Latest / The Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous Podcast / A Criminal Defense Attorney Breaks Down The Case of Taylor Frankie Paul

Transcript

A Criminal Defense Attorney Breaks Down The Case of Taylor Frankie Paul · The Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: This is the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous Podcast
0:03
Speaker 1: with iHeartRadio.
0:06
Speaker 2: Hello, everyone, welcome to the Almost Famous Podcast. Today, we
0:09
Speaker 2: are continuing to break down all the court hearings and
0:12
Speaker 2: allegations pertaining to Taylor, Frankie Paul, and we've been we've
0:16
Speaker 2: been saying that we've wanted to chat with a legal
0:18
Speaker 2: expert on all of this because there's so many times
0:21
Speaker 2: or Ben and I are saying something like we're like,
0:22
Speaker 2: you know what, I don't know the legality of that. Well,
0:25
Speaker 2: today we have Allison Treeslam. She is a criminal defense
0:29
Speaker 2: attorney and she's the illegal correspondent for Access Hollywood. Throughout
0:34
Speaker 2: the course of her twenty five year career, she has
0:37
Speaker 2: represented over a thousand clients charged with committing serious crime,
0:41
Speaker 2: and she has worked on a number of high profile cases.
0:44
Speaker 2: She's also currently the host of Legal Smart on KTLA,
0:49
Speaker 2: where she provides insight and advice on a wide variety
0:52
Speaker 2: of practical and relevant legal issues. So she is truly
0:57
Speaker 2: perfect to be talking to us about Taylor, Frickey, Paul
1:01
Speaker 2: and Dakota's issues.
1:04
Speaker 1: Hi, Alison, welcome you a podcast.
1:07
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you for having me on.
1:09
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, you are the perfect person to be
1:12
Speaker 2: talking to today about this.
1:15
Speaker 3: There's a lot going on here.
1:17
Speaker 2: And because you are kind of an expert in high
1:20
Speaker 2: profile entertainment cases, you do it for Access Hollywood and KTLA.
1:26
Speaker 2: You must have followed this pretty closely.
1:29
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I have to tell you I am not
1:31
Speaker 3: because I'm a crime junkie.
1:32
Speaker 1: S right.
1:32
Speaker 3: So I'm a criminal defense attorney. I do legal commentary
1:37
Speaker 3: on all things criminal. I'm not necessarily someone that would
1:41
Speaker 3: watch The Bachelor's Secret Lives of Mormon Wives until now,
1:46
Speaker 3: because you guys got more stuff going on than so
1:50
Speaker 3: many of the criminal cases that I handle. I mean,
1:52
Speaker 3: it's just it's just shocking to me what I've been missing.
1:57
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean, is this something that I did.
2:00
Speaker 3: Its just passed me by because I can't believe what
2:02
Speaker 3: goes on with all these shows. It's incredible.
2:08
Speaker 1: That's why we need you here, because I think Ashley
2:12
Speaker 1: and myself can come at it from a place of
2:14
Speaker 1: shock and awe. Okay, but we need help not only
2:20
Speaker 1: shocking and eyeing, but breaking this all down. I want
2:23
Speaker 1: to start kind of before we even dive into the
2:26
Speaker 1: the situation that unfolded in February and then with the
2:31
Speaker 1: postponement of The Bachelorette. In all of your years of
2:35
Speaker 1: breaking down these stories and doing it in a high
2:39
Speaker 1: profile way, how common is it that a person would
2:44
Speaker 1: get chosen as the lead of a reality television show
2:49
Speaker 1: with is it? I guess the question is is it
2:52
Speaker 1: normal for somebody I want to know as the lead
2:58
Speaker 1: of the show with the previous violent acts that you know,
3:03
Speaker 1: Taylor Frankie Paul had been a part of.
3:06
Speaker 3: Well, something went really wrong here in their vetting process. Okay,
3:10
Speaker 3: So this is someone who had actually pled guilty to
3:15
Speaker 3: an aggravated assault as a felony and is currently on probation. Okay,
3:19
Speaker 3: So and that's one of the buckets that I want
3:22
Speaker 3: to discuss in this case. But to thoroughly understand all
3:27
Speaker 3: that's going on and to really explain it to your audience,
3:32
Speaker 3: I thought it was best if I break it into
3:34
Speaker 3: kind of three buckets of discussion, one being the child
3:39
Speaker 3: custody and the protective orders, because there are a bunch
3:44
Speaker 3: of them flying around and what that really means. And
3:49
Speaker 3: then the other being the prosecution and the the investigations
3:55
Speaker 3: and whether there'll be prosecutions, whether her probation will be
3:59
Speaker 3: violated as a result of this. And then the last
4:02
Speaker 3: one is that what is it? What are the ramifications
4:07
Speaker 3: because the bachelor the Bachelotte was canceled or was pulled
4:10
Speaker 3: for now and will there be lawsuits and who will
4:14
Speaker 3: they be against and can they be successful? There is
4:18
Speaker 3: a there's a side to it also where there's some
4:21
Speaker 3: type of d c FS investigation, but not much about
4:25
Speaker 3: that has really been shared.
4:28
Speaker 1: D c f S, what is that? What is that?
4:31
Speaker 3: So the Department of Family and Social Services, So that's
4:33
Speaker 3: that would be like the the organization that comes in
4:38
Speaker 3: to determine what the best welfare what is then the
4:40
Speaker 3: best welfare of the children. So and that that is
4:44
Speaker 3: something that that will remain h more that that they'll
4:48
Speaker 3: all they'll remain much more tight lipped about because it's
4:51
Speaker 3: really just dealing with what's in the best interest of
4:56
Speaker 3: minor children. So they really keep that as confidential as possible.
5:01
Speaker 3: But in terms of explosive allegations, and I do believe
5:07
Speaker 3: that this video was a watershed moment, not just for Taylor,
5:14
Speaker 3: Frankie Paul and for the Bacherette, but just in general
5:19
Speaker 3: the idea that a person would act so violently right,
5:25
Speaker 3: and was this available to ABC and Warner Brothers prior
5:31
Speaker 3: to casting her as the Bacheorette. Should they have known
5:35
Speaker 3: about it? Did they do enough homework to learn about it?
5:39
Speaker 3: And did they tell the contestants that the person that
5:44
Speaker 3: was going to be on has had this violent and
5:48
Speaker 3: we can call it a violent, volatile relationship with a
5:51
Speaker 3: male counterpart in the past. Is that something that they
5:54
Speaker 3: should have been told about?
5:56
Speaker 2: Well, they definitely knew about it because they made it
6:00
Speaker 2: episode one of Secret Lives and Mormon Lives.
6:03
Speaker 1: Correct. Did the contestants now and when you say that,
6:06
Speaker 1: you mean were they communicated directly with because yes, they
6:10
Speaker 1: could know through watching the show. Yes, they could do
6:13
Speaker 1: by a Google search. But is that enough right?
6:16
Speaker 3: Correct? So it was it negligent right of the production
6:19
Speaker 3: company not to share that information because they wanted the ratings.
6:23
Speaker 3: They wanted someone who had this really kind of spicy
6:27
Speaker 3: backtor story that would bring in viewers, right, bring in
6:30
Speaker 3: viewers because traditional TV is losing viewership. So you've got
6:35
Speaker 3: to find someone that's entertaining. I'm telling two of you that, No,
6:38
Speaker 3: you've got to find someone that's entertaining and fresh and
6:41
Speaker 3: new and has a big social media presence. And was
6:45
Speaker 3: that negligent of them. So that's sort of the one
6:49
Speaker 3: of the last things if you'd allow me to discuss,
6:52
Speaker 3: because in terms of the law, what is what is
6:56
Speaker 3: so interesting is that you've got many things going on
7:00
Speaker 3: in different courthouses here. So there are currently essentially three
7:06
Speaker 3: protective orders that are temporary and they are being handled
7:14
Speaker 3: by a judge and a full blown hearing will be
7:19
Speaker 3: held in that case in those cases on April thirtieth,
7:24
Speaker 3: but in the interim, this judge has decided there is
7:28
Speaker 3: a temporary protective order. And for those unfamiliar with protective orders,
7:33
Speaker 3: they're essentially stay away orders or orders of temporary custody arrangements,
7:38
Speaker 3: and they are the same as a restraining order in
7:41
Speaker 3: some states. That's they're they're the equivalent. And there is
7:45
Speaker 3: one where Dakota has taken out a protective order against
7:50
Speaker 3: Taylor Taylor and then has taken out a protective order
7:55
Speaker 3: against Dakota, and then there is also one pending for
8:00
Speaker 3: Taylor's ex husband regarding their child that was the witness
8:06
Speaker 3: and was the victim to the twoenty twenty three incident
8:11
Speaker 3: where that we've all seen or most of us have
8:14
Speaker 3: seen the video.
8:15
Speaker 2: Oh I have not been aware of that is that recent?
8:18
Speaker 3: Well, it was done. What's interesting is my reports indicate
8:23
Speaker 3: that Dakota and the ex husband essentially took out protective
8:28
Speaker 3: orders either on the same day or within a very
8:31
Speaker 3: short period of time.
8:32
Speaker 1: Now there's a picture of the two of them at
8:35
Speaker 1: the courthouse at the same time. Nobody knows if it
8:37
Speaker 1: was planned or coordinated, but they ran into each other
8:41
Speaker 1: nonetheless at the courthouse.
8:43
Speaker 3: Right And by the way, that would make sense if
8:46
Speaker 3: you're getting a protective order, not that they would coordinate
8:48
Speaker 3: efforts and do it at the same time. But because
8:52
Speaker 3: the twenty twenty three incident involves one child, okay, where
8:57
Speaker 3: Dakota is not the father, so he can't take out
9:00
Speaker 3: the protective order for that child because it's not his
9:03
Speaker 3: biological child. And then Leak's husband would take out one
9:08
Speaker 3: because that was his child that was involved. So he says, look,
9:11
Speaker 3: I saw this video. It is so disturbing. I actually
9:15
Speaker 3: saw it's I guess it was different for him than
9:18
Speaker 3: reading about it knowing that she was charged, than to
9:20
Speaker 3: see it that she is still posing a danger because
9:24
Speaker 3: of these February twenty third, twenty fourth allegations of abuse
9:32
Speaker 3: against Dakota where a child is present, so there is
9:36
Speaker 3: an ongoing danger. And then Taylor says, wait a minute,
9:42
Speaker 3: I'm the victim of abuse here, so I want a
9:45
Speaker 3: protective order. So there's three competing orders. There's three competing orders,
9:51
Speaker 3: there's different children involved, and this judge essentially said, look,
10:00
Speaker 3: I know that there are several sides to this story,
10:04
Speaker 3: but my main interest is in protecting children in this case.
10:10
Speaker 3: And the guardian ad litem that was that was appointed
10:16
Speaker 3: to the minor child acts as the attorney for the
10:19
Speaker 3: child and they have a lot of say. So the
10:21
Speaker 3: guardian ad litem is somebody who their sole interest is
10:26
Speaker 3: the protection of the child, and so their testimony or
10:30
Speaker 3: their opinion carries a lot of weight in a courtroom.
10:33
Speaker 3: And a judge is going to say, does the guardian
10:36
Speaker 3: ad litem at this point feel that the child would
10:41
Speaker 3: be unsafe if unsupervised and in the care and custody
10:46
Speaker 3: of Taylor. And at this point the guardian ATLTEM said yes,
10:51
Speaker 3: for now, I am going I have no problem with
10:55
Speaker 3: eight hours of supervised visits. Supervised means that you can eat,
11:00
Speaker 3: or have someone as a third party who you can
11:04
Speaker 3: hire to be present or in this case, they're allowing
11:07
Speaker 3: a family member of Taylor's, but she cannot be alone
11:12
Speaker 3: with the child. She gets eight hours of supervised visits.
