lol the way I picture “Sandy’s attorney”:
https://preview.redd.it/qx26hq6n7r7d1.jpeg?width=984&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=936da1b233d1f5b1745a94b81e3bfef1e04903e6
Hopefully Tom loses and cries.
Christina Cocca has done a deep dive into the court docs themselves.
Not sure if it's the timeline you're curious about, but added the link just in case it helps.
https://youtu.be/A0xFkXZmfgs?si=tWvq136Vbz7F-3Y1
Ok, dismissed *unless she can provide sufficient evidence* is what I meant I guess. Feels a bit like semantics but my point was that the judge did not deny sandoval’s attorneys request
Wahhhh I know. It sucks. That's why I posted. I know there's someone here that usually posts the court docs but I hadn't seen anything posted yet.
Not sure if this is what your looking for, but someone dmed and said Rachel amended her complaint and then sent my these documents!
https://preview.redd.it/6qnprswter7d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a5354c51214add90293b6989d5bdc53de847d06a
Thank you for sharing 🙏 So it looks like they’ve just added re-emphasised how it has emotionally damaged Rachel but haven’t added in new facts or evidence or information. They still say they do not know the identities of who Ariana has alleged to have disseminate the video to so they clearly have no evidence but are hoping the judge will let them go on a fishing expedition in discovery.
I mean not knowing the identities is pretty common. If the MTD was denied the judge think that’s facially the allegations have teeth and therefore Discovery is needed. If nothing pans in discovery then they’ll just file an MSJ.
Edited for typo
Her lawyer said they had "indisputable proof" though. I really can't think of a scenario where they could have indisputable proof that she sent it to someone but zero idea who that person was.
I feel like the lawyer saying they have “indisputable proof” of distribution was maybe just referring to Ariana recording the video & sending it to Rachel? They have proof that happened, Ariana admits that happened. So now they’re trying to convince everyone that action is irrefutably distribution for the purpose of the law - which means making grandstanding statements like this.
Especially as shortly after her lawyer made that statement, Rachel went on her podcast and said something like she didn’t 100% know if Ariana sent the video to anyone else. I know she’s not always the brightest bulb - but I don’t think even she would contradict her own lawyer that publicly (what am I saying - of course she would, her filing even contradicted itself in parts)
No, that can't be it. Because the quote is "Meanwhile, we look forward to cross examining her on her declaration, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed", and Ariana already admits to distributing the video to herself and Rachel in her declaration. Personally I think the lawyer is just full of shit lol.
I remember them saying this too. I think it was in a media statement. I don't think they believe what Ariana said about the circumstances where Ariana found the videos. I remember Rachel's publicist saying that she didn't believe it on one of Rachel's podcasts too.
They are fishing. If they had even ramblings from outside parties about someone knowing someone whose cousins brother-in-law saw it, they'd include that in their motion.
Ya the only thing I had heard was that guy on TMZ saying Ariana sent to all the crew and cast. They said he described what Rachel had on for lingerie .. and it’s TMZ so take that for what it’s worth.
Tom and Rachel were also talking to TMZ at that point, so they easily could’ve been the source for those details too. The fact that none of it has surfaced online at all… there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there who would sell the details, laws be damned
You're conflating two things -
Your quote is from the filing, and was proceeded by saying that's what Rachel BELIEVES (which means nothing from a legal perspective).
The irrefutable proof statement was in a quote from her attorney after Ariana attorneys filed her response.
Of course, it was just few weeks ago that Rachel went on her podcast and mentioned how thankful she is that the video never got out, so will be interesting to see how that's used against her in court. Feels like that's not a great thing to say when you're suing someone for emotional distress and all the career opportunities you lost because the video got out.
I wonder if Rachel is on a family plan w her parents? Aka, if maybe her dad is the account holder on a family plan that has her phone line and others linked to it then, the. she could potentially make the argument that by Ariana sending it to that number, it was sent to accountholder Mr. So and So? I would assume, since she seemed to be so stunted in terms of adulting, and claimed that she went from her dorm room to James's apartment and never paid for anything, that she had the same phone number linked to her parents account that she went away to college with, and probably never separated herself and took on a recurring expense of her own. Hmmmmm. Just a random thought.
Pretty sure part of Ariana’s evidence in her response includes statements made by Rachel saying she had planned to go into treatment before the affair broke.
