Law&Crime Sidebar - Priscilla Presley Played a Role in Elvis’s Death: Lawsuit

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Weeks after filing a bombshell lawsuit against Priscilla Presley, the famed widow of rock-and-roll legend Elvis, an amended complaint adds even more salacious details about Priscilla's alleged bad behavior to the legal battle. The new allegations include details about the Presleys’ contentious divorce and Priscilla's continued use of the Presley name. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber sat down with Jordan Matthews, who represents the plaintiffs, to discuss all the explosive claims and legal arguments.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST: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/lawandcrime/Twitter: 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. What was already a wild list of allegations in a bombshell lawsuit against Priscilla Presley has now ballooned into an even bigger story. In addition to their claims that Priscilla, quote, pulled the plug on her own daughter. An amended complaint accuses Elvis's widow of contributing to his death too. Welcome to Cybar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

All right, so before we get started, I got to dress this elephant in the room. Yep, this looks horrible. It's a sty. It is bad. It hurts. It is disgusting. We're probably going to cover me with a lot of B-roll throughout the course of this episode. But I just wanted to give you this warning.

This is why I look like this. It's going to take a little time. Got to work it out. I think it's bad makeup or something like that. But yeah, that's what's happening. Let's go into the story. Well, I tell you, Priscilla Presley, just can't seem to escape the limelight right now. And it is thanks to increasingly salacious

details in a lawsuit from two former business partners and including now that she essentially contributed or drove her ex-husband Elvis into an early grave. I mean, that seems to be the allegation. And by the way, we are going to have on the attorney who is representing these plaintiffs in a little bit, get some clarification on what exactly the allegation here is, But you might be saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, why does this sound familiar? Didn't you guys just cover this? Well, we did an episode of Sidebar recently that broke down what was in the original complaint that was filed by Bridget Cruz and Kevin Fialco.

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

memorabilia. And they apparently started working with Priscilla Presley, right? Elvis's widow years ago helping her manage her brand and use her name, image, and likeness to make money. That's what the lawsuit alleges. But they also allege that Priscilla was making moves behind their backs. to get more money for herself and basically cut the two of them out of future deals. So in addition to what is now 16 claims related to this business, things like breach of contract,

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

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

Then we go to June of 2022. So Lisa Marie, Priscilla and Riley, who's a famous actress, by the way, sign their handprints outside of the Chinese theater in Los Angeles as the Baz Luhrman film Elvis starring Austin Butler made its premiere. Talking lawsuits, let me call out experts in litigation for a minute. Our sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm, a firm with over 1,000 attorneys. You know why they're so big? Because they win a lot. Get this, they have recovered over $25 billion for more than 500,000 clients. Think about that. In the past few months, a client in Florida received $12 million after the insurance company offered just $350,000.

Out in Pennsylvania, a client was awarded $26 million. That is $4,000. 40 times the insurer's $650,000 offer. Another client in Pennsylvania received $29 million after being offered only $500,000. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar by

clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. By January of 2023, things between Priscilla and Lisa Marie had apparently soured significantly. This is what the lawsuit says. Quote, Lisa and Priscilla were each planning to attend the 2023 Golden Globes on January 10, 2023 in support of Elvis. But Lisa had no desire to see or otherwise be near Priscilla. Lisa had been in a long-running dispute with Siegel, and she resented that Priscilla stayed with Siegel further betraying her trust. Crucially, Priscilla was aware that Lisa was getting ready to remove her as the sole trustee of Lisa's irrevocable life insurance trust and was otherwise threatening to sue her. Cruz and Vialco nevertheless worked to keep the family together, working with Priscilla's publicists and arranging for Lisa and Priscilla to walk the red carpet together and sit next to one another at the event.

