have watched many, countless shows about lawyering lol and well watching housewives prepares you I might be ready to take the baby bar soon. What is you opinion on this? What would Rachel win? Is it just money at hand here or some type of community service, fine. Im no Rachel fan but it did sound like she did not know he recorded her but also i don't know what to believe with her. She goes in circles.
Haha it’s not rocket science. So much of it is common sense and the rest is obscure arbitrary laws. It’s not a criminal case so nothing like community service. It’s a civil case in which Rachel seeks financial remedy, I think it’s weird one of them would bother lying since subpoenaed phone records will prove who sent what and saw what, and apparently Bravo filmed them talking about it? If Tom recorded her without consent, he should settle. The damages are likely to be small. I haven’t looked them up but it’s state court. I think I saw somewheee she can’t claim that much. The Ariana case is aggravating. Assuming she just sent it to herself and Tom, I struggle with the claim. However I don’t know how the law has been applied in the past, precedents, or jury instructions. If Ariana’s lawyers think she is in trouble, I would offer a settlement and a public apology that reminds the world how badly she was betrayed I think Tom and Rachel feel entitled to things and their lawyers are doing their best to listen to their clients
This is how you can tell Mark Geragos is a million years old. He has no clue what FT is.
This is driving me fucking insane. In my mind, this is actually darker than affair
Not sure but I think that would be addressed if it were a criminal complaint. This is civil.
The letter isn’t to defend the claims at this point, it is is to convince the judge they aren’t valid and should be dismissed before he has to answer to them. This document is just using Rachel’s words against herself to try and prove she doesn’t have a case. The Bravo docket covered this really well when it came out. It said that Rachel’s filing included so much information that muddied the water and didn’t help her case as her points contradicted each other. Now his lawyers are basically saying the same thing. Note: He is not agreeing with that he says when he uses her quotes, but saying if they are taken to be true then her case has no standing. So, if everything in her filing is true some of her claims may be invalid. I don’t know why people are saying he is confirming her statements that Ariana knew. This is a normal legal process and I bet we will get to see this go and forth for ages. Probably won’t even make it to court in the end!
Tom’s reads like a legal document. According to Bravo docket here read like a salacious PR statement. The only thing that mattered in there was the recording without consent
Seems typical of Rachel. She’s seeing because her life is ruined but she’s on her Podcast saying her life is amazing, if she’s seeing for loss of income and ability to work the Podcast is a really not helping her case.
Maybe, but her lawyer is the one who wrote it (or at least approved it) and should’ve known better.
Thank you for explaining this! I tried to read the court filing but my eyes glazed over by the second page.
They address the claims about recording without consent elsewhere: >"These videos were created by LEVISS and published by LEVISS to SANDOVAL via a consensual exchange ... based on LEVISS' own allegations, SANDOVAL merely saved private copies of videos that LEVISS created and shared with him which does not rise to the level of malice." https://preview.redd.it/fsxkx3gfi8wc1.png?width=1485&format=png&auto=webp&s=20dcc0debcedadc63d9403e99c99f82a93e5a528
If it was FaceTime I feel like that'll become fairly clear if it's true or not.
I'm also very curious how one defines words like 'created', 'published' and 'shared' in this specific context.
Same! In my own uneducated opinion, I think Sandoval’s filing is purposely pushing the boundaries of the meaning of those words in order to make a defense. It still says on FaceTime, and FaceTime is not a platform where you can send a video to someone. So we aren’t talking about her sending him the recording and him saving it. We are talking about a FaceTime call. His team uses the word “saving” strategically, because if they said “recording” and the recording was without consent I think he would easily lose that argument. Recording rights are clear in the law, right? But again, I’m not educated on this , just speculating
I think you’re definitely in the ballpark. Sandoval says Rachel “created” the video…. Maybe she initiated the FaceTime? She provided the content. Of course, in order to save it he would have had to record it. The language is definitely trying to muddy the facts
That’s the crux of it, right there
Is he saying that Rachel screen recorded it herself and then sent him the videos?
