Law&Crime Sidebar - John Travolta Son Secrets, Priscilla Presley Incest Claims: Bombshell Court Filings

Episode Date: December 21, 2025

A lawsuit involving Priscilla Presley has taken a jaw-dropping turn — claiming incest, accusing her son Navarone Garcia of explosive behavior, and asserting that granddaughter Riley Keough secretly mothered John Travolta’s son. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the explosive allegations, the fierce denials, and why the lawsuit is raising serious questions.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar for 1 week free plus 50% off the first 3 months of Opus Pro. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. You may have thought that allegations that Priscilla Presley was responsible for Lisa Marie and Elvis's deaths that that was shocking. But in a brand new filing, Priscilla Presley is now accused of having an incestuous relationship with her son. And get this, that actress Riley Keough is the biological mother. of John Travolta and Kelly Presley's son. Yeah, stay with me on this. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Now, look, as we're covering a story like this, and we're trying to share this story as quickly as possible and get you these clips up as quickly

as possible. If you're in the content creation game, if you're putting things out on social media, this is what we use. It's called Opus Clip. It's an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Through AI, Opus Clip generates roll, it reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. It is so easy to use. You just visit opus. Dot pro slash sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you will have perfectly edited clips ready to go. For TikTok, shorts, reels, opus clip is your one-stop shopping. Having a tool like opus clip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates instantly. This is the most powerful tool there is to help you share ideas and edit like a pro. So go to opus.pro slash sidebar

to create your videos today. Okay. Now, if you have been following us here on Sidebar for a while, while, you may remember that we have been covering this wild lawsuit involving Priscilla Presley. And before I even get into what is just a shocking new set of accusations that honestly may take you a minute to wrap your head around because now it involves John Travolta. Here's the basic context. And to be clear, it gets a little complicated, but I want you to stay with me because all of this will factor in later on. It will all make sense, maybe, into what we're talking about later on, the new updates. So originally, two people named Bridget Cruz and Kevin Fialco, they are self-described entrepreneurs.

They were really big in the world of Elvis Presley memorabilia. And they apparently started working with Priscilla Presley, Elvis's ex-wife, years ago, helping her manage her brand and use her name, image, and likeness to make money. That's what the lawyer says. But they also alleged that Priscilla was making moves behind their backs to get more money for herself and basically cut the two of them out of future deals. So they're suing her for all different kinds of legal claims. But in these filings, they also make a lot of very serious shocking allegations, including regarding Elvis and Elvis and Priscilla's daughter, Lisa Marie.

Now, Elvis died in 1977, and as Lisa Marie grew up, she and her mother had a reported tumultuous relationship, at least according to these filings. According to this lawsuit, Elvis had left his entire estate in a trust to Lisa Marie, which she inherited when she turned 25. There is an allegation that Lisa Marie found out that Priscilla and her financial manager were mismanaging the money. That is where it asserts that she made herself trustee and her son Ben and daughter, actress Riley Keio, as the ones who would inherit. From there, the lawsuit claimed that when Priscilla became aware that Lisa Marie was getting ready to remove her as sole trust of Lisa's irrevocable life insurance trust, something really bad happens. So reading from the original complaint, it says, quote, Lisa suffered cardiac arrest on Thursday, January 12th, and she was rushed to West Hills Hospital. Priscilla, who knew that Lisa was in the process of taking steps to remove her as the sole trustee, saw an opportunity to regain control. Priscilla rushed to West Hills Hospital, and despite Lisa's clear directive to prolong her life, Priscilla pulled the plug within hours of Lisa being admitted and before her granddaughter Riley was able to get to the hospital.

There was also the allegation that Priscilla said to the effect of I'm the queen, I'm in charge of Graceland. Cruz and Fialco also make the allegation that Priscilla not only allegedly defrauded Elvis during their divorce, but seemingly drove him to his death. Why? In an amended complaint, it says regarding a fight over money, quote, despite enriching herself and extorting millions of dollars from Elvis, she then placed a lien on Graceland, adding pressure to Elvis less than four months before he died on August. August 16th, 1977, from a heart attack and drug complications. Priscilla exerted undue pressure on Elvis, pushing him to his death. Now, why is all this relevant to Cruz and Fialco? Well, one of the big allegations here is they say, Priscilla didn't have the right to use the Presley name because she sold those rights