Lisa was noticeably ill, complaining to Priscilla about her health. Priscilla ignored the warning signs despite being only a short drive from the world-renowned Cedars Sinai Medical Center. Instead, Priscilla clasped to the spotlight, going out to the Chateau Marmont for drinks with Lisa, and then sent Lisa on a long drive to her Calabasas home. Within just over 24 hours, Lisa suffered cardiac arrest on Thursday, January 12th, and she was rushed to West Hills Hospital. Priscilla, who knew that Lisa was in the process of taking steps to remove her as the sole trustee of Lisa's irrevocable life insurance trust, saw an opportunity to regain control. Priscilla rushed to West Hills Hospital, and despite Lisa's clear directive to, quote, prolong her life,

Priscilla pulled the plug within hours of Lisa being admitted and before her granddaughter, Riley, was able to get to the hospital, demanding that Cruz issue a statement to the media so she could control the narrative. Priscilla demanded that a statement be released immediately stating, it is with a heavy heart that I must share the devastating news that my beautiful daughter, Lisa Marie, has left us. And then they claim that the following week, Priscilla said, I'm the queen, I'm in charge of Graceland. Cruz and Fialco were heartbroken by the unsettling behavior. That's what it says in the lawsuit. Now, in the new complaint, which refers to Priscilla, by the way, as a, quote, calculated sociopath, a master of deception and a pit viper.

the plaintiffs also claim that Priscilla not only defrauded Elvis during their divorce, but basically contributed to his death. It reads, quote, despite projecting a soft-spoken and almost naive image to the public, defendant Priscilla was and always has been ruthless and cunning. Her quest for powers closely followed by her thirst for money. To that end, Priscilla has a history of manipulating those closest to her for her own personal gain, including her late ex-husband Elvis Presley, her late daughter Lisa Marie Presley, her granddaughter Riley Keough, and now plaintiffs who are directed by Priscilla to resolve

and handle all of her personal affairs to maximize the value of her brand and who refused to be taken advantage of by her longstanding pattern of schemes to defraud those closest to her. So, yeah, not pulling any punches, but then listen to this. Priscilla's first victim was Elvis, whom she married on May 1, 1967, thereafter, giving birth to Lisa on February 1, 1968. After just over five years of marriage, Elvis and Priscilla divorced, entering into a property settlement agreement and marital termination agreement each on August 15, 1972.

Under the marital dissolution agreements, Priscilla unequivocally waived the right to inherit anything from Elvis's estate. And then in bold, Priscilla knew she was entitled to inherit nothing from Elvis. So this lawsuit, this complaint even includes an exhibit. that appears to feature some of that legal paperwork from the legal battles in the 1970s, showing a section entitled waiver of right to inherit. And this exhibit appears to be a section from a legal agreement. And it says, each party waives any and all rights to inherit the estate of the other at his or her death.

Okay. So let's look at how the assets were broken down, according to this lawsuit. It reads, under the marital dissolution agreements, Priscilla was to be paid $100,000. So equivalent to about $772,842.11 presently, broken down into two separate payments of $50,000 each. She also received a 1971 Mercedes-Benz, a 1969 Cadillac El Dorado, and a 1971 Harley-Davidson. Elvis agreed to pay $500 per month in child support, equivalent to about $3,864.24 presently until Lisa reached 18 years of age and agreed to pay $1,000 per month in child support, equivalent to about $3,864.21 cents presently until Lisa reached 18 years of age and agreed to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support for five years, equivalent to about $7,728 and 42 cents per month presently. Elvis also agreed to pay for Lisa's medical insurance and education and agreed to secure a life insurance policy for Lisa's benefit.

So it sounds like a pretty good deal, right? the lawsuit claims Priscilla wasn't very happy. Quote, out of pure greed, Priscilla claimed that what she received was, quote, not enough for her to live on and that she attempted to set aside the default entered against her, seeking to effectively unwind the marital dissolution agreements feigning ignorance. Priscilla claimed that Elvis defrauded her, asserting that Elvis promised to always take care of her. Elvis opposed Priscilla's claims, arguing that Priscilla previously urged him, I do not want to take you. I want only to know that I can live comfortably.