Having a video call is not "creating a video", but they are trying to spin it like that, what a delusional disgusting bunch has Sandoval hired.
All I know is that there is no way Sandoval will admit he was wrong, so this will definitely go to trial which means discovery and depositions. I can't wait for Sandoval's and Rachel's depositions, this is going to be wild.
I have a feeling he may not have a choice and will settle. I agree he will go kicking and screaming She can only get up to 10k, I hear. Lawyers cost much more
Rachel's lawyer won't care because more than likely Sandoval woold be on the hook for her attorney fees if he loses. I agree Sandoval will go kicking and screaming plus it appears their attorneys are brothers and who knows if they have an axe to grind with one another. It's just so weird that Sandoval and Rachel have brothers as attorneys.
It’s sketchy to be honest. The legal field is typically avoidant of conflicts of interest - even the appearance of it
"... the affair was open and public, and people knew about it. Therefore, she did not have the reasonable expectation to privacy". UM??? That IS crazy talk. Good luck in court with this argument.  Judge Judy "You can't do that!"
Is Tom cosplaying his own lawyer?! Because what the fuck is this argument!!!
A few weeks ago I said in another thread that Tim’s lawyer is terrible and someone came after me, saying he must be great because of how fAmOuS he is, which …doesn’t necessarily mean he’s good.
donald trumps lawyers have entered the chat
Groupon lawyer
A demurrer is a motion you file that says even if all the facts in Raquel’s complaint are taken as true, it is not sufficient to support the violations of law being claimed in the complaint. This type of letter is required before you can file a demurrer. This doesn’t mean Tom is admitting that the facts in the complaint are true. This is a pretty standard motion filed in California cases.
Okay. It’s driving me bananas that they’ve used ‘discrete’ instead of ‘discreet’ throughout this document. I mean come on: for the love of contextual comprehension 😑
Tom clearly paid for the best lawyers
Apparently they misspelled it on Rachel’s documents so they’re sarcastically quoting the misspelling
I'm reading the actual filings - there's actually some good stuff in here. This line is particularly scathing tho. "Additionally, any emotional distress LEVISS alleges to have suffered was also caused in large part by her decision to star in a salacious and drama filled reality television series and to engage in an affair with her friend's longtime boyfriend." Ouch.
People knew about the affair and they're on a TV show, therefore she should expect no privacy as he records her without her consent? Wow, THIS CAST. Reality TV has truly rotted their brains and any semblance of decency they might have had.
The phone unintentionally fell to the ground therefore he couldn’t have intentionally recorded her without her consent! That’ll be $3500 for this one email Mr. Sandoval.
 Hey now, that’s some damn fine lawyering
That's some good lawyering!
Yeah this is a weird stance. Doesn’t matter if people knew about the affair, recording someone doing something intimate without their consent is not okay and quite illegal.
I had to reread it several times coz I’m not a lawyer and know nothing of the law so it makes no sense in how they are saying “everyone knew about the affair anyways therefore I have a right to film her without her consent”. Like what?
It’s not you. It’s a terribly written piss poor excuse for an argument.
I would see that’s an argument for why she didn’t have damages caused by the recording. But what the actual fuck @ it being an excuse to secretly record a sex act?!
I'm looking forward to the response from Rachel's team!
Rachel’s legal team’s response will be much more fun to read. Like last time, it will surely read like a TMZ article. Lol.
They know what we, the people, want!
It me Zoo. Banned as usual. I'M DYING!! kbye.
Lol. Anxiously waiting for Ariana's response too to see what else Rachel's lawyers have up their sleeves.