11:18
Speaker 1: Just to be clear here, who is the guardianem So.
11:22
Speaker 3: The guardian ad litem would be an attorney appointed by
11:28
Speaker 3: the court to represent the interest of the minor child.
11:33
Speaker 1: So who who is the child living within right now?
11:37
Speaker 1: Not the guardian?
11:39
Speaker 2: No?
11:39
Speaker 3: No, no, The child is with Dakota. One child is
11:43
Speaker 3: with Dakota, and then Taylor's other two children are with
11:47
Speaker 3: her ex husband.
11:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, So I think that her attorney is trying
11:53
Speaker 2: to argue that she is not at all a threat
11:56
Speaker 2: to her children as long as Dakota is not in
11:58
Speaker 2: the picture.
11:59
Speaker 1: Is that Is that right?
12:00
Speaker 3: Correct?
12:01
Speaker 2: Because it's because they were like, yeah, she's only violent
12:03
Speaker 2: when he's around.
12:05
Speaker 1: Okay.
12:05
Speaker 3: So what their argument is is that this was not
12:12
Speaker 3: violence directed at any minor child. That yes, the child
12:17
Speaker 3: was present and that is a problem. But if you
12:22
Speaker 3: remove Dakota from the picture, Taylor alone has no ill
12:29
Speaker 3: will toward her children. She's not going to be violent
12:32
Speaker 3: toward the children. It was all when the two of them.
12:36
Speaker 3: Who I don't know what the legal definition of this is,
12:40
Speaker 3: but I can tell you, what I would call it
12:42
Speaker 3: in my office is a complete cluster. These two are
12:47
Speaker 3: so toxic, so vital, They're so volatile. This is not
12:52
Speaker 3: a if I'm a judge or a mcguardian at letam,
12:56
Speaker 3: I'm saying, these two can never be in the same
12:58
Speaker 3: room together. They should have never been filming a show together.
13:02
Speaker 3: By the way, while she was on probation, they don't mix.
13:06
Speaker 3: Bad things happen. Both sides are saying that they're physically
13:11
Speaker 3: that there's physical abuse on either side. What does that
13:14
Speaker 3: tell me as a judge? What does that tell me
13:16
Speaker 3: as an attorney for the miner? Well, they should never
13:19
Speaker 3: be together. They should never be together. So yes, it
13:22
Speaker 3: helps her in the sense that she's saying, Look, obviously
13:27
Speaker 3: I can't be in the same room with him. Obviously
13:30
Speaker 3: there's problems, but I've never directed any violence toward my children.
13:35
Speaker 3: Ashley is not going to carry the day. Is that
13:37
Speaker 3: going to carry the day? Well, judge's going to say,
13:40
Speaker 3: and they're going to take that into account. But they
13:44
Speaker 3: are going to say, but it looks as though you
13:47
Speaker 3: were intoxicated. It looks as though you have these violent tendencies.
13:51
Speaker 3: So it's not just her saying remove him and I'm.
13:55
Speaker 1: Good, Okay, Ashley. Can can I get like two minutes
14:01
Speaker 1: here to run down some rapid fires to get some
14:03
Speaker 1: clarity to where we're at? Of course? Yes, okay, a
14:06
Speaker 1: couple train of thoughts here as we make sense of
14:09
Speaker 1: all this. If the protective order goes through against Taylor,
14:17
Speaker 1: does that have any does that mean anything in terms
14:22
Speaker 1: of her probation that was set in twenty twenty three.
14:25
Speaker 3: Okay, So I'm going to answer that. I'm going to
14:27
Speaker 3: answer that because and we can't We'll do a deep
14:30
Speaker 3: dive in a bit. But the answer is they've already
14:33
Speaker 3: made a decision. It appears the District Attorney's office has
14:36
Speaker 3: already made a decision that they're not going to violate
14:39
Speaker 3: her probation. Okay, that's what it appears, if we're.
14:42
Speaker 1: Going to violate her probation with okay, okay.
14:46
Speaker 3: So in addition to the the probation, the protective orders
14:53
Speaker 3: that are going on in one courtroom, the district attorney
14:57
Speaker 3: is investigating these allegations from February where they say there
15:04
Speaker 3: was other instances of domestic violence. What the district attorney
15:10
Speaker 3: just came out with, just came out with is that
15:14
Speaker 3: they either found that there was not enough corroboration or
15:20
Speaker 3: they could not prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt
15:27
Speaker 3: to file any new charges against her. They also said
15:32
Speaker 3: that some of those allegations were so old that the
15:37
Speaker 3: statute of limitations had passed on filing those charges. So
15:42
Speaker 3: the statement that they've made right now is that they
15:46
Speaker 3: are not pursuing charges any new charges against Taylor. And
15:51
Speaker 3: then they even went further than that and said, and
15:54
Speaker 3: we don't believe at this point that those constitute any
15:59
Speaker 3: violations of her probation. So Ashley, let me just go
16:03
Speaker 3: back and explain that a little bit. In twenty twenty three,
16:08
Speaker 3: she gets charged with five counts. One is a felony
16:13
Speaker 3: aggravated assault to her domestic violence. There's some other charges.
16:18
Speaker 3: She pleads to it, and she takes a plea in abyance,
16:23
Speaker 3: which means that she's essentially put on diversion, which was
16:27
Speaker 3: really a sweetheart deal for her, really a sweetheart deal.