So the former couple went back to the negotiating table where the lawsuit claims that Elvis was, quote, forced into entering a modified settlement and marital termination agreement on October 4, 1973. And from there, the payouts grew considerably. Quote, Elvis was forced to pay Priscilla $725,000 within 10 days of court approval, equal to about 5,274,995, and 50 cents presently. And let me just pause there because, wow, okay, an additional $720,000, that's equal to about $5,238,616.22 presently. And this is broken down into installments of $6,000 per month. Elvis was also forced to pay Priscilla 50% of the proceeds of the sale of his residence at 144 Montevale Drive in Los Angeles, California,

and up to one year of spousal support in the amount of $4,200 per month, equal to about $30,558.59 per month presently. And then again, in bolded letters, Priscilla's thirst for power and money was insatiable. So that's a pretty big 180 there, right? Now, the complaint claims that Priscilla didn't stop. The court paperwork continues, quote, despite enriching herself and extorting millions of dollars from Elvis, she then placed a lien on Graceland on or around April 29, 1977, in the amount of $494,0.49 cents, more than $2.2 million, adding pressure to Elvis less than four months before he died on August 16, 1977 from a heart attack and drug

complications. Here's the key quote. Priscilla exerted undue pressure on Elvis pushing him to his death. Wow. And this is how it may lead back to the claims of Cruz and Fialco because I want to bring it back to the plaintiffs. It is related seemingly to Priscilla's name and likeness and trying to grow her brand because according to them, it turns out that she isn't even supposed to be using the name Presley at all. According to the amended complaint, quote, Since Priscilla divorced Elvis, she was entitled to nothing, as she was not mentioned in will, and in fact, pursuant to her divorce agreement, she was supposed to stop using the surname Presley.

After Elvis died in 1977, however, Priscilla continued to use the Presley name as she needed to exploit the name for her own financial gain despite Elvis's wishes otherwise. So as far as the business side of things goes, Cruz and Fialca are suing under more than a dozen causes of action, including, for example, fraud in the inducement. So it basically means that Presley told Cruz and Fialco that she owned the rights to use her name and image, but actually she had already sold those rights to someone else, didn't say so. Her representations or alleged misrepresentations were made to get them to invest money, help

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

Even though she was a member, she wasn't allowed to do that under the rules and the company wants that money back, damages for what they lost. There's also a breach of disclosure agreement. The claim there is that Presley allegedly agreed to immediately tell the plaintiffs in writing about any offers she received about her name, image, and likeness and get the okay before signing contracts. Presley allegedly didn't disclose certain deals like NBC's Christmas of Graceland and sign contracts without approval. Okay, so to talk about this, I have a special guest. I'm joined right now by entertainment attorney Jordan Matthews, who is representing the plaintiffs that are suing

Priscilla Presley in this lawsuit. Jordan, thank you so much for taking the time to come here on sidebar. Really appreciate it. Of course. Thank you. very much for having me, Jesse. Why have they decided to file this lawsuit now? So just to be clear, with respect to our role, we were recently engaged as California Council, and we recently substituted into this case. And as you can imagine, there was an extensive amount of documentation that had to be reviewed. Specifically in early August, after we were engaged, We came across some documentation that indicated that there was a statute of limitations that we had to be mindful of. And we probably would have been fine, but we wanted to make sure that we got something on file.

So we got something on file, but we also realized that there was a more robust complaint that really needed to be on record, which is why we amended the complaint recently to make sure that we had a very robust record on file with court. And just to be clear about that, You're saying there were a lot of allegations in that first complaint. What you're saying is you looked at potential proof to back up those claims. And one of the reasons you filed this amended complaint was to show that? Yes, absolutely. Correct. So what are some of the ways, because I was going to ask you, I mean, what is this two parts of this?

What is the changes in this amended complaint? What is this additional documentation that you have? And how did you get a hold of it? I mean, that waiver, right? That waiver that appears to be from, what, the 70s? So, hey, how did you get a hold of this documentation? How is the new complaint? Why is it amended?