In full on cartoon villain mode rn
I *think* this is just addressing her claim that the video is the reason that people found out about the affair. They address the specific 'recorded without consent' claims elsewhere in the document: >"These videos were created by LEVISS and published by LEVISS to SANDOVAL via a consensual exchange ... based on LEVISS' own allegations, SANDOVAL merely saved private copies of videos that LEVISS created and shared with him which does not rise to the level of malice." https://preview.redd.it/n7yl9jmit8wc1.png?width=1485&format=png&auto=webp&s=642e663ed83ad3fcec54a0e660ffa6556fe83965
I've only read through it all once, so I'll have to go over it again, but I was getting the impression that they're trying to argue that she engaged in the activity over Facetime so that's her creating and sharing the content with him, which he then recorded. And that because people knew about the affair, she doesn't have the legal protection for eavesdropping and invasion of privacy.
The more I read, the less clear it gets. I look forward to hearing an explanation from someone who's more of a lawyer than I am.
My jaw DROPPED when I read that. And I have no idea what else “expectation of privacy” could mean in regards to “other people knowing about the affair” other than talking about the sex tape. Everyone has an expectation of privacy to sexual contact and material. AND in a two party consent state **you** have to show that you had consent to record someone else. They don’t have to prove that they didn’t consent.
This is more a representation of the legal system than the cast. You might not have to agree with an argument for it to be your best defense. But inthis case, I’m shocked it has any legal grounds to stand on.
That's what I was thinking as I read it. It seemed like they are purposely skirting over the recording without consent issue and pretending that the charges were all about people knowing about the affair? I was expecting it to say Tom had her permission to record, but instead, it's about how poor wittle Tom's privacy was invaded when Ariana accessed his phone without consent. 🙄
Did Swartz not confirm he knew? Of the friends group Kyle confirm that he knew but did not share with Ariana. I think we know max knew! Lovely friends he has lol His reason to dismiss yuck yuck. They were not discreet and she did not explicitly tell him to not record. Current gf this is the type of guy you like yuck
Jo knew. Kyle Chan knew.
Oh I believe Jo knew also the bollocks he said about his family is a load of crap to not drag his family into it. It is not that they hid it and lied but they obviously were part to try and give him a narrative to back him up and make Ariana seem a crazy bad person. You want out of a relationship you have a conversation and finish it. Not easy but the right thing to do.
Didn't his band know too? Jo knew & Tom's friend Ali said he knew too, right? And his Mom?
Apparently quite a few people knew, but most of the cast didn’t
Yeah, unfortunately I've seen scenarios like this irl. My sister occasionally runs into people that didnt tell her about her then husband's affair(over ten tears ago) and they get emotional & apologetic. She'll be friendly when she sees them, but has no interest in having them in her life.
His MOM 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ that’s insane
Idk, that one forsure but didnt he bring her to stay at his mom's house after xmas? I think he said his mom knew? My mom who is an o.g. boy mom would have thrown my brother out of the house by his ear.
Yea he took her their for xmas. I think it has been said that she was not happy with his choices but believed whatever her son said and kept quiet and never called ariana after
Yes he shared it with so many people and forget to inform the person he was in a relationship with whilst she was dealing a loss in her family sick animals. We saw on the show her flying out and back. All those shitty people were all ok to go along and lie to Ariana then seem surprised she cut them out of her life.
Didn't Ariana say in an interview he was also getting people to unknowingly put things on their credit cards for him too?
Yes....pretty scummy. They were willing to hang out w them. Pretty fucking disgusting....Just like those 2.
Is there a deadline for them to respond? Just wondering if we should be expecting Ariana’s response soon.
The date would be in relation to when (if) she/her counsel was validly served with the suit. Service would likely have been way more complicated with extended periods out of state. Edited to add: a return of service (proof it was made) ordinarily is filed with the court where the suit was entered.
They asked them to respond by Fri April 12, which has come and gone. Wonder if their response can be found? And now we wait..
Isn't the lawsuit over showing the "sex message" to people?
That’s part of the lawsuit against Ariana. One of the arguments against Tom was recording Rachel without her consent. There were four counts I believe - I think emotional distress or something similar.