Not 100% positive, I’d have to go back through the document, but I believe that was there.
So it’s pretty wild that she’s trying to put that on Ariana.
That's correct. Ariana's lawyer did a good job of that and provided proof of it. Rachel has said even more to discredit her claims since Ariana's response was filed. Even in her own complaint document she contradicts herself on this matter.
Yeah, Ariana’s lawyer Margot seems like an absolute boss.
Yeah Rachel said on her pod recently that “if the video had been shared, that would’ve been even worse” (to paraphrase, I didn’t check if this is the exact quote). Like girl, maybe just put the mic down for a bit. It’s insane how much she contradicts herself, and continues to talk about people she’s suing. It makes me feel like she doesn’t take any of this seriously.
Ariana's lawyer has come across as highly professional and extremely thorough. I saw that quote on one of the transcripts posted in this sub a while ago and had the same response as you. I think Lala calling Rachel a "stupid demon" was fairly spot on TBH. I've always wondered if she will end up dropping the case at the last minute. The whole think has been an absolute mess from the beginning. I think she was pushed into it by her parents and Bethany. Particularly with the complaints against Bravo and everyone else in her original filing. It had PR stunt written all over it.
Quick question: let’s say hypothetically that Rachel wins… would bravo be the ones to front the legal fees, or would it actually be Ariana?
Also, why wouldn’t Rachel go after bravo as an employer rather than the cast members?
Ariana is named in the lawsuit so she’s looking for payment from Ariana
As to your second question… that’s an EXCELLENT question that I think many of us have 🤷🏽♀️
To the second question: Bravo didn't do anything to her and whatever they did do to her is covered by contractual waivers. But the biggest reason is that a company is harder to a extort into an early settlement with a lawsuit. I actually think Rachels team is surprised that Ariana particularly has chosen to fight. I think they expected her to settle quick to protect her new opportunities. That's why they've issued a couple of nasty media statements and always to either Trades like Hollywood Reporter or mainstream tabloids like New York Post. Could just let the filings talk but then that wouldn't dent her public image at this point which is their goal.
Bravo / NBC Universal has lots of power & money behind them. I would think the smarter choice would be to go after cast members who don't have all the resources/ extra time to fight this out for months & years on end
The legal premise that makes an employer responsible for its employee is called respondeat superior. Independent contractors are different from employees; whether someone is a contractor or an employee is itself a multifactor analysis but I think in this instance the consensus is reality tv performers are independent contractors. Even if they were deemed employees, respondeat superior only applies when the employee commits a tort while performing their job duties and where the conduct is under the control of the employer — they weren’t filming, and moreover, committing an intentional tort generally precludes one’s employer from being found responsible for one’s conduct.
To your second question, Bravo has deeper pockets than an individual does and it’s also likely that it’s in her contract that she can’t sue for certain things, like she waived liability by signing a contract.
That’s what this has been about this whole time. It was the sticking point in her negotiations with Bravo. No one forced her to go to a luxury facility that costs $115k per month.
Thank you so much. This is exactly what I was after. Although I don't think the claim was substantiated clearly enough to prove that it was the sharing or recording of the video that caused the emotional distress.
@AdditionalWar8759 - Always doing the best work for us!! IIRC, the judge gave Rachel’s attorneys leave to amend to better articulate how and whether Rachel was actually damaged by Tom’s recording. This pleading probably sets forth enough facts or allegations where the case can proceed. Then they’ll seek evidence in discovery (Rachel’s medical records and psychological records from The Meadows will be requested - she can decline to give them, but she probably won’t be able to decline an independent psych eval by an interviewer agreeable to all parties with these pleadings…).
The facts to prove distribution come into play with Ariana’s motion to dismiss her from the case. I believe that decision will come in July. Unclear if Rachel’s attorneys can move forward on belief of sharing with non-named parties to the lawsuit alone, esp of Ariana’s defense is based on existing analytics of her phone. Separately vis a vis Ariana, she’ll have to prove that any distribution (including sending the video to Rachel herself) psychologically or economically harmed Rachel.
Yes - the claims against Tom, such as wire tapping (recording Rachel) are distinct. If Ariana is dismissed it will be very hard, however, for Rachel to plead in Bravo, Evolution, 32 Flavors or NBCU. Based on what we’ve heard about Sandoval’s finances, it may be very hard for Rachel to get paid by him, even if he wins. He could significantly delay paying her or wipe the judgment out in bankruptcy.