What has changed about it? And what should we be thinking about it? So really, there are three parts to that question, obviously. One of the most crucial things that we wanted to make sure that we addressed was we wanted to have exhibits. And you don't always have a lot of exhibits. a complaint, right? In this case, we have 40 exhibits. And the reason why is we wanted to make it clear that if we're going to make the types of allegations that we're going to make, that this is really supported very thoroughly by extensive documentation. Now, what's different about this

complaint is we went into allegations about the history with Priscilla and Elvis and that whole sort of backstory with the divorce and the lien that was placed on Graceland. The reason why that is significant is what we were trying to show in this amended complaint is a pattern, right? There is a pattern that we observed with the documentation from that interaction between Priscilla and Elvis. We also observed and actually presented a very specific incident in 2005 where we allege that Priscilla had sold the rights to her last name for an excess of $13 million that was a conflict with her role as trustee of Lisa's estate. And so the additional allegations were to back up the credibility of our overall allegations.

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

Priscilla Presley, what their arrangement was, what they were supposed to do, that she had potentially or allegedly sold the rights to her name, image, and likeness, that she fraudulently engaged in this relationship with them. She didn't give them the full story. She was doing deals on the side. That all makes sense for the claims and the causes of action. Isn't it possible a judge could say everything regarding Lisa Marie's death, everything regarding Elvis's death, everything regarding that whole backstory, that's irrelevant. That might be too prejudicial for a jury to hear? Well, we don't think so.

Here's actually why it's significant. Our clients were, they formed several companies, right? And these companies were set up specifically to really salvage and grow and exploit for purposes of creating revenue, Priscilla's brand. But in connection with that, Priscilla, according to what we allege and what we've evaluated, demanded that our clients really handle every day-to-day aspect. of her life, which included actually writing statements for her to go to the press, and that had to deal with managing her overall brand. That also went into resolving a lot of litigation that was

going on, which specifically led into the litigation that involved Priscilla and Riley and the other family members. So what's crucial is one of the counts, one of the claims, is a claim for common count, and it's the value of the services, right? So I can't actually go into explaining the amount of time, the thousands of hours of time and the value of that time when I can't explain the actual events. If she's involved, if our client is involved in actually writing statements on the day of for Priscilla in connection with that passing, if they are actually involved with negotiating and maneuvering and finessing all of the relationships to resolve all of that litigation, I have to explain that to explain the value of those overall services.

Okay, so particularly with respect to the relationship with Lisa Marie and when she died, the statement that, you know, Priscilla allegedly demanded be put out, let's pocket that for a second. How is it relevant regarding Elvis and his death and their divorce and their financial arrangements? I just, I'm not, I just want to clarify it. Absolutely. Very good question. So again, what it goes down to is one of the claims, also aside from the common count, is a claim for fraudulent inducement. And so, as you know, that is about material information, right? So if there's material information that is not disclosed before entering into a contract,

into an arrangement, that's relevant to a fraud claim. So we can look at two issues, right? We look at the fact that our clients were investing into the brand, into the name, image, and likeness. If it had been disclosed that she had sold those rights back in 2005, our client, clients never would have made that investment. But also, it's about who you're getting into business with. There's a lot of litigation that we allege was actually occurring here, which dates back to the relationship between Priscilla and Elvis and around the marital arrangement, renegotiating

that and putting the lien on the property. If our clients had been made aware of those types of dealings, it would have made them pause significantly. And they would not have proceeded and actually invested the time, resources, and money into this relationship. So it's about disclosure of material information. And getting a little, not too in the weeds, but it's not just, the allegation is not just, hey, we got into business with somebody who had a parking ticket, you know, years ago. Or, hey, we got into a business with somebody who was accused of, you know, child abuse years ago, was arrested. You're saying the relationship between Priscilla and Elvis is so important And so material, particularly when we're talking about the Presley name, that is why it's relevant to this particular agreement between Priscilla and your clients.

Right. Am I understanding that correctly? Essentially, yes. It's the relationship, but it's specifically the way that the divorce proceeding and the renegotiation and the lien. And then if you take that, right, it's not an isolated incident. It's looking at that. It's looking at how we allege Priscilla became co-trustee of the Promenade trust. when Vernon passed away after Elvis passed away.