16:31
Speaker 3: They put her on probation for a period of three
16:34
Speaker 3: years that doesn't expire until August of twenty twenty six,
16:39
Speaker 3: so she's currently still on probation. In what there were
16:45
Speaker 3: conditions placed on her there was parenting, anger management, abstained
16:50
Speaker 3: from alcohol, you can't pick up any new offenses, can't
16:54
Speaker 3: pick up any new offenses. So here, if let's just
17:00
Speaker 3: say something like if she's drinking on the show of
17:03
Speaker 3: the Bachelor when they're taking the Bachelorette when they're taping it,
17:07
Speaker 3: that would technically be a violation of her probation because
17:11
Speaker 3: she has to abstain from alcohol. When you have a
17:18
Speaker 3: potential new case, the burden to you don't have for
17:23
Speaker 3: a probation violation. The standard of proof is much lower
17:27
Speaker 3: than can we prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. So
17:30
Speaker 3: the fact that they are deciding at this point not
17:33
Speaker 3: to charge her with any new offenses is one thing.
17:37
Speaker 3: But the fact that they're not even violating her probation
17:41
Speaker 3: speaks volumes. And if I'm her lawyers, I take that
17:47
Speaker 3: information and I use it in our protective order case
17:51
Speaker 3: because anybody in the court system knows that, hey, not
17:55
Speaker 3: only are they not charging her with any new offenses,
17:58
Speaker 3: they're not even violating her probation at this point.
18:01
Speaker 1: Okay, So I want to continue down this line of
18:04
Speaker 1: questioning to get some clarity here. If new evidence, though
18:08
Speaker 1: is presented, they've left that door open, then they can
18:11
Speaker 1: reopen this back up, right, not.
18:14
Speaker 3: As to the ones where the statute of limitation is passed.
18:17
Speaker 3: So that so those charges, whatever those were, once the
18:23
Speaker 3: statute of limitations is passed. And the reason that that
18:27
Speaker 3: matters is because you know, if charges are years and
18:32
Speaker 3: years old and you're just being charged with them, potential
18:36
Speaker 3: witnesses that you may have had to defend yourself may
18:40
Speaker 3: not be available. Digital evidence, forensic evidence, things that you
18:46
Speaker 3: could use in your defense are maybe no longer available.
18:49
Speaker 3: So that's why you have statute of limitations in certain cases.
18:53
Speaker 3: In sex case, in certain sex cases it's much longer
18:57
Speaker 3: statute of limitations, and murder cases there is no status limitations.
19:01
Speaker 3: But in these charges there was a statute of limitations
19:05
Speaker 3: and that has passed. But for things that would be
19:09
Speaker 3: let's say the February alleged incident, if new information comes
19:15
Speaker 3: to light, yes they can revisit it.
19:18
Speaker 1: I loved your and this is my final kind of
19:21
Speaker 1: thing to get clarity. I love your bucket deal because
19:26
Speaker 1: we need some type of linear path to make sense
19:28
Speaker 1: of this all. Yeah, and so as we sit in
19:31
Speaker 1: the bucket of the protective orders, and as you've mentioned,
19:36
Speaker 1: Tate has one out there, the Coda has one out there.
19:39
Speaker 1: Now Taylor, Frankie Paul has one out there. If all
19:42
Speaker 1: three of those get I don't know the right word
19:45
Speaker 1: to premt it grant granted, what happens because then all
19:49
Speaker 1: three of them have protective orders against each other.
19:51
Speaker 3: So they'll have to stay away from each other. They
19:53
Speaker 3: have to stay away from each other, which you know
19:56
Speaker 3: when there's when there's vallatle situations, that's not necessarily a
19:59
Speaker 3: bad thing, right, So they stay away from each other,
20:02
Speaker 3: they get film together, and then for custody, they then
20:08
Speaker 3: have to use a third party for the exchange of
20:11
Speaker 3: the children. Right, So on one extreme, I've seen where
20:16
Speaker 3: the custody swap occurs literally in the parking lot of
20:23
Speaker 3: a police station. Okay, But on another extreme is you know,
20:28
Speaker 3: when they're really young kids and that's sort of really
20:33
Speaker 3: scary for them. It's a person who they both know
20:36
Speaker 3: and trust, you know, maybe it's Taylor's parents, maybe whoever
20:40
Speaker 3: that is, they do the custody swap.
20:44
Speaker 2: So like you can't drop them off in the driveway,
20:47
Speaker 2: not at this age, Like you can't watch them go
20:50
Speaker 2: to the door.
20:52
Speaker 3: You know, this is if they were fourteen fifteen. That's
20:56
Speaker 3: one thing.
20:56
Speaker 1: This is two yeah, yeah, yeah.
21:00
Speaker 3: And you know for the other one, it's five, not five,
21:02
Speaker 3: it's older now seven or whatever, you know, whatever the age,
21:06
Speaker 3: it's too young. So you'd have to have a mutual party.
21:10
Speaker 3: Uh you know, I mutually agreed upon party. Do the
21:13
Speaker 3: cost Tody swap?
21:15
Speaker 1: Okay, so hard for the kids. I know you're not
21:17
Speaker 1: an expert in that, but I'm like, goodness, gracious, that
21:19
Speaker 1: seems hard.
21:20
Speaker 3: Look, you know you're right, you are absolutely right. And
21:27
Speaker 3: one of the things that courts always consider, and especially
21:31
Speaker 3: in these cases, is what is in the best interests
21:34
Speaker 3: of the child. But in this case, Ben, I have
21:37
Speaker 3: to tell you, the best interest of these children right
21:40
Speaker 3: now is for these parties to separate. They seem addicted
21:46
Speaker 3: to each other, if I may say so, and they
21:49
Speaker 3: need a court to say no more, no more.
21:54
Speaker 1: This is not.
21:55
Speaker 3: Working, This is not healthy for these children, and perhaps
22:00
Speaker 3: a court imposed separation is in the best interest of
22:04
Speaker 3: these children.
22:05
Speaker 2: So if they were two years beyond, want to is
22:13
Speaker 2: this temporary?
22:14
Speaker 1: Would this be temporary?
