Myra Nishizaki has posted what she presents as the settlement clause that sent the February 2023 recordings to an expert and required every other copy deleted, and beside it, pages from their transcripts. The pages cut both ways.

On October 22 Nishizaki published nineteen slides on Instagram: a clause she presents as section 2(e) of the April 2025 settlement, certified-transcript pages from both February 7, 2023 recordings, excerpts of the restraining-order hearing, and the company’s police report. Spiegel’s sworn “From my perspective, she resigned” sits beside his recorded “I know you’re not quitting.” Najar’s recorded “it’s going to be nine figures” sits beside his sworn word that he had not contacted a lawyer.

In March 2025 Ideal Living asked a court to exclude the two recordings of February 7, 2023, the meetings where, by the company’s account, the demand began, and told the court that Najar had produced neither the recording of Nishizaki’s meeting nor the transcript she had prepared. Nineteen days later the case settled, and the court never ruled. On October 11 this year Najar said on camera that the settlement had made them delete the recordings and the transcripts; this site graded that as his account, because no document supported it. On October 22 Nishizaki posted one, a clause she presents as the settlement’s, requiring the transcripts handed to the company’s lawyers, the recordings handed to a forensic expert, and every remaining copy certified deleted. In the same post she printed pages of those transcripts and wrote that the recordings “expose the lies told about us.” The pages do show things the company’s accounts left out. They also carry the line the post attributes to Najar: “The attorney is ready to file, and it’s going to be nine figures.”

The clause

Section 2(e), as Nishizaki quotes it. The agreement itself is not public.

Read as quoted, the clause does three things. It gives the company’s lawyers the certified transcripts of every recording the two made of the plaintiffs, the February 7 meetings among them. It gives the recordings themselves to a forensic expert chosen by both sides. And it requires a certification that every other copy of the transcripts and recordings has been deleted. Its deletion term is close to Najar’s October 11 account, and it hands the company’s lawyers the transcripts its March 2025 motion said had not been produced. The plaintiffs are Ideal Living, Spiegel and Williams. The settlement ended Najar’s case and Nishizaki’s together: the company told a federal court in September 2025 that the cases had reached one agreement, and her suit was dismissed with prejudice on June 2, 2025, nine days before the filing of the stipulation that keeps the court’s power to enforce the agreement between the company and Najar.

What the post prints

Pages from both transcripts, under a cover line: “she has the recording.”

The post’s cover reads “they called her a criminal. she has the recording. she needs a lawyer.” Its caption says “we recorded our separate conversations, and the recordings expose the lies told about us.” It quotes the certified transcripts of the recordings: pages 24, 25 to 26, 26, 30 and 35 of Nishizaki’s meeting with Spiegel, and page 3 of Najar’s meeting in Spiegel’s office, with one more slide citing pages 3 and 4. The fundraiser the post links, opened the same day, says that Reckless Ben was given “certified transcripts, and recordings.”

By the clause as quoted, the recordings went to a forensic expert, the transcripts to the company’s lawyers, and every other copy in the two’s possession, custody or control was to be certified deleted. She has not said where her pages came from; Najar has said newsrooms received copies before the settlement. Nishizaki still writes as though a recording exists, and by the clause one does, with the expert: “There is a recording that proves that,” she told Jonson on Reddit that weekend, and the fundraiser says “The recordings can now be compared directly with the police reports, sworn testimony, legal declarations, and accusations made against us.” That sits beside Najar’s October 11 account that both of them deleted theirs. The stipulation keeps the court’s power to enforce the agreement between the company and Najar, and records that it binds him to “refrain from certain actions through December 31, 2034”; it does not name Nishizaki. Whether the post squares with the agreement, and who could hold whom to it, is not public.