at one point in time, and Priscilla's representations or alleged misrepresentations that were made to Cruz and Fialco, those were just to get them to invest. money to help her financially because they believed her. They spent a lot of money and time helping her grow her brand. But if they had known the truth about what was going on, they wouldn't have done that. Now she owes them. She has to pay up. There's other allegations, but you get the overall gist, okay? Now, before we go into the latest update, again, revolving around Riley Keio and John Travolta, you also have to understand that separately there is another lawsuit against Priscilla's son Navarone Garcia. So Cruz and Fiacal also sued him. The original

complaint said, after Priscilla Presley approached plaintiffs Cruz and Fialco to invest in her to save her from financial ruin, plaintiffs Cruz and Fialco created various entities to be used to grow Presley's brand. Plaintiffs Cruz and Fialco invested seven figures into this endeavor for Presley's benefit, handling numerous tasks for Presley, including by resolving various threats of litigation, resolving pending litigation, and negotiating various deals for Presley, which defendant Garcia was well aware of. Additionally, plaintiffs were tasked with taking care of numerous issues for Defending Garcia. Specifically, plaintiffs spent countless hours negotiating a settlement for Defending Garcia, where he was ultimately paid a seven-figure amount

from the estate of his late half-sister, Lisa Marie Presley. Further, plaintiffs spent extensive hours overseeing various business issues for Defending Garcia's banned them guns. To date, even though Defendant Garcia was enriched by plaintiff's services, Defendant Garcia has failed to compensate plaintiffs for the value of their services. Further, on information and belief, Defendant Garcia convinced Presley to cut off communications with plaintiffs' crews of Fialco and has consistently interfered with the businesses created to exploit Presley's name, image, and likeness. Okay. Now, there is an amended complaint against Navarone Garcia that has been filed, and that is what we need to talk about. I'm going to lay some of this out for you, and then we'll talk about it.

Quote, defendant Navarone Garcia, defendant or Navarone, Priscilla's only son, always wanted to be a star and resented his half-sister Lisa Marie Presley's fame, even despising Elvis. In fact, Priscilla always told him he would be a star, even forming a production company Navarone Productions Inc for him the same year he was born. For years, Priscilla lived off of her daughter Lisa Marie, funneling money from her trust and using it to fund Navarone's lifestyle and drug addiction. So you get the sense of where we're going here. And from there, it goes into what was said in the original complaint, that Priscilla tasked Fialco and Cruz with Bill. holding up Navarone's career. They claim that Navarone wanted them to fire his manager, get him a new publicist, get him press coverage, and then there is this very disturbing

part of the complaint. After Lisa Marie's son, Benjamin Keough died in July 2020, Priscilla promised Navarone that he would be the king since he was now the only male singer in the family. In reality, Priscilla's love for Navarone was and always has been incestuous. Wow. So from there, where does it say? The complaint alleges that Navarone demanded Cruz and Fialco get his manuscript published. Cruz and Fialco claim they did a lot for him. They handled his bills. They troubleshooted his legal and PR issues.

They handled social media issues. They worked on his booking and travel. And essentially, they were on call 24-7. And critically, they claim, for all of this, they weren't paid. I mean, they even allege that they had to handle his divorce and that he demanded they pay $30,000 to his soon-to-be ex-wife. They claim they had to spend hundreds of hours catering to Navarone Garcia. And they also claim that Navarone made their lives very difficult, that he would go on tirades and trash Elvis and his fans, that they had to do damage control.

They refer to alleged social media posts where Navarone called Lisa Marie, his sister, a snake in the grass, and master of betrayal, saying that she's a backstabber, that her own mother doesn't like her. And the complaint includes these alleged posts as well. From there, they claim that Navarone continued to tarnish the Presley brand, that they couldn't get him to stop, that he blamed Lisa Marie's son's death on her, that Lisa Marie was a lesbian, that he was out of control, that he was on drugs. These are all the allegations. They say that he was financially destitute. And they also make this interesting claim, this interesting allegation, that Navarone would essentially swindle old women online to give him money. And then they claim that when Lisa Marie, again, his half-sister was rushed to the hospital, like I mentioned before, he ended up text. in Cruz, and they include this apparent exchange in the complaint as well. So when Cruz asks him if he's going to the hospital, he seemingly refuses and apparently writes, quote, Not going to pretend I care about her all of a sudden. Okay, this is where we get into John Travolta.