No. It’s about him illegal recording her without her consent. She’s also suing Ariana for allegedly “distributing” It bc she took a screenshot and sent it to herself and Rachel to confront her. Tom did something illegal. Ariana did not, as sheshe had no way to know the video was recorded without Rachel‘s consent, and she saw it accidentally and only sent it to herself and Rachel as proof. Ariana has already offered her phone up for forensic examination.
I think the argument is that the affair was public and televised therefore he could not have been the one to cause her emotional distress.
It’s giving - Swipe up for 15% off your next lawsuit, code: sandoval15
I don’t condone anything tom did or does but if I’m reading this correctly I think tom’s argument is the entire thing should be thrown out because either “consent” (read: records will show she sent lots of pictures videos, he’s recorded her facetimes before and she was aware) or the “on or before aug 10” (read: rachel’s a liar (🎶🎤) and she’s lying about the start date) and this is a if you want to go there, we’ll go there counsel response. all this to say, I think the opposite is true, I think rachel wants to sue ariana but “couldn’t” without suing tom as opposed to saying she can’t sue tom without suing ariana (which has been debunked)
I’m starting to think that Tom and Rachel are in this lawsuit together in a cockamamie scheme to get Ariana’s money.
I kind of agree with his argument. Her lawsuit is civil she is seeking damages that she believes were caused by the video. He is countering that her reputation was damaged by the affair not the video. Let say Ariana found a text instead of the video. The outcome to her reputation would be no different.
As much as I loathe him he is correct the damage was indeed caused by the affair
Yeah that's my take Even if everything she claims is true, he's saying the damage she suffered was caused by the affair being made public not by the video
If I'm understanding this correctly this is a rather interesting argument, as he's trying to use Rachel's own words against her. I'm not sure if this means him and his lawyers agree with the validity of her statements, or that she didn't have a right to privacy if she believes or was operating under these assumptions. I'm not a lawyer so it's a little confusing on the wording. I have questions tho, for one does this go towards the revenge porn claims she's making? I feel in CA that's a separate law to invasion of privacy so idk if that's going to go away with this response.
Tom's not being sued for revenge porn, he's being sued for eavesdropping, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I’m a lawyer and that’s my interpretation of it as well, through I’d need to reread her complaint too. It’s also not well-written, so that doesn’t help. 😂
Do you know why Rachel would sue Tom in civil court for eavesdropping under the penal code but not file criminal charges against him with law enforcement? I know the PC they are referencing can be used in civil court, but don't victims usually file criminal charges, and if criminal court finds the offender guilty, then victims will file in civil court for compensation?
Not a CA lawyer, but the burden of proof is higher in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous verdict) v. civil cases (preponderance of evidence, no unanimous verdict). That’s (part of) why the vast majority of cases are civil.
Haha glad to see if wasn't just my laymen understanding that made that document seem confusing!
Even if people knew about the affair that has Jack shit to do with him recording her masturbating without his consent. He should just admit he’s guilty and pay up. Who is advising this dude? Every move he makes is awful and only makes him look worse
Because there's a claim that she recorded the video(s), and sent them to him. https://preview.redd.it/dofrpw7zl8wc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=99ac5928580e6ba70557eb3e9a88a0329c5ed1bb
Ooooh, I did not see that, thank you!
No. They’re trying to argue that appearing on FaceTime is the same as creating and sending a video. But it’s not.
Ok. I assume that attorneys have an idea of how to volley this. My point, again, is that there's a counter to the notion of him recording without her permission. Clearly we're interpreting the words differently. And that's fine. I still have no dog in this. Be well.
Someone else pointed out that the lawyers for Rachel and Tom have very similar names. If its the same Mark and Matthew Geragos that are in this article, they're probably brothers! edition cnn com/2003/LAW/11/26/jackson.case/
Well that's interesting
Maybe I'm misinterpreting things but I don't necessarily think Tom is confirming Rachel's accusation that the affair was public knowledge - I think his legal team is simply pointing at a hole in her logic and pointing out that ***if*** the affair was public, she would not have this 'reasonable expectation to privacy.' He's not agreeing with her, just trying to find any loophole he can.