On October 25, writing on Reddit, Nishizaki put the settlement in her own terms: “We both accepted $0 in damages to ensure that neither of us had to sign an NDA,” and Najar “turned down a massive settlement because he would not be silenced by an NDA.” In the same comment she gave a second reason: she released her claims “because Newsweek had assured us it was committed to publishing its investigation.” Najar says in his own video that the company “wanted an NDA” and that he refused. The company told a federal court in September 2025 that the agreement “included a confidentiality provision related to proprietary information stemming from Ms. Nishizaki’s employment with Ideal Living”; whether it bars either of them from speaking about the case is not public. What is public shows it asked a good deal of them all the same: her own slide quotes a clause handing the company the transcripts and requiring every copy deleted, and the court filing binds Najar to “refrain from certain actions through December 31, 2034.” Neither of them has said what those actions are.

Spiegel, on the stand and on the recording

Three of his later accounts, beside his recorded words as the post prints them.

The first is how Nishizaki left. At the restraining-order hearing, by the post’s excerpt of page 25, Spiegel testified that she told him she would no longer perform any services for the company, and: “From my perspective, she resigned.” The recording of their February 7 meeting, by the post’s pages, has her saying “I’m not quitting, but, you know, I -- I can’t work under these conditions,” and him saying, later in the meeting, “I mean, you don’t want to work here anymore. I know you’re not quitting. I’m not accusing you of quitting.” The police report written on February 8 records that “Spiegel has not terminated Nishizaki yet but planned to the next day.” At 10:57 a.m. EST on February 9, the company’s human-resources manager wrote to her that her employment “is terminated effective immediately,” the email this site read in September from the documentary’s frame. The post prints the same lines.

The second is Najar’s visit to Spiegel’s office later the same day. The police report written the next day, an exhibit to Spiegel’s own declaration, says Najar “entered the office without permission and started yelling and cursing at Spiegel.” At the hearing, by the post’s excerpt of page 27, Najar asked Spiegel whether he had raised his voice, and Spiegel answered: “You -- no. You spoke in a very -- using obscene language directly in my face with great intensity and -- but I don’t remember that you raised your voice. It was more the kind of voice that a gangster would use if they were trying to intimidate someone.” Page 3 of the office recording has Spiegel saying, at lines 2 and 3, “Please speak up. I can’t hear you.”

The third is money. The same police report records Spiegel’s account that Nishizaki “demanded that Spiegel pay her money in the amount of the company’s worth,” which he put at more than $100 million; his declaration says she named a payment “in the tens of millions of dollars.” Page 26 of the recording, as the post prints it, has Spiegel saying, “So you want some kind of exit package and that’s fair,” and, after her “Mm-hmm,” “And I’m fine with that.” On page 35 she asks him to name the figure: “whatever amount that you want to suggest or propose, please make sure it’s something that will make me feel whole, and please know that I will use it to do good in the world.” On page 30 he asks her, “Are you kind of trying to blackmail me also?” She answers “Oh, please,” then “No,” and, pressed on whether she would hurt him or the company: “Peter, there’s -- there are just news articles out there.”

None of this settles who raised the exit package first. Nishizaki testified that Spiegel did, his declaration says she did, and the two lines on page 26 can be read either way. What the pages show, if they are accurate, is this. His conclusion that she resigned does not match his recorded “I know you’re not quitting,” though it follows “you don’t want to work here anymore.” The police report’s “yelling” is at odds with his own testimony and with “Please speak up.” But Christoni testified that Najar was whispering only “AT THE VERY END,” with obscenities before that, and the judge who granted Spiegel’s restraining order in January 2024, on clear and convincing evidence, found “at least one personal meeting where you conducted yourself in a threatening and offensive manner.”

Najar, on the recording and under oath

The page the post offers for its own side carries the line that cuts against it.

At the hearing, by the post’s excerpt, Spiegel testified that Najar came right up to his face and said, “If you don’t pay us nine figures,” and then declined to repeat the words Najar used. His declaration says Najar threatened that if the company did not pay Nishizaki “nine figures,” the two would carry out her demand. Helen Christoni, the company executive in the room, testified on page 67 that Najar told Spiegel it would cost him nine figures, that he knew his influencers and “I’m gonna take you down,” with an obscenity in nearly every clause. The post sets them against page 3 of the office recording, where the line it attributes to Najar, his name blacked out, reads:

The post’s point is that a lawsuit is not a demand, and that Najar was talking about an attorney ready to file. But the page puts in Najar’s mouth the nine figures both Spiegel and Christoni swore to and the influencers Christoni named, and by his own sworn account there was no attorney. In his second deposition, in pages the company filed and this site carries, Najar was asked whether he had contacted any attorney at that point: “I had not -- I didn’t even know how to contact an attorney.” Asked about the nine figures and the attorney he had cited to Spiegel, he said: “you try to scare them a little bit, but you do it with money because Peter is about money.”