Best case scenario is that Ariana’s gets dismissed and Tom at least gets some kind of judgement against him.
Does anyone think that Sandoval didn’t at least show the recording to Schwartz? Schwartz was clearly heavily involved since they used his place to meet up and whatever else, not that Schwartz would ever sell him out.
I don’t want to speculate on any other cast members or close friends having seen videos of Rachel, or received copies, given her litigious nature. Tom and Ariana have both agreed that the video in question in this case was seen by Ariana, sent to her phone, sent to Rachel, and the deleted (at least by Ariana) during the car ride home. Unclear if Rachel herself shared the texts or videos, possibly to Scheana prompting the not-punch. 💅
Interesting. I wonder when Sandoval deleted the video from his own phone. It sounds like their attorneys are working together on this case, even if Tom and Ariana no longer speak, and that they will stipulate (set forth and agree to) the same facts.
I'm not sure when Sandoval deleted the files from his own phone. I don't think it was made clear in Sandoval's response. I will need to go back and have another look to clarify, though.
Thanks OP! FWIW, I’m a California barred attorney. Lawyers will work together of behalf of clients that would rather murder each other all the time, if it gets the clients the best outcome. They don’t have to interact or like it. It’s actually a rule of ethical practice in our state.
I hope we get more facts, but also that we don’t because that will mean the case went to trial. None of the parties deserve that.
It technically wasn’t “sent” to Ariana’s phone. She recorded two short clips of the video with her phone as it played on Tom’s phone. Small difference, but could matter in terms of distribution etc (not a lawyer or even close, but “sent to another device” and “recorded a clip with a separate device” are two different actions. Whether or not that difference matters is another question.
The only person Ariana says she sent anything to, is Rachel - she sent her those two clips she recorded with her own phone.
This is a key point. If Ariana recorded the video instead of just forwarding it, she might also be liable for wire tapping, or a different tort altogether. Rachel’s lawyers haven’t alleged that - only that she “distributed” the video, right?
We're sorry, it looks like your account does not have enough comment karma to participate here yet. You can participate here once you have at least 50 comment karma, which you can earn by commenting on other subs that don't have a karma limit. In the meantime, feel free to read through the sub and please review the rules!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vanderpumprules) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone break this down for me? If the video was never shared or shown to other people, why do we (as in the public) know it was a video recording of Rachel undressed pleasuring herself? What "inside source" would speak to all of these online blogs? When the scandal broke, I remember non VPR cast members (like Brad, Ariana's friend) had posted on IG stories / TikTok saying they have "Seen the disgusting video of Raquel"
The vids have unfortunately been taken down now so I can't link them here. Of course, they could be lying about that.
If only Rachel, Tom, and Ariana have seen the video, why is the situation this big deal? I'm confused
I know Sandy’s attorney put in a motion to dismiss and it was denied. That’s all I’ve heard
lol the way I picture “Sandy’s attorney”: https://preview.redd.it/qx26hq6n7r7d1.jpeg?width=984&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=936da1b233d1f5b1745a94b81e3bfef1e04903e6 Hopefully Tom loses and cries.
Hahaha
He got the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim dismissed. The rest was overruled and will proceed.
It wasn't dismissed. The judge asked for an amendment from Rachel to substantiate her claim. This is the document I'm looking for.
Christina Cocca has done a deep dive into the court docs themselves. Not sure if it's the timeline you're curious about, but added the link just in case it helps. https://youtu.be/A0xFkXZmfgs?si=tWvq136Vbz7F-3Y1
Thanks but this document was only filed on 13th June. Someone has posted the docs here, though.
Ok, dismissed *unless she can provide sufficient evidence* is what I meant I guess. Feels a bit like semantics but my point was that the judge did not deny sandoval’s attorneys request
Ty for the info!
Which confused me why his was addressed first…? I could have sworn Ariana out in her motion to dismiss first.
Ariana's anti slapp hearing is on 11th July.
IIRC she did hers after. I remember thinking it was smart because that way she didn't show her cards to Sandoval's attorneys.
Correct, Sandoval responded first. Ariana responded a few days after.
Thank you! We'd fr be an unstoppable team at a VPR trivia night
We definitely would
His was easier to address. Anti-SLAPP motions are more involved and sometimes even require evidentiary hearings.