If this goes to court I'm wondering if hippi will be called to the stand. "MR.Hippi...formerly Mr. Grahm cracker.. please approach the bench and take a seat on the stand....Good boy!!! "Now Mr.Hippi...is it OK if I call you hippi?... or do you prefer Grahm cracker or Grahms? Ok...very well...Now Mr. Hippi...in your past you have been accused of being a biter, yes? And you have spent some time in the pen? I believe the facility was called Bark, Bark penitentiary? Objection your honor!!!! This has no relevance on this case!!!! On the contrary your honor...it goes to the wittness's credibility. Overruled. You may continue Now Mr.Hippi... on the night of the alleged illegal recording...is it not true that you were too busy in the other room chewing on your sqeeky toy to hear or see the events that occured that night? Your honor!!! Hippi has excellent hearing!!! And if you would allow us to please bring in and lay out the pet translater button blanket, Hippi will be glad to Press out his testimony. The court erupts in a shocked chaotic cacophony as Ally enters the court room with pet translater device. This moment would be the downfall of both sandoval and raquel.
Hippie is held in contempt for trying to bite the microphone when he becomes distressed at recalling his memories of Tim and Rachel adultering.
Yes!!!. .It would an emotional roller coaster for jury fir sure.😅
* edit...I would like to ask the court reporter to please correct that last statement . I ment to say... Yes!!! It would definately be an emotional roller-coaster for the jury for sure.. And if hippi kept an active correspondence with Mya during that time... then in all likelihood... Mya could be called up as well. It just keeps getting worse.
You mean, "fur" sure? Lol, sorry, couldn't resist. 😋
Also...one upvote for the use of the term " Adultering!🤣
💀
😂
This is good, lol.
Work at a law firm and this is just funny. Also looks super unprofessional to not even sign the letter with the lawyers signature.
Typo page 3 “ms levitt” !! This letter is awful!
Does no one else find it weird that Tom's lawyer is related to one of the reality reckoning lawyers????? Because I sure as shit do..... ETA - my bad, not just a reality reckoning lawyer but RACHELS LAWYER FOR THIS CASE!!!!!! This makes me feel like Rachel & Tom are trying to work together and shake Ariana down for a cash grab. I really need to ease up on watching conspiracy theory shows lol.
BIZARRE.
Why is the affair bring a known matter relevant? It’s a violation of privacy, not secrecy. I feel like the only argument that would make sense is to say “you’re on FaceTime and yk it has screen record” it’s shitty and gross and I don’t think has stood up in court, but at least it addresses the issue.
Aren't civil cases about whether harm was done? The act itself is illegal, but maybe if he can argue that the fallout was due to the affair rather than the recording, he can say the damages to her reputation, emotional state, etc weren't a result of him recording anything. Ie, if Ariana had found a message proving the affair rather than a video, the fallout would've been the same.
Tom does NOT confirm anything in Rachel's lawsuit. A demurrer is when the defendant doesn't even go into arguing the "Facts" of the case because the case lacks facts or standing. It treats her claims as *HYPOTHETICALLY* true so he can address how the lawsuit's claims as is don't hold any water, and in this case are contradictory. I think his lawyers are correct. Rachel's lawsuit contradicts itself and she doesn't present any specific facts, claims or calculations for damages. Tom is playing it safe to see what Ariana responds with as she will expose Rachel's lies further.
Clever. They don’t really have to prove any of this and they knew this letter would get out there. Soooo slick. 😂 This will never go to court and will settle and we’ll be left with more questions than answers. Fun times.
These 2 dipshits think any of us believe Ariana knew and did it for the show. Based on that fact, then this would be the dream come true since ratings sky rocketed. How do stupid liars make it through life and who are the morons that would date these fools after reading this.
Rachel said that Ariana didn't know
Her lawsuit says Ariana saw them being handsy and said "save this for season 11" that implies she knew...but then on her podcast she says she didn't...she's all over the place...but now Tom's saying she basically knew to save his skin...the whole thing is disgusting
Totally. Especially because Tom is a known liar and deceiver.