22:15
Speaker 3: So right now, it's only until April thirtieth, when there's
22:19
Speaker 3: supposed to be a hearing on a full blown evidentry hearing. Now,
22:24
Speaker 3: I don't know if the judge is going to be
22:27
Speaker 3: ready to hear or the attorneys are going to be
22:31
Speaker 3: ready to present their cases. Right so, either side can
22:37
Speaker 3: ask for more time. The judge can say I want
22:41
Speaker 3: I want more evaluations, I want more information. But right
22:45
Speaker 3: now it is set for April thirtieth, and if that
22:49
Speaker 3: goes forward, then the judge would make permanent orders, and
22:54
Speaker 3: those permanent orders can be three years, they can be
22:56
Speaker 3: you know whatever. Sometimes the party ease will separately agree
23:03
Speaker 3: to an amount of time, and if the judge approves,
23:07
Speaker 3: then that's what the order of protection will be.
23:11
Speaker 2: So like, can they can't? Will they ever get to
23:12
Speaker 2: the point where they can do phone calls and be like, hey,
23:14
Speaker 2: I'm going to take the kids these days.
23:17
Speaker 3: Not if orders of protection are are granted. Okay, And
23:26
Speaker 3: a lot of parents make this mistake just because you
23:31
Speaker 3: think it's all good. Now you know it's all good.
23:33
Speaker 3: We're doing so much better. I'm just going to reach
23:36
Speaker 3: out to that, you know, to to my ex husband,
23:40
Speaker 3: my ex boyfriend, and we're just gonna, you know, forego
23:42
Speaker 3: court interference or attorney interference. We're going to start communicating directly.
23:47
Speaker 3: That's a violation that that is a violation. You text someone,
23:51
Speaker 3: it's a violation of a protective order. So there are
23:55
Speaker 3: times where courts will say you're only going to communicate
23:59
Speaker 3: on something called a Family Wizard, which is a app
24:04
Speaker 3: that is monitored by the court that everyone has access to.
24:08
Speaker 3: But if you're texting each other or calling each other,
24:12
Speaker 3: you are in violation of that protective order.
24:25
Speaker 1: Alison, I could sit here for six hours and still
24:29
Speaker 1: probably not get to the bottom of No wonder. Attorneys
24:32
Speaker 1: get paid so much do what you do recently? I mean,
24:35
Speaker 1: I want to dive into this bucket. Now. Recently, the
24:38
Speaker 1: evidence or I guess I don't even know if it's
24:41
Speaker 1: considered evidence. Photos of Dakota have been shared publicly. There's
24:45
Speaker 1: also a nine to one one call from Dakota's friend
24:49
Speaker 1: and all this is now open to the public. Why
24:51
Speaker 1: am I seeing this? I'm not like mad about it?
24:54
Speaker 3: So okay. So this is interesting that you're saying that,
24:57
Speaker 3: because there is a fine line between what is in
25:01
Speaker 3: the public record. So any court filings, right, well, not
25:06
Speaker 3: any certain court filings that are in the public record, okay,
25:10
Speaker 3: And you make a public record a media company or
25:12
Speaker 3: whoever makes a public record demand for it, and they're
25:16
Speaker 3: supposed to keep confidential, social security numbers, anything involving children,
25:24
Speaker 3: anything involving children, and especially with this protective order business,
25:31
Speaker 3: all of that involving the children should remain confidential. Okay,
25:36
Speaker 3: that is what is in the best interest of the child.
25:39
Speaker 3: But the nine to one one call is part of
25:42
Speaker 3: the public record, and it's not just limited to these people.
25:47
Speaker 3: It's not as though they're being treated more unfairly because
25:53
Speaker 3: they're in the public eye. Nine one one calls are
25:56
Speaker 3: available to the public. You make a public record request,
26:00
Speaker 3: can ask for bodycam fit footage. Now they have to
26:04
Speaker 3: remove any personal information, but all a lot of this
26:09
Speaker 3: stuff is available to the public because they want transparency
26:14
Speaker 3: in the criminal justice system.
26:16
Speaker 2: You would talked earlier about how you said it spoke
26:20
Speaker 2: volumes that they didn't violate probation. Oh, could you explain
26:26
Speaker 2: what you mean by that? Because my interpretation, and maybe
26:30
Speaker 2: I'm just making drama here, is that you're like, oh,
26:34
Speaker 2: there must be something telling on his side, or like
26:37
Speaker 2: she really didn't do anything in Tebuary.
26:39
Speaker 3: I don't think that's no. I don't think that's my position.
26:42
Speaker 2: I'm in drama.
26:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I don't think that's my position. My position
26:47
Speaker 3: is that if I'm if I'm sitting with a RoboN
26:49
Speaker 3: as a judge, okay, and I say, one side is saying,
26:55
Speaker 3: you know, there's the all of these prior incidents, there's
26:59
Speaker 3: the new ones in February, and she's clearly not it's
27:05
Speaker 3: unsafe for her to be around her children. That's their allegations, right,
27:08
Speaker 3: that she cannot be left alone with the children. What
27:12
Speaker 3: I'm saying is that on her end of that, on
27:16
Speaker 3: her for her defense, she says, well, I'm not She's
27:23
Speaker 3: not only saying and actually you touched upon this before.
27:26
Speaker 3: She's not only saying that the only times there's been
27:30
Speaker 3: an issue is when Dakota is around, right, I'm only
27:34
Speaker 3: there's only an issue with my children when Dakota is present.
27:38
Speaker 3: She also can argue, well, no criminal charges were filed
27:43
Speaker 3: against me, and even if they decided that they didn't
27:49
Speaker 3: have enough to because of statute to limitations, because of
27:52
Speaker 3: insufficiency of the evidence, because they couldn't corroborate that, probation
27:57
Speaker 3: violations require much a much lower standard of proof. And
28:03
Speaker 3: so if I'm her attorneys, I'm saying, wait a minute,
28:08
Speaker 3: they are not even violating her probation, so that works
28:13
Speaker 3: in her favor, am I saying? And I don't know.
28:16
Speaker 3: And one of the things that I dislike when attorneys
28:19
Speaker 3: go on any show is I wasn't there. I wasn't there,
28:25
Speaker 3: So I'm not going to pretend like I know what
28:28
Speaker 3: the ultimate outcome is going to be, what the facts
28:30
Speaker 3: are ultimately going to bear. I wasn't there. But what
28:34
Speaker 3: I can tell you is what the law is, how
28:37
Speaker 3: it comes into play in certain cases, and what each
28:40
Speaker 3: side is going to argue. And I'm also going to
28:45
Speaker 3: be able to tell you that a judge sees a
28:48
Speaker 3: case like this when they're talking about incidents where children
28:52
Speaker 3: are present and they see a violent video where a
28:57
Speaker 3: child is not only present but gets hurt and has
29:01
Speaker 3: a goose egg on their head, and then there's another
29:04
Speaker 3: incident where it's done in a child's presence. They don't
29:08
Speaker 3: look very favorably on that because their concern is what
29:13
Speaker 3: is in the best interests of the child and is
29:16
Speaker 3: this child safe? And they're always going to side with
29:21
Speaker 3: what is the safest thing for these children? And Ben,
29:26
Speaker 3: you said, oh my goodness, this is so horrible for
29:28
Speaker 3: the children and it absolutely is right being separated from
29:32
Speaker 3: So my understanding was the original custody agreement is that
29:36
Speaker 3: Taylor had seventy percent and Dakota had thirty. So with
29:41
Speaker 3: her child right with ever, she was the primary caretaker.
29:46
Speaker 3: She has been the primary caretaker in his life, and
29:50
Speaker 3: what a judge is being asked to do is to
29:52
Speaker 3: strip her of that and not just strip her, strip
29:55
Speaker 3: her child being with the person who he's spent the
29:58
Speaker 3: most time in his life with. And that is awful
30:01
Speaker 3: and it's tragic and it's hard to think about, and
30:03
Speaker 3: it's painful for the children. But the judge also has
30:07
Speaker 3: to balance that against is it safe for this child
30:11
Speaker 3: to be with her right now.
30:13
Speaker 1: And him right I mean, that has to be the question.
30:16
Speaker 3: Of course.
30:16
Speaker 1: Of course, in cases like this, there's been a lot
30:32
Speaker 1: of theories out there, and you just kind of mentioned
30:34
Speaker 1: that nobody knows how this is going to play out,
30:36
Speaker 1: and there's a lot going on. There is this video
30:40
Speaker 1: that was released and obviously was kind of in a
30:42
Speaker 1: lot of ways, at least from our understanding, the catalyst
30:45
Speaker 1: to the season being postponed and things kind of getting
30:49
Speaker 1: shift around, and then I believe from somebody in Taylor's camp.
30:54
Speaker 1: I don't think it was directly her, but maybe a
30:55
Speaker 1: friend or an anonymous source said there's more to this
30:59
Speaker 1: story here, that video was released on purpose, it's been
31:02
Speaker 1: cut down, or it was taken at the right moment
31:05
Speaker 1: at the right time, and Taylor saying, there's more to
31:07
Speaker 1: this story here, but we have the video. So in
31:10
Speaker 1: court cases like this, when it comes to the evidence
31:14
Speaker 1: that's being presented, do the videos have more weight than
31:17
Speaker 1: the word of mouth that Taylor's saying, Hey, but before
31:20
Speaker 1: this video is taken four minutes before it was actually shot,
31:23
Speaker 1: he was doing this to me and that's why I
31:25
Speaker 1: did what I did back, like, Okay.
31:28
Speaker 3: I love that you're asking this question, and she is saying, look,
31:31
Speaker 3: this was taken out of context, this is edited down,
31:33
Speaker 3: this doesn't show the full picture. And you even have
31:36
Speaker 3: Dakota on the police bodycam video saying this went on
31:39
Speaker 3: for an hour and a half. Okay, So we do
31:41
Speaker 3: have a we have a small portion of a much
31:47
Speaker 3: greater story that evening. Okay, However, it is not just
31:53
Speaker 3: the video. It's not the judge is not just going
31:56
Speaker 3: to look at the video. Okay. Apparently there is another
32:00
Speaker 3: video that the Guardian at LTAM has that is that
32:05
Speaker 3: was to the Guardian at LTUM disturbing that the judge
32:08
Speaker 3: has seen.
32:09
Speaker 2: From twenty twenty three or from recently recently. Okay, so
32:13
Speaker 2: there's a video from recently.
32:14
Speaker 3: That we don't have that is not made available to
32:19
Speaker 3: the public. Okay, but the guardian, the guardian explained that
32:25
Speaker 3: to the court and that was concerning because a child
32:29
Speaker 3: was present. So Ben, when you're asking just because there
32:34
Speaker 3: may have been a build up, a build up, a
32:39
Speaker 3: judge can still look at that video and say, yes,
32:45
Speaker 3: there may have been other things that led up to it.
32:48
Speaker 3: And the judge did say, there's two sides to this story.
32:52
Speaker 3: There are two sides to the story, no question. But
32:56
Speaker 3: the child was hit in the head by a chair,
33:01
Speaker 3: by a metal chair that Taylor had thrown, and she
33:07
Speaker 3: pled guilty to it, right yeah, And I not only
33:13
Speaker 3: am I not taking sides, I don't know these people.
33:17
Speaker 3: I have no horse in the race, you know. I
33:21
Speaker 3: really hope for the children and for them that they
33:25
Speaker 3: get the help that they need, because it seems that
33:27
Speaker 3: both of them are really, as I said, sort of
33:31
Speaker 3: addicted to each other, and they've got each work on themselves.
33:37
Speaker 3: You know because this is this is there are children
33:41
Speaker 3: who are affected by this and also for their own
33:45
Speaker 3: mental health. But courts are going to look at those
33:49
Speaker 3: videos and it's something like something it's it's one of
33:52
Speaker 3: those things in life that you can't unsee, right, So
33:56
Speaker 3: you ask a jury to you ask a jury to
34:00
Speaker 3: sit on a trial and to listen to the evidence
34:04
Speaker 3: and only focus on the evidence. Only focus on the evidence.
34:07
Speaker 3: But it is impossible for you to ask them to
34:11
Speaker 3: throw out every single one of their life experiences. It
34:15
Speaker 3: is impossible for you to say, I want you to
34:18
Speaker 3: only think about, Well, you're going to think, well, how
34:20
Speaker 3: did that affect me? You know what? What did I
34:23
Speaker 3: learned when I was growing up? Certain videos can't be unseen.
34:27
Speaker 1: That's one that can't. I mean, it's it's I mean,
34:31
Speaker 1: it's it's one of the ways. And as we close here,
34:33
Speaker 1: I do want to transition a little bit because it
34:35
Speaker 1: did stick with us, and it did stick obviously with
34:38
Speaker 1: the public, and the show was postponed. I think that's
34:42
Speaker 1: a proper language around what the announcement was that the
34:44
Speaker 1: network gave was that this season of The Bachelor at
34:47
Speaker 1: was being postponed or put on pause. We could spend
34:51
Speaker 1: another six hours talking about what that even means obviously
34:54
Speaker 1: for the show go forward at this time? Will not
34:57
Speaker 1: go forward at this time? Was the language use? But
34:59
Speaker 1: you have a ca out there, Alison, and you mentioned
35:02
Speaker 1: at the beginning. Were they privy to this information before
35:06
Speaker 1: the show? Were they not?
35:08
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna touch on this because this
35:12
Speaker 3: is really really interesting to me, very very interesting from
35:16
Speaker 3: a legal perspective. So there have been articles written that
35:23
Speaker 3: there may be five contestants that are considering suing, and
35:29
Speaker 3: my first reaction to that was, in most agreements with
35:38
Speaker 3: reality that with with reality show contestants, there's always some
35:45
Speaker 3: clause in there that says, this is no guarantee that
35:49
Speaker 3: it will be aired, right, there's no you don't have
35:51
Speaker 3: a guarantee that you're going to be on TV that
35:54
Speaker 3: it's going to be like every back you know, there's
35:57
Speaker 3: some kind of backout clause. So I thought, well, what
36:02
Speaker 3: can they really do about it? However, there is something
36:06
Speaker 3: if the show and the production company were negligent and
36:12
Speaker 3: they put these people in a toxic, unsafe, dangerous relationship
36:18
Speaker 3: with someone that they knew had all of this background,
36:23
Speaker 3: that they knew had violent tendencies propensities. Could they could?
36:32
Speaker 3: And when I say that, by the way, when I
36:34
Speaker 3: say that, this is not allegations, she pled guilty to
36:38
Speaker 3: an aggravated assault, right, So this is something that they
36:43
Speaker 3: knew about. They knew that she had this. She Ashley
36:48
Speaker 3: brought it up. They talked about it all right in
36:51
Speaker 3: the season of Secret of the Mormon Wife Show. So
36:56
Speaker 3: this is not something that Warner Brothers ABC didn't know about.
37:01
Speaker 3: So could they be held liable by those contestants because
37:07
Speaker 3: they're saying, well, you needed to share that with us,
37:12
Speaker 3: and you needed to do a better job betting. And
37:14
Speaker 3: it's not just about numbers, and it's not just about
37:18
Speaker 3: how many sponsors you can get or how it is.
37:21
Speaker 3: Our safety is paramount here.
37:25
Speaker 1: I mean, but what I mean two, For the contestant's sake,
37:28
Speaker 1: the show would just have to have proof that they
37:30
Speaker 1: communicated it to them, right, I mean, this is only
37:33
Speaker 1: a there's only a case here if they have no
37:37
Speaker 1: proof did they ever told the contestants or had them
37:42
Speaker 1: sign something saying, hey, this is her background.
37:45
Speaker 3: I think that there will be a lot if they
37:49
Speaker 3: if they proceed with a lawsuit. And again I can't
37:53
Speaker 3: forecast the future. But I think in the discovery and
37:57
Speaker 3: the contestants' attorneys, if they sue, they're going to say,
38:01
Speaker 3: we want to know what you knew about her background,
38:06
Speaker 3: what you shared with the production team, what you shared
38:10
Speaker 3: with the contestants, How open and honest were you about
38:15
Speaker 3: what has gone on with this woman in the past.
38:18
Speaker 3: And if you don't know, we need to explain it
38:21
Speaker 3: to you.
38:22
Speaker 2: From your point of view, what's your opinion on the
38:25
Speaker 2: show ever airing in any capacity?
38:27
Speaker 3: My cynical view is it will air at some point
38:30
Speaker 3: on some platform. It will air, okay, because all the
38:35
Speaker 3: buzz around it has made it, you know, the forbidden fruit, right.
38:42
Speaker 3: I mean that now everybody, of course wants to watch it.
38:44
Speaker 3: Where does it air? Does it air on HULA, does
38:46
Speaker 3: it air on ABC? Does it make a difference by
38:49
Speaker 3: the way that no new charges have been filed against her?
38:53
Speaker 3: Does that help? Does that? That may very well help.
38:56
Speaker 2: That's why if you would like to come back around
38:59
Speaker 2: a thirtieth or the week following, we would love to
39:03
Speaker 2: have you, because we're going to get an influx of news.
39:06
Speaker 3: Then there's gonna there's gonna be a lot happening, and
39:10
Speaker 3: I don't know What's interesting about that is because as
39:15
Speaker 3: I've just sort of laid out for you, you know,
39:17
Speaker 3: in a cliff note version, there's so many competing stories.