So Elvis passed, then his father, Vernon passed. And we allege that she used that as leverage to become trustee of the Promenade Trust. So it's how she maneuvered that. Gotcha. And all of that is an overall pattern that we've seen that, again, it adds credibility to our allegations. If we just make an allegation of an isolated incident, that's one thing. But if we show that this is something that's happened more than once, you know, more than twice, it's crucial to understanding the relevance and the credibility of our allegations. To be clear, are your clients alleging that Priscilla caused or is responsible for Elvis's death?

With respect to that allegation, what I want to be clear about is a distinction, right? There's a nuance. There does not need to be, or rather, something doesn't need to be the sole cause. cause to be a cause. Okay. And what we looked at is, again, if we're making an allegation, I want to be very careful. We're not going to make an allegation unless we have some documentation that it supports this. And so what we were simply looking at is the fact that if you looked at the renegotiation of the marital settlement, the millions of dollars that we have put records in the amended complaint that support that. And then if you look at the fact that a lien for an excess of

$400,000 was placed on Graceland in 1977. That's in excess of millions of dollars today. So again, we understand that there's drugs and alcohol that is a part of the history of Elvis and his passing. But if you think about it, what can be a cause of pushing someone into enough of a stressful mind state where they are using drugs and alcohol? When there's financial pressure, that is something that is relevant. So we are not saying that something is necessarily the sole cause. But we are letting people draw their own reasonable conclusions based on documents that we believe support that allegation. Just to amplify that a little bit, are you suggesting there might be proof whether it's, I don't know, witnesses or some sort

of communications that say Elvis was feeling this pressure leading up to his death or is it saying we're just looking at the circumstances. We're making an inference of what he might have been going through? Because again, this is a very, this stood out. This is making headlines now. So I just want to make clear, is there going to be, through the course of litigation, you're hoping there's going to be proof to establish that this financial arrangement with Priscilla was a cause for his behavior, was a cause of the stress he was under? I mean, how are you going to prove that part? So we are, we're making an inference based on documents that we've presented, but also we have been very diligent and we are talking to a lot of people that are closely connected with those circumstances.

And if it's appropriate and if it's necessary, if the court requires us to do so, then we do intend to present witnesses who would substantiate these allegations. And as far as Lisa Marie's death, the idea of pulling the plug, how do you intend to prove that? So there's two things. Again, we go back to what I mentioned earlier, right, about the fact that our client, specifically Brigitte Cruz was responsible for managing or not managing but handling so many day-to-day issues for Priscilla, specifically writing statements and whatnot. She was writing the statements on the day that she passed on the day that Lisa passed. So she was integrally involved in that. So we

have witness testimony from her. There's other witnesses, family members, who were actually with Priscilla on that day, which we intend to depose and get testimony from. But then the other or rather the other issue, is the fact that Priscilla herself has seemingly written about this incident in her book that's set to publish on September 23rd. So she's gone into this issue in her own book. Do you intend to subpoena Riley? Short answer, yes. Have your clients received any support from the Presley family or associates regarding this lawsuit and saying they support litigation against Priscilla? I will go. I will say this to the extent that I can. I would just say generally, we have received a lot of support from people generally. Yes.

Let me get your response to this. So in response to this lawsuit, Priscilla's attorney, Marty Singer, who is a very high-powered, well-known entertainment attorney, told Fox News, I believe Fox News Digital, quote, Priscilla did not have anything to do with the assassination of JFK. She did not cover up Area 51. She did not fake the moon landing, and she is not secretly keeping. Bigfoot locked in a cabin in Canada. Take off the aluminum foil hat and face reality. This lawsuit concerns Ms. Presley's claims against Ms. Cruz and her co-conspirators in which she alleges that Ms. Cruz engaged in a relentless and calculated campaign of elder abuse and fraud in order to take control of Ms. Presley's finances for her own benefit. Ms. Cruz's allegations are absurd and despicable, but unfortunately are not surprising. Ms. Presley looks forward to holding Ms. Cruz and her co-conspirators.