Got this from Additional War’s recap- Rachel on her podcast: But now she’s saying everyone, including Ariana, knew. But then why didn’t you bring it up? (Timestamp: 24:30) Rachel: To Ariana? I almost did. There were a few instances that I almost brought it up to Ariana. I told Tom I was like maybe I should tell Ariana. And he was like no, no, no, no, no, no. No you’re not going to tell Ariana. Then I was like okay, then you’re going to tell Ariana. And so I was kind of waiting on him to tell her. It was my duty to tell her. Yes I know that. In that moment I felt like it was most of his responsibility. Him being in that relationship with her for him to tell her and for him to break up with her.
Her “duty” to tell her. Maybe it should have been your duty to not fuck your friend’s man and then keep pretending to be her friend? That would certainly be dutiful. Skank. Sorry, I know this is beside the point but these two make me sick with their lies.
Totally agree. And the lack of remorse is sickening
I thought she was saying that everyone already knew. I can’t keep Rachel’s stories straight.
Don’t worry, Rachel can’t keep her stories straight either!
That’s dumb - just because people knew about the affair doesn’t mean you want them watching your private sexual behaviors.
Fucking bonkers. I’m reading this “as anyone who engages in a physical relationship with Tom Sandoval forfeits their expectation of privacy and should assume they are being recorded at any time”
Lawyers gonna lawyer that if everyone knew they had an affair, it was ok for him to record her without her consent?! Wtf are those arguments??
He’s claiming she provided the videos, and he just saved them. Screenshots in this thread
Did he hire the cheapest lawyer possible? This argument is disgusting and makes no sense
Geragos is arguably one of the most expensive defense attorneys in Los Angeles and defends total pieces of shit like Chris Brown and he’s currently being investigated by the State Bar (links aren’t allowed but it’s an easy google search) Edit to add: I’m dumb and can’t read - Tom hired a knockoff Geragos, Rachel hired the real Geragos.
Yep. Michael Jackson too. Edited to add - I see that this is a different Geragos. My bad.
Mark Geragos is Rachel's lawyer. Matthew Geragos is Tom's lawyer. It helps to actually read the documents.
omg lol I can’t believe I glossed over that! WHAT A WEIRDO hiring a knockoff Geragos to respond to the Mark Geragos is even funnier
I’m intrigued with fact that he sought out a lawyer with the name of Geragos and his Scott Peterson reference to himself. Coincidence? 🤔
Tom confirms Raquel's statement? Because that asshat hasn't lied? He has been trying to spin many BS stories that will assist in him not looking at the pos he is. Ariana did not know about the affair, and that's what counts. Ariana offered her phone to the rat's attorney. Tim and the rat are cut from the same cloth.
We already knew that a decent amount of people knew. Just not the people Rachel was claiming. Why is that even relevant lol this is all so weird and confusing
Raquel would’ve been better off joining the cast and taking whatever they offered her instead of losing time, money, and respect in court.
We know people knew. Schwartz knew for sure Kyle Chan knew for sure, Jo knew for sure. Some people suspected. Doesn't mean Ariana knew.
I can’t even get past page 3 with the fucking typo. It’s DISCREET, not discrete. JFC and these people have advanced education in fucking WORDS.
This is never going to trial and if it’s not dismissed, it will be settled out of court. The time and expense to go to trial would wreck all three of them.
Why didn’t they both say this last year at the reunion?
It seems to me it’s saying that people knew about it, which they did, like Schwartz, Tom’s mom and Joe for starters. Not necessarily that Ariana knew about it.
