Triple X Home Movie Leads to Settlement of Prejean Suit


Carrie Prejean has already stimulated controversy over semi-nude photos which she attributed to the wind blowing away her clothes and unintentionally exposing her breasts. I imagine that if conservatives can believe the statements of people like George Bush and Sarah Palin, along with the arguments of other creationists and global warming deniers, they might even believe this. TMZ now reports that an XXX rated home video of Prejean has surfaced, leading to a settlement in her suit against the Miss California USA Pageant:

Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials — that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork.

The video the lawyer showed Carrie is extremely graphic and has never been released publicly. We know that, because TMZ obtained the video months ago but decided not to post it because it was so racy. Let’s just say, Carrie has a promising solo career.

We’re told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to jettison her demand and essentially walk away with nothing. As we first reported, the Pageant is paying around $100,000 to her lawyers and publicist — a fraction of her bills. She pockets nothing in the settlement.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Mike Kelly says:

    » Triple X Home Movie Leads to Settlement of Prejean Suit Liberal …

  2. 2
    Greyhawk says:

    Does Donald Trump get visitation rights with the implants?

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    The Pageant did pay for them so I imagine he could make a case for visitation rights.

  4. 4
    Liberal AND Proud says:

    Upon seeing the video, Ms. Prejean is noted to have remarked…”Ohh..ohhh..ohhh…ohh. Oh GOD! Oh GOD! OH GOD!”

  5. 5
    badpoetry says:

    You know, I hate that this case is playing out quite this way. If Prejean was genuinely wronged by the pageant, then it really shouldn’t matter what video tapes exist with her doing whatever she wants. If Prejean was NOT wronged by the pageant, then the pageant shouldn’t need an embarrassing tape to force her to stop pursuing a baseless lawsuit. Basically, it sucks that this tape is somehow relevant to the proceedings. It shouldn’t be.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:


    Agree that if she really had a case against the pageant then the tape should be irrelevant. From what I can see from the news accounts (which may or may not tell the whole story) it looks like she does not have a case so it might have turned out ok.

  7. 7
    Jamey says:

    Badpoetry: our courts are forced to entertain suits that are, basically, little more than grudges carried out through enhanced means. Prejean’s people went balls-to-the-walls, throwing everything at the pageant organizers in the hope that they’d back down, even though they were in the right. 
    Yes, it sucks that Carrie’s f**k film was made a part of the proceedings, but that it exists kind of proves the hypocrisy on Carrie’s part that made it necessary to sully her image in the public eye.
    Really, though, I want to see that vid. If anybody deserves to get c**kslapped, it’s Carrie Prejean.

  8. 8
    justawoman says:

    She lied about who she really was and is . That’s where her problem lies. I’m glad she got nothing as she stood and lied her butt off. She called upon God and help to destroy Equal rights for American citizens. ya see republicans it always comes back in a bad way.

    health insurance reform and Now

  9. 9
    rickstersherpa says:

    Just from a legal point view, although it sounds almost like blackmail to show this tape, it is probably directly relevant to the conduct and past behavior clauses pageants put into the contracts they sign with contestants so they won’t be embarassed when something like this turns up.  On a personal note, another woman learns that ex-boyfriends are all potentially  scumbags and one should never give them some “erotic” keep sake as it will definitely comeback to  haunt you, especially in the age digital video and the Internet. 

    Of course the libertine in me enjoys another Biblethumper being caught out in her hypocrisy, but I expect that will just be another part of her redemption talk as she does the Elmber Gantry/Family Reserach Council speaking tour and makes more than a small fortune on it (the secret, forbidden titillation with her looks and sordid past I expect will only enhance the take).       

  10. 10
    Capt. Bat Guano says:

    It’s the hypocrisy stupid. Anyone who preaches morality, especially hate and intolerance based morality should stay out of any and all glass houses. Fuck her.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:


    You may be right here and I might have to reverse the view in my previous comment. She was fired because of not meeting contractual obligations to attend events. From that perspective the xxx video would be irrelevant. However you are probably correct that this tape also violates terms of her contract. Even if she had a case (which I doubt) based upon refuting the argument that she failed to meet her obligations, it sounds like the tape might also present reason to take back her crown.

    In response to other comments, while I disagree with her attacks on gay marriage and question the consistency of her religious views, these should not be (and it appears were not) reasons for the decision to dump her. When asked about her views on gay marriage she had the right to express her views, even if we do not like her views.

  12. 12
    jeff says:

    the legal pricinple involved isn’t blackmail, it’s duress. But because the tape is relevant to the issues in the case (moral turpitude clause in the pageant rules), there’s no duress here.

    Good outcome.

  13. 13
    Miss_lola says:

    Yeah, if she was suing for breach of contract (taking her crown away for no good reason), the sex tape proves that she didn’t meet the ‘moral clauses’ of the pageant, should never have had the crown, and therefore breached the contract first…meaning that she had no case against them.  Suitable use of the tape, IMO.

  14. 14
    StringonaStick says:

    Yes, she certainly had the right to express her views, but as a private citizen.  The Miss American schtick is a job that one is supposed to perform without sidetrips into politics; its in the contract  (unless they are contest-approved, boss-approved politics, causes, etc, because the Miss America title is a JOB you win, and it comes with rules for performance of that job, just like any job).  What is also in the contract is there can be no pre-existing film, video, etc that would, in the eyes of the Miss America corporate structure, make the winner appear to be less than the purest flower of ‘Merikan viginity; this video made the pretense of her being qualified (according to contest rules) to serve as Miss America totally moot.   Others have lost their MA crown for having some racy photos show up later; this isn’t a first time event as much as Princess Plastic Boobies wants to act like it is. 

    It’s a job title that comes with a rule book, and she had broken the qualification rules before she entered the contest, free silicone or not.  The hypocracy and “poor persecuted by teh gays Christian me” crap was the sideshow by yet another pretty republican grifter. 

  15. 15
    Kevin Kefgen says: Good! Prejean gets nothing in her suit against Ms. America.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:


    She was asked about her view on gay marriage at the pageant and answering the question should not disqualify her even if we disagree with her. Her political activities following the pageant are a different matter. Even then the more serious problem is not that she expressed political views but that she allowed attending political events to interfere with her duties.

    I got the impression that when the racy pictures first surfaced this could have disqualified her but the decision was made to allow her to keep her crown. I agreed with this decision considering how relatively tame the pictures are by today’s standards (and excluding her political views from the decision). Having XXX rated films out there is clearly a far more serious matter than the pictures.

  17. 17
    Supremecourtjester says:

    She sued the pagent for firing her, and the pagent alleged that she broke the contract in several ways, one of which is that there were topless stills of her.  I saw the actual contract online somewhere, although I am currently unable to retrieve it.  She specifically stated under oath in the contract that there were no topless, nude or x rated types of photographs of her in existance.  Therefore, her perjury beccomes relevant to the issues in her suit.

  18. 18
    freepatriot says:

    here’s a short transcript
    Prejean: they defamed me by revealing my brest implants
    Miss California contest : she defreauded us by appearing in a porno flick
    Prejean: never mind your honor, forget I evwer said anything
    Miss California contest :come on judge, let us show a jury this porno flick as a part of the evidence …
    hey carrie, karma is a bitch, ain’t it ???

  19. 19
    uglywolf says:

    Why in the hell would this women get implants? Rhetorical

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment