Latest / The Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous Podcast / Taylor Frankie Paul & Dakota Have Their Day In Court! Our Legal Expert Explains It ALL!

Transcript

Taylor Frankie Paul & Dakota Have Their Day In Court! Our Legal Expert Explains It ALL! · 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: Hey guys, welcome back to the Almost Famous podcast. We
0:08
Speaker 2: are so excited to have legal expert and criminal defense
0:12
Speaker 2: attorney Alice and Cherisa back with us. We asked her
0:14
Speaker 2: a few weeks ago she would joined us once Dakota
0:18
Speaker 2: and Taylor had their hearing, and they did, and she's
0:21
Speaker 2: here to break it down with us. You know, there's
0:24
Speaker 2: there's some lingering questions we have after this, so Ben
0:28
Speaker 2: is off this week it so it's just me and
0:31
Speaker 2: Alison right now.
0:33
Speaker 3: Hello Alison, Hi, thank you for having me back.
0:37
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for being here. So what was
0:40
Speaker 2: your overall take when you heard the results of this
0:44
Speaker 2: trial or not the trial? It's a hearing. We were
0:48
Speaker 2: going to hopefully find out more about custody, but we
0:52
Speaker 2: didn't find that out. What we found out was that
0:54
Speaker 2: they won't be deciding custody until June, you know, at
0:59
Speaker 2: least an up on the custody. So does that mean
1:03
Speaker 2: right now Taylor still has only the eight hours a
1:06
Speaker 2: week supervised.
1:08
Speaker 3: Yes, it does. But before I get into that, I
1:11
Speaker 3: have to say that I found this judge and his
1:15
Speaker 3: opinions to be fair to be sensible, well reasoned. I
1:22
Speaker 3: thought that Taylor's attorney outlawyered Dakota's attorney. I thought that
1:31
Speaker 3: his arguments were more persuasive. I thought that the guardian
1:37
Speaker 3: is concerned about Taylor's conduct much more so than Dakota.
1:43
Speaker 3: But the judge that wasn't really his position. He was
1:48
Speaker 3: concerned about both of their conduct around children, around their child,
1:56
Speaker 3: and so just honing in in a little bit on
2:00
Speaker 3: the judge, he used the words this relationship is dysfunctional,
2:07
Speaker 3: this relationship is toxic, and that these two simply cannot
2:13
Speaker 3: be in the same place at the same time period,
2:18
Speaker 3: end of story. So his ruling in terms of the
2:23
Speaker 3: mutual protective orders clearly reflects his feeling that when these
2:30
Speaker 3: two were together there is violence. So what he ruled
2:34
Speaker 3: is that for the next three years they cannot be
2:38
Speaker 3: within one hundred I'm not sure if it was feeder
2:42
Speaker 3: yards from each other.
2:45
Speaker 4: That makes co parenting difficult, but it's not impossible, and
2:51
Speaker 4: it has happened many times before in different cases, and
2:55
Speaker 4: it all happen many times.
2:57
Speaker 3: After this case. But it is the only way this
3:01
Speaker 3: judge believes to prevent future violence against each other.
3:07
Speaker 2: Please remind the audience if they may or may not
3:11
Speaker 2: have heard your last podcast. Does that include phone calls,
3:15
Speaker 2: text messages?
3:16
Speaker 3: That is every form of communication. Okay, So what we
3:19
Speaker 3: talked about last podcast is I broke it down and
3:23
Speaker 3: did several different areas. I talked about the criminal cases
3:27
Speaker 3: that were being investigated. I talked about the DCFS investigation.
3:32
Speaker 3: I talked about these protective orders. So in terms of
3:36
Speaker 3: the criminal cases, it appears that there will be no
3:41
Speaker 3: filing of new criminal cases against Taylor or Dakota, despite
3:46
Speaker 3: allegations from February twenty second and twenty third of this year,
3:50
Speaker 3: there was something that went on in May. Despite that,
3:53
Speaker 3: there will be no new criminal cases filed against either. Also,
3:58
Speaker 3: even know Taylor is currently on felony probation, there will
4:03
Speaker 3: be no probation violation. Her probation is set to end
4:07
Speaker 3: in a couple of months, so that has been resolved.