39:22
Speaker 3: There's so many different legal actions taking place. I don't
39:26
Speaker 3: know if this hearing will actually proceed on the thirtieth
39:30
Speaker 3: or one side will say I need more time, or
39:32
Speaker 3: the judge will say, wait a minute, let's let's just
39:36
Speaker 3: continue it. Every all the orders stay in place because
39:39
Speaker 3: you know that Taylor doesn't want to continue this eight
39:44
Speaker 3: hours of supervised visitation.
39:47
Speaker 2: No, why do I feel like everything's always delayed, like
39:50
Speaker 2: especially like celebrity cases.
39:52
Speaker 3: Actually it's not celebrity cases.
39:54
Speaker 1: It's not celebrity And who's the only ones I know?
39:56
Speaker 3: I mean, No, I'm telling you the criminal justice system
40:00
Speaker 3: moves very very slowly. As we come on air, because
40:03
Speaker 3: I'm going to cover this after David was just arrested
40:07
Speaker 3: for the murder of Celestrevus and Los Angeles, the rapper.
40:11
Speaker 3: David was arrested and it was a seven month investigation,
40:15
Speaker 3: and LAPD was getting tons of pressure. Why aren't you, you know,
40:19
Speaker 3: in the DA's office, why aren't you filing? Why aren't
40:21
Speaker 3: you filing? Well, seven months on a murder case is
40:23
Speaker 3: not that long at all.
40:27
Speaker 1: Hey, to close up here, I just want to bring
40:30
Speaker 1: a little bit clarity. On April thirtieth obviously, and we
40:32
Speaker 1: talked about me possibly if you're free, your time is valuable,
40:36
Speaker 1: I know. But if you want to come back, gone
40:38
Speaker 1: and maybe help us break down all this stuff we
40:40
Speaker 1: find out then. But what exactly is being done on
40:45
Speaker 1: April thirtieth? Is it the protective order cases or is
40:48
Speaker 1: it the like? What exactly is been all?
40:51
Speaker 2: Right?
40:52
Speaker 3: So the protective order and then the the custody issues, right,
40:58
Speaker 3: the custody issues will also be dressed.
41:00
Speaker 1: In the same hearing. Yes, okay, but now.
41:04
Speaker 3: The question is, right, even though Taylor filed her protective
41:09
Speaker 3: order after the two men filed theirs, will all three
41:16
Speaker 3: be heard on the same day in the same time
41:19
Speaker 3: for judicial efficiency and for continuity, it makes sense that
41:24
Speaker 3: it would, right, So she's because it is going to
41:28
Speaker 3: be duplicitous for them to have testimony in repeated court
41:34
Speaker 3: hearings when the testimony is essentially the same.
41:36
Speaker 1: So, but we don't know yet if all three of
41:38
Speaker 1: them are going to be We do not know.
41:42
Speaker 3: If we don't know if they're going to go forward
41:45
Speaker 3: fully Okay.
41:46
Speaker 2: I know that a lot of people are out there,
41:48
Speaker 2: even though we've touched on this in a previous episode,
41:50
Speaker 2: are thinking why did she get a protective order against
41:54
Speaker 2: them if she already couldn't be any in any like
41:58
Speaker 2: close quarters to that life.
42:00
Speaker 3: Love that you asked that, because I have an answer. Yes,
42:03
Speaker 3: I have an answer. And her answer was that he
42:07
Speaker 3: is stalking her, allegedly, that he is harassing her, and
42:15
Speaker 3: so she believes that she is also entitled to a
42:18
Speaker 3: protective order. And by the way, that may be true. Right,
42:22
Speaker 3: that may be true because just because you have a
42:27
Speaker 3: protective order against you, right, if the person calls you
42:33
Speaker 3: and you're the one with the protective order, you're the
42:35
Speaker 3: only one that gets in trouble. But if you both
42:37
Speaker 3: have them and he initiates that call or he texts you,
42:42
Speaker 3: he's in violation as well.
42:44
Speaker 1: Okay, Allison, thanks for joining us today. There's so much
42:47
Speaker 1: you break down here, and it's helpful to have somebody
42:50
Speaker 1: like you on too. Instead of the rumors and opinions
42:53
Speaker 1: and speculations that we would give between the two of us,
42:56
Speaker 1: we have somebody on here to make bring clarity and
42:59
Speaker 1: expertise to it. And you definitely did that today, So
43:01
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us.
43:02
Speaker 3: And I kind of I'm not sure. I'm not sure
43:04
Speaker 3: if I want to thank you or curse you that
43:05
Speaker 3: you've sucked me in my goodness.
43:10
Speaker 1: I mean, I had to bring in The Bachelor.
43:12
Speaker 3: I guess I'll have to take a break from all
43:14
Speaker 3: my crime shows.
43:15
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, well, Ashley, you can watch Ashley
43:19
Speaker 1: season on Apple TV and season twenty of The Bachelor
43:21
Speaker 1: somewhere out there as well if you ever want to
43:23
Speaker 1: dive back in again. Yeah.
43:25
Speaker 3: Break, guys, thank you so much for having me. Thank
43:28
Speaker 3: you bye.
43:30
Speaker 1: And this has been the breakdown of the upcoming court
43:34
Speaker 1: hearing on April thirtieth. Allison was amazing. It's always helpful
43:39
Speaker 1: to have somebody like that on here. We'll be back
43:41
Speaker 1: with headlines, the Real Housewives of Rhode Island breakdowns, any
43:47
Speaker 1: breaking news that happens here. Almost Famous podcasts. We're always here,
43:51
Speaker 1: We're always doing.
43:52
Speaker 2: Something, always breaking news.
43:54
Speaker 1: Until next time, I've been Ben, I've been Ashley. Se
43:56
Speaker 1: Yah followed the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcasts
44:01
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio or subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.