So the page cuts both ways. It supports the post’s reading that the recording frames the money as the size of a lawsuit rather than a price for silence. It also shows Najar invoking a lawyer he swore he had not contacted, for a figure he said was meant to scare. Whether that is extortion is a question no court decided: on a record with no evidence from Najar, a judge found in March 2025 a substantial probability the company would prove it, and the case settled thirteen days later. The post adds, citing pages 3 and 4, that there is “not one curse word on the recording. not one.” It prints ten lines of those pages. Further down page 3, with the speaker not shown, one line reads “I have audio tapes, audio tapes.”

An offer of nothing

One page from Nishizaki’s own deposition.

The post’s seventh slide is page 177 of Nishizaki’s deposition, taken by the company’s lawyer Nick Soltman in the last week of February 2025. Asked, “You purport to be a whistleblower; is that right?”, she answered, “I am a whistleblower.” Then: “And you offered to settle your whistleblower claims for a big fat zero; is that right?” She said yes. The phrase is Soltman’s; the answer is hers. It fits how her case ended, dismissed with prejudice in June 2025. It does not reach what was said on February 7, 2023, two years earlier, which is what the company’s police report is about, and where its declaration and its suit begin.

Where the post goes past the record

The post attributes to Soltman a letter to Reckless Ben accusing the two of trying to extort Ideal Living for $100 million, and quotes the phrase “this pair of criminals.” The $100 million sentence is from the demand for correction of September 16, 2026, which was signed by Amy Lucas of O’Melveny & Myers with Soltman copied, as this site read it. The phrase does not appear in what Reckless Ben read of the letter and the emails on camera, and the post does not show where it comes from. Its last slide promises reporting on “how and why the LA Times and Newsweek killed reporting on child sexual abuse and the money behind it,” with the hint “hollywood.” Nothing in the post shows a story killed. What it does show of Newsweek is the next report.

What this changes

Three things on this site move. Najar’s October 11 account of the settlement, graded as his alone, now has a clause behind it, quoted by the other party bound by the agreement; it stays a party’s account until the agreement is seen, but it is no longer one person’s word. Spiegel’s “From my perspective, she resigned” now sits beside his recorded “I know you’re not quitting,” and the report’s “yelling” beside his testimony that he did not remember Najar raising his voice. And the recordings the company asked a court to exclude, and by the clause to have handed over and destroyed, now have transcript pages in public, put there by a party to the agreement in a post that asks the public to pay for her lawyer.

The rest is unchanged. No court has heard the recordings, and nothing here alters the two rulings. The pages cut both ways, and a reader can now see both edges.

Sources. Nishizaki’s Instagram post of October 22, 2026, DezOXDVGykY, nineteen slides, posted at 10:43 a.m. EDT, its caption edited later that morning; slides 1 to 11 were also displayed on BJC Live Show’s stream of October 24, 2026. The fundraiser “Help Me Stand Up to Powerful Law Firms,” organized as “Myra Whistleblower” and dated October 22, 2026. In LASC 23VECV04262: the declaration of Peter Spiegel sworn February 7, 2025, with Exhibit 2, the Los Angeles Police Department report of February 8, 2023; the omnibus motions in limine of March 19, 2025, with excerpts of Najar’s deposition of February 25, 2025 and of Nishizaki’s; the minute order of March 25, 2025; the stipulation filed June 11, 2025. In LASC 23VECV03833, the request for dismissal of June 2, 2025. The federal application at the protective-order report; the recordings motion and Najar’s October 11 account at the recordings report; the termination email at the firing report. Nishizaki’s comments of October 25, 2026 in r/RecklessBen, threads 1xdon0q and 1xfen06.

The JKP Map · Prakashanand Saraswati is the only person on this site convicted of a crime.