So Cruz and Fialco claim that Priscilla had filed a legal action against her granddaughter, Riley Keo, over control of Lisa's estate, and that Navarone demanded Cruz and Fialco, a multi-million dollar settlement on his behalf, while all this is going on. I am just going to read you this next part verbatim, okay, from the amended complaint. Quote, immediately after Lisa Marie's death, the entire Presley family clamored for control of the estate and for payouts, using plaintiffs Cruz and Fialco as both negotiators and mediators. Michael Lockwood, Lisa Marie's ex-husband and the father of Harper and Finley Lockwood, approached Plaintiff Cruz, telling her that John Travolta's wife, Kelly Preston,

had been unable to bear her own children. And Travolta and Presley previously used Lisa Marie's eggs to get pregnant. Lockwood claimed that he was eating dog food and that he and Lisa's twin daughters, Harper and Finley, were financially destitute. Lockwood came to Plaintiff Cruz's hotel, providing her with various files that he called music in text messages so that no one else knew about the discussions. Plaintiffs Cruz and Fialco tried to manage the constant chaos thrown at them by each of the Presley family members who were fighting over the respective claims against Lisa Marie's estate.

Lockwood was incessant and claimed that Travolta needed to help salvage his career amid claims of sexual assault against other men, which threatened his career as a leading man, and that Travolta and Preston approached the Presley family in or around 2010 while in Hawaii. Lockwood claimed that Travolta said he no longer wanted to use Lisa Marie's eggs because they did not want, quote, eggs with heroin on them. and they orchestrated a deal where Riley Keough gave her eggs to Travolta so that Kelly could give birth to their son, Ben Travolta.

Lockwood gave Cruz a picture of Riley with her son, Ben Travolta, at John Travolta's house in Maine. Lockwood said Riley was given an old Jaguar and paid between $10,000 and $20,000 for the deal. Plaintiffs were heartbroken by the family chaos and tried to keep the family together. Okay, in other words, just so we can process that for a second. claim is, the allegation is, that John Travolta and Kelly Preston's youngest child is Riley Keough's biological son. Okay, that's just, again, a lot to process. And I'll get into this with a legal expert in a minute. But Cruz and Fialko also claim, this is an allegation, that Lockwood had said that this was signed off by the Church of Scientology, that they were overseeing

all of this. And they claim that Lockwood wanted them to use this information to basically negotiate a settlement for him and his daughter, that he wanted to pay off. At the same time, they claim that Navarone threw a tantrum, that he didn't want anyone finding out about Riley and Travolta's son since he wanted to be the only musician in the family and the quote, king. So all of this is going on. Then Cruz and Fialco claim that they asked Navarone, give his mom Priscilla just a little time to work all this out after Lisa Marie's death, and they claim that he refused, and that is when they alleged, this is another bizarre detail that Navarone took Bam Margera, you know, from the jackass show, took them to

Priscilla's house, and they claimed that Margera posted on social media that Navarone gave him Elvis's jewelry and bathrobe. And this forced them, Cruz and Fialco, to do a lot of PR damage control. They then claim that Navarone demanded they find out why Priscilla's business manager didn't set up a savings account for him. And then he allegedly wanted to know how much he would inherit once Priscilla died and that he kept on demanding that Cruz and Fialco orchestrate a multi-million dollar settlement for him from Lisa Marie's estate. And they claim, look, after everything they did for him, they were able to get him a $2.7 million settlement. And even after that, they claim Navarone still didn't pay them. They also alleged that Navarone was very difficult, that he yelled at the

publicists that they got him, that they had to manage him given his drug use, that he constantly berated them, that he created a toxic work environment. And they include all of these apparent text messages to corroborate that point. And finally, they claim that Navarone lied about them, including this allegation that they took money away. And quote, wrongfully pushed his mother Priscilla to break all of her agreements with plaintiffs, maliciously interrupting all of their business deals and efforts to grow and exploit Priscilla's name, image, and likeness, causing plaintiffs significant financial and reputational harm. What a journey we all just went on with this.