4:10
Speaker 3: In terms of the DCFS, and again, as I shared
4:13
Speaker 3: the first time, that's the one where you really don't
4:16
Speaker 3: get much information because it's all about what is in
4:19
Speaker 3: the best interest of the child, the child's welfare, and
4:23
Speaker 3: there were allegations against both of them. For Taylor, it's
4:28
Speaker 3: the actual domestic violence, and for Dakota it is a
4:33
Speaker 3: failure to protect the child. Both of those cases have
4:38
Speaker 3: essentially been closed, but there are both of them have
4:43
Speaker 3: been held that Dakota did fail to protect the child,
4:48
Speaker 3: that Taylor there was domestic violence. So they are being
4:52
Speaker 3: given services because ultimately DCFS wants reunification of parents, wants
4:59
Speaker 3: their be change in behavior, So both of them will
5:03
Speaker 3: be given counseling and all those other services. But this
5:07
Speaker 3: protective order covers any communication whatsoever between the two parties.
5:14
Speaker 3: So that's tell that's that's phone calls, that's text messages,
5:18
Speaker 3: that's in person meetings. So, as I discussed at the
5:22
Speaker 3: last during our last meeting, the court may impose something
5:28
Speaker 3: like a family wizard, which is the only way that
5:30
Speaker 3: they need two could communicate that the court or the
5:33
Speaker 3: guardian atlatam and the lawyers would have access to to
5:37
Speaker 3: see what they're saying to each other.
5:39
Speaker 2: At the end of this hearing, Taylor seeing hugging Dakota's
5:42
Speaker 2: mom to the orders of protection keep Taylor and Dakota
5:45
Speaker 2: from talking to each other's family members because it kind
5:48
Speaker 2: of seemed like a goodbye.
5:50
Speaker 3: No, they don't, they don't, Okay, they do not. You
5:53
Speaker 3: cannot you cannot use a third party to get messages
5:58
Speaker 3: to that person. So that so she wouldn't be able
6:03
Speaker 3: to say to the mother tell Dakota that I still
6:07
Speaker 3: hate him and that he's that he can't do that,
6:10
Speaker 3: But they can have communication, and in fact, in a
6:12
Speaker 3: case like this, I can envision that there's going to
6:16
Speaker 3: be communication between you know, other each party's family and
6:22
Speaker 3: parents to try and organize for custody exchanges. So yes,
6:28
Speaker 3: she is still going to have supervised visitation limited until
6:33
Speaker 3: the next hearing in June, where the judge is going
6:37
Speaker 3: to reassess the supervision and the custody split.
6:42
Speaker 2: What seemed really interesting to me was Dakota's friend and roommate,
6:47
Speaker 2: Crew Eaten. He expressed frustration with the outcome. He said,
6:51
Speaker 2: the outcome of this hearing was a joke, empathetic. He
6:57
Speaker 2: came to the court to support Zakota, and he's said
7:00
Speaker 2: that he was it was pretty shocking the way that
7:03
Speaker 2: the judge swayed that way, and he said that Taylor
7:08
Speaker 2: needs help. I don't trust her withever, it's almost an
7:12
Speaker 2: impossible battle when she's backed by ABC in Hulu, to
7:16
Speaker 2: which I'm like, there was no decision really made here
7:19
Speaker 2: besides the granting of you saying that they both have
7:22
Speaker 2: to stay away for three years. There's not really a
7:25
Speaker 2: decision when it came to Dakota. So what's he even
7:28
Speaker 2: referring to? You think?
7:29
Speaker 3: So, Ashley, I don't know that person. I'm a law nerd. Okay,
7:34
Speaker 3: I'm a low nerd, and I don't really care what
7:37
Speaker 3: he has to say. Frankly, no offense because I listened
7:41
Speaker 3: to the hearing. This was an independent judge that listened
7:45
Speaker 3: to both sides and came up with a very fair
7:50
Speaker 3: and reasonable opinion based on the evidence that was presented
7:55
Speaker 3: to him. There is abuse on both sides anybody who
8:01
Speaker 3: comes in. And why I did appreciate Taylor's attorney's advocacy
8:08
Speaker 3: is that he didn't run from the issue. He readily
8:13
Speaker 3: accepts her responsibility in this, says that she shouldn't have
8:18
Speaker 3: behaved this way, that she did show physical violence. However,
8:23
Speaker 3: she's working on it and Dakota plays a role in that,
8:28
Speaker 3: and that if he's not around, it doesn't seem to
8:32
Speaker 3: indicate that she will be violent toward others, which, by
8:35
Speaker 3: the way, the Guardian at lad Tom disagreed with a bit.
8:39
Speaker 2: Who is the guardian of So this is.