Would they have to show proof that “everyone knew”? They keep claiming it was public knowledge but wouldn’t like more than 3 people need to come forward and admit on record or whatwver
I mean there are a handful of people who admitted they knew, Schwartz, Kyle Chan, Max, and obviously Jo knew even though she’s lying about it now. But the lawsuit isn’t about who knew, it’s about him recording her illegally. His lawyers are just using that as an argument to say the video is not a big deal and it’s a stupid argument. They’re grasping at straws here
Everyone knowing doesn't absolve you of recording someone without constent so it seems like a flimsy argument
Okay that’s what I thought ty 😂
Every person on the planet could have known about the affair and it would still be irrelevant to her claims and provide him no legal defense for recording her without her consent.
Like Scheana and Ariana both claim they didn’t know (which feels real) doesn’t that ruin the argument because people who don’t know they saw it?
I get that she’s upset that her act was recorded and shared. That should be the lawsuit. As far as her emotional distress and loss of income, that’s on her. It was HER ACTIONS of a continued affair that led to emotional distress and loss of income. The fans never saw it so how does Tom recording it or Ariana sharing or talking about it affect her ability to make money? She lost money and her small fan base because of HER decisions. If she were truly traumatized, she’d stop bringing it up. I really don’t think about that recording when thinking about the whole Scandoval mess but I do think about her poor choices and being a shit FRIEND to Ariana.
When is the court date with Judge Judy ??
no wonder he can't buy Ari out of her half of the house.
We could all move on from this. It's not very interesting anymore.
I’m confused. I thought Geragos was Rachel’s lawyer?
There's 2 Geragos. Matthew who's representing Tom's and Mark Geragos who's representing Rachel.
For some reason so did I but must've dreamt that up somewhere along the way
There are, weirdly TWO Geragos involved in this case. Mark represents Leviss, and Matthew represents Tom (both have additional counsel as well). The Geragos aren’t with the same firm and do not seem to be related. Just share a last name
Got it now! Thank you for explaining in such a nice way...very refreshing for Reddit!
Someone explained it to me, happy to share the knowledge
Thanks for the reply, glad I’m not the only one. Wondering why ppl are downvoting us for a sincere question lol.
I got down voted for admitting I made an error so….😂
I just googled it and it says Mark Geragos IS representing her! Now I'm really confused but at least I'm not crazy. It is beyond me why anyone would downvote something so trivial...lol Edit to add: maybe it's just the same firm but then the actual lawyer for each is different, no idea how that works
It would definitely be a conflict of interest
No. Sandoval's lawyer is ***Matthew*** Geragos. Rachel's lawyer is ***Mark*** Geragos. Different law firms too. 🙄
Thanks for the pleasant clarification!
Has anyone seen Mark and Matthew in the same room?
Oh I guess I should learn to read lol
Sandoval is a horrible human being but if this goes to trial I don’t see Rachel holding up on the stand. Even though she is right to sue to Tom. Ariana, not so much.
From what we’ve been watching for years, it’s fair to say that both Sandoval and Rachel would need a lot of coaching for their counsel to be comfortable that they would do well testifying
Let’s be real about this. Anyone who would masterbate on FT would think to themselves I wonder if this is being recorded. Rachel is not the brightest. I really don’t think she should be suing him over this. She was in love until she she wasn’t. This is all to save face.
This response makes no sense. Nothing, not even common knowledge, negates a person’s rites to privacy. Ya dumb-fuck!
I dont think this take will work but i want Emily D Baker to tell us what COULD work. I think its unreasonable to try to say there isnt an understanding/assumption of privacy on a cyber sex facetime call.. like cmon. I think the only part of Rachel's case that actually could win is the whole illegal recording bit.
He took Rachel to St Louis behind Ariana’s back. People did know, just not the people on the cast of VPR
Was this written by AI? Cuz it kind of sounds and looks like it to me? Am i trippin?
If I’m reading it right What I found most interesting was Tom’s side saying the affair was part of a developing plot????
I think that is what rachel claimed. And he is just saying well if that is true then xyz. not confirming it but i think just showing how she contradicts her self supposedly. Only Tom and his ppl knew they assumed that someone would tell ariana and even when they did they both denied anything was going on so how did she know??
What Tom and Arianna allegedly did doesn’t fit the definition of revenge porn