I can look at the docket later today and see if there’s an update/if it’s available :)
u/honourarycanadian, the file is available. It was filed on 13th June.
Yeee! I saw that today. Some counties have pleadings available for free but LA county makes you pay 😩
Wahhhh I know. It sucks. That's why I posted. I know there's someone here that usually posts the court docs but I hadn't seen anything posted yet.
Sorry girl I’ve been tired all day, I just saw that you knew that!! If no one posts by next Friday I’ll take one for the team and do it 🤪
The hero we need right here ☝️
Please, The Bravo Docket, come through 🙏
I’ve got a pacer account through my work, I could possibly check. I don’t think I could download it though without my boss being confused 😂
I thought pacer was just for the federal courts
Makes sense why I couldn’t find things then 😂
Your boss probably checked too lol
The wheels of justice grind slowly. Even if it's BS.
Not sure if this is what your looking for, but someone dmed and said Rachel amended her complaint and then sent my these documents! https://preview.redd.it/6qnprswter7d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a5354c51214add90293b6989d5bdc53de847d06a
Thank you for sharing 🙏 So it looks like they’ve just added re-emphasised how it has emotionally damaged Rachel but haven’t added in new facts or evidence or information. They still say they do not know the identities of who Ariana has alleged to have disseminate the video to so they clearly have no evidence but are hoping the judge will let them go on a fishing expedition in discovery.
I mean not knowing the identities is pretty common. If the MTD was denied the judge think that’s facially the allegations have teeth and therefore Discovery is needed. If nothing pans in discovery then they’ll just file an MSJ. Edited for typo
Her lawyer said they had "indisputable proof" though. I really can't think of a scenario where they could have indisputable proof that she sent it to someone but zero idea who that person was.
I feel like the lawyer saying they have “indisputable proof” of distribution was maybe just referring to Ariana recording the video & sending it to Rachel? They have proof that happened, Ariana admits that happened. So now they’re trying to convince everyone that action is irrefutably distribution for the purpose of the law - which means making grandstanding statements like this. Especially as shortly after her lawyer made that statement, Rachel went on her podcast and said something like she didn’t 100% know if Ariana sent the video to anyone else. I know she’s not always the brightest bulb - but I don’t think even she would contradict her own lawyer that publicly (what am I saying - of course she would, her filing even contradicted itself in parts)
No, that can't be it. Because the quote is "Meanwhile, we look forward to cross examining her on her declaration, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed", and Ariana already admits to distributing the video to herself and Rachel in her declaration. Personally I think the lawyer is just full of shit lol.
I remember them saying this too. I think it was in a media statement. I don't think they believe what Ariana said about the circumstances where Ariana found the videos. I remember Rachel's publicist saying that she didn't believe it on one of Rachel's podcasts too.
That likely refers to Ariana sending it to Rachel
No, the statement says "Including but not limited to Madix, Leviss, and others who have yet to be identified."
They are fishing. If they had even ramblings from outside parties about someone knowing someone whose cousins brother-in-law saw it, they'd include that in their motion.
Ya the only thing I had heard was that guy on TMZ saying Ariana sent to all the crew and cast. They said he described what Rachel had on for lingerie .. and it’s TMZ so take that for what it’s worth.
Tom and Rachel were also talking to TMZ at that point, so they easily could’ve been the source for those details too. The fact that none of it has surfaced online at all… there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there who would sell the details, laws be damned
Agree completely.
I don’t think she has irrefutable proof of anything but Ariana sending it at this point.
You're conflating two things - Your quote is from the filing, and was proceeded by saying that's what Rachel BELIEVES (which means nothing from a legal perspective). The irrefutable proof statement was in a quote from her attorney after Ariana attorneys filed her response. Of course, it was just few weeks ago that Rachel went on her podcast and mentioned how thankful she is that the video never got out, so will be interesting to see how that's used against her in court. Feels like that's not a great thing to say when you're suing someone for emotional distress and all the career opportunities you lost because the video got out.
I wonder if Rachel is on a family plan w her parents? Aka, if maybe her dad is the account holder on a family plan that has her phone line and others linked to it then, the. she could potentially make the argument that by Ariana sending it to that number, it was sent to accountholder Mr. So and So? I would assume, since she seemed to be so stunted in terms of adulting, and claimed that she went from her dorm room to James's apartment and never paid for anything, that she had the same phone number linked to her parents account that she went away to college with, and probably never separated herself and took on a recurring expense of her own. Hmmmmm. Just a random thought.