liable for their wrongful acts. Your reaction. Our response to that is that that's nothing but hyperbole. There's absolutely no substance to that statement. And again, I want to go back to the fact that look at the documents. Okay, there's 40 exhibits attached to our amended complaint to date. They have presented absolutely no documentation, no substantive response whatsoever to actually support their claims. And I also want to look at it from this perspective. To be frank, I find it sad. I think we collectively feel that it's a bit of a sad and disappointing response to effectively make a mockery of Elvis and Lisa's passing. This is a serious issue that we've raised. It's a serious issue that we intend to litigate. And it's a bit disappointing that that

that was the overall response, but we intend to let the documents speak for themselves. Have you received a formal legal answer to this complaint, you know, where someone, they either deny the allegations, they say they don't have enough information at this point to respond, but it's a formal legal response to a complaint, just for our viewers to know. Have you received an answer or some sort of legal response to the complaint or the amended complaint? We have not. We do believe that this is going to be a heavily contested in litigated matter. But we have not received an answer yet, but that will be forthcoming we anticipate.

And based on Singer's response, and correct me if I'm wrong, are you anticipating counterclaims from Priscilla's side? Well, we don't anticipate counterclaims per se. There is some litigation going on that Marty had initiated. And so we are addressing those claims and we anticipate that we're going to continue to address those claims. But again, what's important is that that's actually why we filed the amended complaint the way we did. Because, again, most complaints don't contain this level of documentation.

But we included 40 exhibits to show that we have evidence to really support and backer claims. They have presented absolutely no evidence of their claims today. I've seen nothing. Before I let you go, I just want to go back to one thing that I'm still a little confused about. So your clients, they were very heavily involved in Elvis's memorabilia. How did they get into the business of working with Priscilla? But more specifically, how did they get into the business of managing a brand, managing her brand? Do they have a specialization in that?

And that's part one. And part two, as we wrap up, is what exactly have they lost? If you can elaborate on what the harm is that is alleged that Priscilla caused, what have they lost? What have they suffered? What are their lives like? So A, how have they got, did they get into the branding business and B, what have they lost? So Ms. Cruz is a mother of three, but she's a very well-known auctioneer and specifically has an expertise and a specific knowledge in the Elvis space. Mr. Fialco is a veteran.

He is a very successful entrepreneur and has a master really impressive collection. So it was through relationships that they all. ultimately connected with Priscilla that developed into these businesses. Really, what happened here is Priscilla, according to our allegations, had expressed to Ms. Cruz that she was in a financial predicament and had some financial stress around that time. We had made some allegations in the complaint about an IRS debt that had to be dealt with. And so she came to our clients to see if they could effectively assist and presented our clients with an opportunity to effectively pay her a certain amount of money per month. When they evaluated it, they realized that there was a lot

of work that needed to really salvage and grow this brand. They determined that the appropriate setup was to form these entities and form these companies. And our clients have, they have certain patents, certain IP, a lot of expertise in the branding world. And they had developed a lot of prototypes. There was a lot of beta testing. There were lip bombs that were developed. There were T-shirts that were developed. They were setting up events and increasing the amount that Priscilla was going to be paid with these events. And they were facilitating renegotiation of different deals. So there was a lot of work that went into that brand situation. And, their overall knowledge as entrepreneurs. In terms of what they've lost, so there's hundreds of

thousands of dollars alone in terms of transactions that we've presented as exhibits. There was a lot of money that our clients put in to this deal. In addition to that, as I mentioned before, our clients basically put their businesses on hold in many respects while they were handling all of these issues for Priscilla. And so there's thousands of hours in terms of the value of their time that they've lost at this point. But the other issue is, again, we go back to the fact that if Priscilla was getting paid to do an event, right, that money would go into the company. If she's being paid to promote a book that she has coming out, these things are coming into the company. At this point, our allegation is that Priscilla has completely circumvented this

arrangement that she entered into knowingly with lawyers totally and completely involved in the situation. There were even video recordings of her entering into this transaction. And so our clients have been left out dry despite the fact of all the money that they put into this and all of the time and energy and resources that they've put into this. Jordan Matthews, thank you for clarifying it for us. Thank you for coming on. We'll continue to follow it. Appreciate taking the time. Sounds great. Thanks, Jesse. Thanks for having me. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please, subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast.

You can follow me on Instagram or X. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time. Spotify.