All right, before we even get into the causes of action, what the legal claim is. are here. Let me break all this down, what we've just heard, with Jeremy Evans, sports entertainment and media attorney. Jeremy, thanks for taking the time. Look, I will say, you know, these are very, very shocking allegations, to say the least. What was your reaction to reading this in this amended complaint? And you have to imagine, and we'll talk about the attorney's response in imagine in a minute, you got to imagine they have evidence to back this up. I mean, they include certain messages and certain documentation and social media posts, but to make claims like this, you got to be careful.

Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, this kind of reminds me of the Michael Jackson situation and some of the other celebrities with Johnny Depp and where you have estates or, you know, money that's obviously being paid to managers and other legal folks, but it just sounds like the whole thing is kind of a mess, but I agree with you. There's so much to be made of what's going on, but I will say that this happens a lot in the entertainment space where basically a manager is claimed to have done something, and then the other side is saying that it didn't happen. So very, very, very, very interesting. What is interesting about it is many times as I was reading, I was, I had to circle back to,

why are they making these claims? Why are Cruz and Fialco making these claims? Like, how does this harm them? Is this to provide more context about the services that they employed, the work that they were doing, the family dynamic, what they were involved in, the alleged trauma that they were going through, the work environment they were going through? Or in a way, is this, hey, do you want to take this to trial? Do you want to take this to court? Do you want more of this to be exposed? Is this a way to force a settlement? I mean, these are their allegations. You have the other side who say, none of this is true, right? But those were two things I was thinking about. It was like, how does this relate back to them? Is a trial even going to have all this? Or is it a way,

this is a sampling of what a trial could look like. You might want to settle this. Right. No, that's well said. And I agree with you. I think that in any of these situations, I think a lot of this is posturing as to who, you know, who can prove what, what facts are out there and maybe it forces the other side to, to make a decision as to settle before trial. Because you're right, these trials could be very embarrassing and could bring up a lot of different, you know, factual things that, again, could harm the estate. So it's very interesting. And I did notice, too, that the manager of the estate of the property of Graceland, you know, did give an interview and was talking about, you know, none of this was true. And there was no hidden, you know, items that were

very expensive at the house. But it's, again, I agree with you. I think a lot of this is just posturing, getting the facts out there. Well, now I say it and now I'm playing the devil's advocate. I'm saying to myself, maybe they have to take it to trial to dispel this. So I want your reactionist. This is some of the reactions. So Priscilla Presley's attorneys, Marty Singer, Wayne Harmon, they told TMZ after losing motion after motion in this case and unsuccessfully seeking to have Presley's counsel of record Marty Singer disqualified from representing her in this matter. Brigitte Cruz, Kevin Fialco, and their co-conspirators have demonstrated that there is no bar too low, no ethical line that they are unwilling to cross in an effort to cause further

pain to Priscilla Presley and her family. They added in a completely improper effort to exert undue pressure on Presley to retract her legitimate, truthful claims. Cruz and her co-conspirators have also sued Presley's son, cousin, and assistant. These recent outrageous allegations have absolutely nothing to do with the claims in this case. The conduct of Cruz and Fialco and their new lawyers, they are on their fourth set of attorneys, is shameful, and it absolutely will be addressed in court. Now, Jordan Matthews, of Holtz Matthews' LLC, who we've had on this program, represents Cruz and Fialco. He gave us this statement, gave law and crime this statement. Brigitte Cruz and Kevin Fialco are heartbroken that they have been forced to file their most

recent amended complaint. They have been accused of horrific acts that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. These accusations are especially painful given the enormous amount of work they performed to keep the Presley family together during an extremely difficult and divisive period of time. Their efforts resolved all Presley family disputes in the wake of Lisa Marie's untimely passing. Every matter was settled. All parties were paid and closure was achieved. In the midst of this family dispute, they did everything they could to protect Riley and the twins from what Michael Lockwood and Priscilla's son Navarone were trying to do. It was only after this work was completed that Ms. Cruz and Mr. Fialco were cast aside, not paid for their work

and falsely accused of wrongdoing without any proof whatsoever. This semantic complaint is about revealing the truth, correcting the record, and providing evidence of the work that was done in good faith to bring peace, resolution, and stability to the Presley family despite being exposed to constant volatility. Ms. Cruz and Mr. Fialke remain confident that the truth will prevail and trust that the courts will not favor one person over another simply because of one party's celebrity status. To that end, we will vigorously pursue justice for our clients and will not tolerate any attempt