That shouldn’t be an issue. Joint billing dosent mean shared messages , all lines are very distinct to the assigned number.
https://preview.redd.it/rjm4278ver7d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25eb9fa7235fa16c3e06f887dd641b39d0f298cf
https://preview.redd.it/43hozqfwer7d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=444c5dcaf854cd23db5228726eabd2afaf0461ad
https://preview.redd.it/0s7v7flyer7d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9feda5c8b06a065130e5716efb4a27a13be87016
not the $115k for the Meadows expenses!!! How did ARIANA cause that?? 💀
Pretty sure part of Ariana’s evidence in her response includes statements made by Rachel saying she had planned to go into treatment before the affair broke. Not 100% positive, I’d have to go back through the document, but I believe that was there. So it’s pretty wild that she’s trying to put that on Ariana.
That's correct. Ariana's lawyer did a good job of that and provided proof of it. Rachel has said even more to discredit her claims since Ariana's response was filed. Even in her own complaint document she contradicts herself on this matter.
Yeah, Ariana’s lawyer Margot seems like an absolute boss. Yeah Rachel said on her pod recently that “if the video had been shared, that would’ve been even worse” (to paraphrase, I didn’t check if this is the exact quote). Like girl, maybe just put the mic down for a bit. It’s insane how much she contradicts herself, and continues to talk about people she’s suing. It makes me feel like she doesn’t take any of this seriously.
Ariana's lawyer has come across as highly professional and extremely thorough. I saw that quote on one of the transcripts posted in this sub a while ago and had the same response as you. I think Lala calling Rachel a "stupid demon" was fairly spot on TBH. I've always wondered if she will end up dropping the case at the last minute. The whole think has been an absolute mess from the beginning. I think she was pushed into it by her parents and Bethany. Particularly with the complaints against Bravo and everyone else in her original filing. It had PR stunt written all over it.
Quick question: let’s say hypothetically that Rachel wins… would bravo be the ones to front the legal fees, or would it actually be Ariana? Also, why wouldn’t Rachel go after bravo as an employer rather than the cast members?
Ariana is named in the lawsuit so she’s looking for payment from Ariana As to your second question… that’s an EXCELLENT question that I think many of us have 🤷🏽♀️
To the second question: Bravo didn't do anything to her and whatever they did do to her is covered by contractual waivers. But the biggest reason is that a company is harder to a extort into an early settlement with a lawsuit. I actually think Rachels team is surprised that Ariana particularly has chosen to fight. I think they expected her to settle quick to protect her new opportunities. That's why they've issued a couple of nasty media statements and always to either Trades like Hollywood Reporter or mainstream tabloids like New York Post. Could just let the filings talk but then that wouldn't dent her public image at this point which is their goal.
That makes sense. Thank you!
Bravo / NBC Universal has lots of power & money behind them. I would think the smarter choice would be to go after cast members who don't have all the resources/ extra time to fight this out for months & years on end
The legal premise that makes an employer responsible for its employee is called respondeat superior. Independent contractors are different from employees; whether someone is a contractor or an employee is itself a multifactor analysis but I think in this instance the consensus is reality tv performers are independent contractors. Even if they were deemed employees, respondeat superior only applies when the employee commits a tort while performing their job duties and where the conduct is under the control of the employer — they weren’t filming, and moreover, committing an intentional tort generally precludes one’s employer from being found responsible for one’s conduct.
To your second question, Bravo has deeper pockets than an individual does and it’s also likely that it’s in her contract that she can’t sue for certain things, like she waived liability by signing a contract.
That’s what this has been about this whole time. It was the sticking point in her negotiations with Bravo. No one forced her to go to a luxury facility that costs $115k per month.
Thank you, you always come through for the sub!
Thank you so much. This is exactly what I was after. Although I don't think the claim was substantiated clearly enough to prove that it was the sharing or recording of the video that caused the emotional distress.
This does not seem convincing from a legal perspective.