to bully or defame them. Maybe I'm wrong, Jeremy. Maybe they do want to go to trial both sides. No, and I, and to your point, Jesse, I think that anytime these parties get to a point, especially when a celebrity is involved, if you can't prove a certain point or can't get to a place where you can come to an agreement, it seems that, and especially with these cases being so high profile, there's a tendency to push it to trial. Obviously, in these cases, you'd like for them to settle before, so embarrassing things don't get

out. But to your point, clearly there's a long history here going back to the original 2016 amendment to the trust to where it is today. And so I agree with you. I think maybe these parties do want to get it out and trying to prove a point. Did you look at the exhibits in this, the text messages, the social media posts that were attached to the end of the complaint? Because I wonder, did those move the needle? Do you think it's definitive proof of what Cruz and Fialca are claiming? I think that it shows that there was a conversation had. I don't know if it necessarily proves the validity of sort of what happened and how much money is owed and whether there was, you know, sort of any fraud going on.

I think they're going to need to prove more than that. I think at the end of the day, what this really comes down to is, you know, how much are these managers owed, if anything? and, you know, what involvement did Priscilla have in, and is she capable of managing the estate? I think that's what this really boils down to. I don't know if the exhibits really prove all of that. You know, I think ultimately the arguments at trial and whatever else is presented is going to help with that, assuming it goes to trial. Let me go through, by the way, if it does go to trial, let me just ask you this. Is the judge going to allow evidence of all of this?

this is the most complicated case I've heard in quite some time. Is the judge going to streamline it, narrow it down in some way about what can and can't be discussed? Absolutely. And great point, Jesse, because I think that there's no way that all the information could come in. We'd be talking about, you know, a year-long trial. And as much as that might be great for television, it might not be great for the family and for all the folks involved, not to mention the cost, I definitely think the judge is going to limit this. there's probably going to be several evidentiary hearings in terms of what's going to be included, what's going to be eliminated, what's going to be streamlined. So really good point. And I agree

with you. That's definitely going to happen before this goes to trial. Let me go through the causes of action here. So the first one, the first claim for relief, cause of action is common count goods and services rendered Cruz and Fialco against defendant Navarone. So essentially, if I'm understanding correctly, that Navarone, the claim is he needs to pay them for the work that they did, like negotiating a complicated settlement for him, that they had to spend all of his time overseeing his business issues for his band, travel accommodations, handle his divorce, and they did all this and he didn't pay them. Your thoughts on that one? You know, it's interesting. I think I would go back to the point of the 2016 estate plan

document that ultimately it was settled. And I think what has the potential to come out at this trial, or if this continues, is whether there was many mental incapacity with regard to that agreement, because none of that stuff was tested as this was all settled. So it's going to be interesting how that plays on whatever money was owed. Because I think the estate's argument or Priscilla's argument is that, well, that agreement may not be valid. And then secondly to that, there may have been some incapacity issues because, as we all know, she's soon, you know, she's soon after passed away tragically. So I think these things both play, they play together. Because I think any cause of action towards how much money is owed goes back to whether there was mental incapacity, undue influence, or anything else with regard to the previous settlement. it. And by the way, reasonable value of the services. What is that? Is that, like, how do you calculate something like that? No, good point. I think a judge, and probably they would bring in

an expert, and the expert would say, in this industry, there's, you know, this is how much the hourly fees range from. This is how much somebody else got paid in a similar situated, you know, circumstance. But it would be proved through an expert. Okay. And then you have the second claim for relief. It's called constructive discharge. So Cruz and Fialco against all defendants. So this is all about Navarone, allegedly berating them, exposing them to his tirades, ledge tirades, volatile behavior that he demanded all these things from them, threatened them, and then convinced Presley to sever ties with them, that this working environment was so bad they had to resign. Your thoughts on constructive discharge, if there's something there.

And if I'm saying it the right way, by the way, hopefully I analyze that the right way. No, you did. I think that, you know, again, this goes back to whether they were paid correctly and whether they did a good job, I think, just in simple sort of layman's terms. And to me, I just don't know if enough has been presented so far to show that they weren't paid enough or that somehow they're owed this, I think it was $10 million or whatever the number is. it just it seems a little i don't want to say far-fetched but again i'd want to see more i just don't know why a manager or even a lawyer would be making or charging that much money in this case now

the end of the day if they had a contract in play that said we're owed this much money then that would go to that contract but it sounds like a lot of what's happening is sort of this person said this this person said this and this is what's our expectation and that's a lot harder to prove at trial, then say, here's the four corners of a contract. Right. And so that's the difficult part. Yeah, hey, the number one thing they tell you in law school is get it in writing. Get it in writing.

You don't want an oral contract. I mean, this was interesting, too. It is a lot about the money. The third claim is the California waiting time penalties that under California law, an employer has to pay an employee all wages that erode to that person no later than 72 hours. hours after they're terminated. Claim here didn't happen. They sustained damages, loss of earnings, and under the law, they're entitled to penalties, which I don't know how much those could be, but I don't know. It kind of goes into your other point, Jeremy, about what are they entitled to?

And this is more specific about that they weren't paid under a specific amount of time. And maybe they can seek penalties that could be pretty bad. I don't know. See, that's a fascinating point because that would also assume that these managers were employees versus independent contractors. So, and I think that's an important distinction too. And generally, if you're a manager, you're probably not going to be employed. You're going to be an independent contractor unless they gave up all over their clients and all their other employment and decided just to work for this particular company, this particular estate or person. So I think that's important, too. What was their understanding, and according to the law, were they independent contractors

or were they a employee? Because you're right. If they're an employee, then generally you do everything that's undisputed at the time of termination. So whereas an independent contractor just becomes how much is owed and is their interest on the money that's owed. There's another claim, and this is kind of what we saw in the original complaint, that Navarona is responsible for or contributed to breaking up the relationship that Cruz and Viaco had with Priscilla.

So it's a fourth claim, intentional interference with contractual relations. Again, Navarone basically allegedly interfered with the contracts that Priscilla had with Cruz and Vialco, the companies that were used to exploit her name, image, or likeness, and that they are entitled to punitive damages, exemplary damages. Thoughts on that one, Jeremy? Yeah, that's an interesting one. And typically lawyers who practice in the space would say a very difficult claim to prove because when you're talking about a breach of contract and you and sort of a person pushing towards breaking up a relationship, I think the other piece to this is that, let's say, for example, you and I were trying to negotiate a contract together and then, a lawyer came along that was representing you and decided to give you advice as to, you know, you shouldn't get into this deal. I think that insofar as Priscilla or whoever was involved

was getting advice as to how to break up this deal because it was not good for them, probably going to be pretty difficult to prove that claim. But if this was somebody that came along that benefited from this and was looking to more than just give good advice, I think, you know, potentially could prove that claim, but again, very, very difficult to prove. And this one's kind of similar, based on your analysis. I imagine you would say this is also a bit speculative, intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Quote, plaintiffs and Presley were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to plaintiffs. Defendant Navarone knew of plaintiff's relationship

with Presley. Defendant Navarone convinced Presley to cut off ties with plaintiffs' crews and Fialco, resulting in Presley breaching her obligations under the Presley agreements by convincing Presley to cut ties with plaintiffs, Cruz and Fialco, defendants intended to disrupt plaintiff's relationship with Presley or knew that disruption was certain or substantially certain to occur. Plaintiff's relationship with Presley was harmed, and defendant Navarone's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. So this is like a little bit more speculative, right? Like, this probably would have resulted in a really big economic benefit, but we're not quite spelling it out. Can you tell me?

me how this one works? Yeah, this is even, I mean, I think the law in itself kind of, in the title of it, kind of it, it sort of explains that because it's prospective, it's going to be even harder to prove, meaning that you're going to have to show a contract or some sort of oral agreement, something that was just yet to be signed or yet to be acted out, or it was acted out in an oral context, but ultimate was ended. But I think the caveat to all of this, and what a jury would probably empathize with is the fact that this is a mother dealing with family matters, right? So it's not necessarily the argument can be made that, well, it's not that they broke up this deal for any other reason. And then they were protecting the family or protecting their reputation

or whatever it might be. So again, very speculative. But if they have a contract in play and it shows that it was canceled, maybe there's a potential for recovery. But even in an unrelated case, if you're trying to look for prospective damages, again, very hard to prove. and often judges and juries won't give those types of damages. Okay. All right. Well, this is where we stand right now. Let's see what happens next.

Jeremy Evans, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate you. You were great. Pleasure. Thanks, Jesse. Always fun. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us.

And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.