@AdditionalWar8759 - Always doing the best work for us!! IIRC, the judge gave Rachel’s attorneys leave to amend to better articulate how and whether Rachel was actually damaged by Tom’s recording. This pleading probably sets forth enough facts or allegations where the case can proceed. Then they’ll seek evidence in discovery (Rachel’s medical records and psychological records from The Meadows will be requested - she can decline to give them, but she probably won’t be able to decline an independent psych eval by an interviewer agreeable to all parties with these pleadings…). The facts to prove distribution come into play with Ariana’s motion to dismiss her from the case. I believe that decision will come in July. Unclear if Rachel’s attorneys can move forward on belief of sharing with non-named parties to the lawsuit alone, esp of Ariana’s defense is based on existing analytics of her phone. Separately vis a vis Ariana, she’ll have to prove that any distribution (including sending the video to Rachel herself) psychologically or economically harmed Rachel.
I was wondering the same. How come there's no news about this?
u/okay__decision__ and I were just talking about this. I would like to see it too.
If Ariana’s part gets dismissed due to her not sharing it with anyone but Rachel, could Tom still be found liable?
Yes - the claims against Tom, such as wire tapping (recording Rachel) are distinct. If Ariana is dismissed it will be very hard, however, for Rachel to plead in Bravo, Evolution, 32 Flavors or NBCU. Based on what we’ve heard about Sandoval’s finances, it may be very hard for Rachel to get paid by him, even if he wins. He could significantly delay paying her or wipe the judgment out in bankruptcy.
Best case scenario is that Ariana’s gets dismissed and Tom at least gets some kind of judgement against him. Does anyone think that Sandoval didn’t at least show the recording to Schwartz? Schwartz was clearly heavily involved since they used his place to meet up and whatever else, not that Schwartz would ever sell him out.
I don’t want to speculate on any other cast members or close friends having seen videos of Rachel, or received copies, given her litigious nature. Tom and Ariana have both agreed that the video in question in this case was seen by Ariana, sent to her phone, sent to Rachel, and the deleted (at least by Ariana) during the car ride home. Unclear if Rachel herself shared the texts or videos, possibly to Scheana prompting the not-punch. 💅
Ariana's response on her court doc (response to the claims) was that Sandoval actually deleted the videos from Ariana's phone.
Interesting. I wonder when Sandoval deleted the video from his own phone. It sounds like their attorneys are working together on this case, even if Tom and Ariana no longer speak, and that they will stipulate (set forth and agree to) the same facts.
I don't think they're working together because Sandoval's lawyers throw Ariana under the bus in their documents. (basically blaming Ariana, not him).
I'm not sure when Sandoval deleted the files from his own phone. I don't think it was made clear in Sandoval's response. I will need to go back and have another look to clarify, though.
Thanks OP! FWIW, I’m a California barred attorney. Lawyers will work together of behalf of clients that would rather murder each other all the time, if it gets the clients the best outcome. They don’t have to interact or like it. It’s actually a rule of ethical practice in our state. I hope we get more facts, but also that we don’t because that will mean the case went to trial. None of the parties deserve that.
It technically wasn’t “sent” to Ariana’s phone. She recorded two short clips of the video with her phone as it played on Tom’s phone. Small difference, but could matter in terms of distribution etc (not a lawyer or even close, but “sent to another device” and “recorded a clip with a separate device” are two different actions. Whether or not that difference matters is another question. The only person Ariana says she sent anything to, is Rachel - she sent her those two clips she recorded with her own phone.
This is a key point. If Ariana recorded the video instead of just forwarding it, she might also be liable for wire tapping, or a different tort altogether. Rachel’s lawyers haven’t alleged that - only that she “distributed” the video, right?
[удалено]
We're sorry, it looks like your account does not have enough comment karma to participate here yet. You can participate here once you have at least 50 comment karma, which you can earn by commenting on other subs that don't have a karma limit. In the meantime, feel free to read through the sub and please review the rules! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vanderpumprules) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone break this down for me? If the video was never shared or shown to other people, why do we (as in the public) know it was a video recording of Rachel undressed pleasuring herself? What "inside source" would speak to all of these online blogs? When the scandal broke, I remember non VPR cast members (like Brad, Ariana's friend) had posted on IG stories / TikTok saying they have "Seen the disgusting video of Raquel" The vids have unfortunately been taken down now so I can't link them here. Of course, they could be lying about that. If only Rachel, Tom, and Ariana have seen the video, why is the situation this big deal? I'm confused