8:42
Speaker 3: The attorney that's appointed by the court for the child.
8:44
Speaker 2: Yes, I remember you telling us that last time. But
8:47
Speaker 2: so it's not a family member like when it said guardian.
8:51
Speaker 2: Is that just like somebody figuratively looking out for the child.
8:54
Speaker 2: It's not like they're babysitting him right now?
8:56
Speaker 3: No, no, no, this is this is the attorney who is
9:01
Speaker 3: advocating for the child. So the attorney is appointed solely
9:07
Speaker 3: to represent the best interests of the child. Okay, okay,
9:12
Speaker 3: So back to the guy that's upset with the outcome.
9:17
Speaker 3: He should have listened to the judge's ruling. He should
9:19
Speaker 3: have listened to the entire hearing because if he did,
9:22
Speaker 3: he would have heard that this was a two way,
9:26
Speaker 3: volatile street where both of them are abusive to each other,
9:31
Speaker 3: both of them. One fails to protect the child and engages.
9:36
Speaker 3: I mean, the judge said, look, she's pushing you with
9:40
Speaker 3: the child in your hand, and what do you do.
9:43
Speaker 3: You're holding a child, and what do you do instead
9:45
Speaker 3: of get out of there, you're recording it. You're recording it,
9:49
Speaker 3: and it seems like you're doing more to document it
9:53
Speaker 3: to get back at Taylor than you are to protect
9:58
Speaker 3: your child. So he still has Dakota still has primary
10:04
Speaker 3: custody of Ever and I don't know if that's going
10:08
Speaker 3: to change in June. It might. She still has supervised visitation.
10:14
Speaker 3: But in terms of mutual stay away orders, if you
10:18
Speaker 3: look at the judges ruling and you listen to the testimony,
10:24
Speaker 3: the evidence, this was a two way, combative, toxic, dysfunctional
10:30
Speaker 3: relationship where the judge is concerned that if he doesn't
10:35
Speaker 3: stop both of them, that if he doesn't issue orders
10:39
Speaker 3: against both of them, they will continue to antagonize one another.
10:56
Speaker 2: Speaking of the video, Taylor's attorney brought up the video
11:01
Speaker 2: that you know ultimately went to TMZ and canceled or
11:04
Speaker 2: paused this season from airing. Dakota's lawyer denied that he
11:08
Speaker 2: leaked this video. Everybody speculates that it was Dakota. He
11:13
Speaker 2: even added that he told his publicist not to release
11:16
Speaker 2: the video. I don't know that. I mean, like under oath, right,
11:21
Speaker 2: but I don't know if I fully believe this. But
11:24
Speaker 2: if Taylor's team was able to find the source of
11:27
Speaker 2: who sold the video to TMZ, would she have any
11:30
Speaker 2: legal grounds as to like sue for something like defamation.
11:33
Speaker 3: You know, it's it's an interesting question that you know
11:38
Speaker 3: that you raise, you know, like an invasion of privacy
11:41
Speaker 3: claim perhaps, you know, the the defamation's very interesting.
11:46
Speaker 2: Because it's hard.
11:47
Speaker 3: Well not only that, I mean, you know, a truth,
11:50
Speaker 3: the truth is the defense. The truth is a complete
11:53
Speaker 3: defense to defamation. So the truth is that she threw
11:57
Speaker 3: these chairs and that she brought her child in the process,
12:01
Speaker 3: you know, invasion of privacy, harassment. I mean, those those
12:05
Speaker 3: are claims that she may have. Will we ever know
12:09
Speaker 3: definitively whether he released them. I don't know the answer
12:13
Speaker 3: to that, but I can tell you that I found
12:16
Speaker 3: Taylor's attorney's arguments pretty compelling and pretty persuasive. That the
12:24
Speaker 3: timing here, you know, certain things in the law that
12:28
Speaker 3: we argue, you know, they're just these these idea that
12:30
Speaker 3: this is just a mad coincidence. And you couple that
12:35
Speaker 3: with the declaration that the judge found credible. Whoever the
12:39
Speaker 3: person's name is Draper that said, look, he was angry
12:44
Speaker 3: about it, and he said, I'm going to get back
12:45
Speaker 3: at her and I'm going to release this video and
12:47
Speaker 3: it's going to destroy her. The judge found that credible.
12:52
Speaker 3: Now that did he go so far as to say
12:54
Speaker 3: I know that you released it. No, but did that
12:57
Speaker 3: play a role? Well, the judge in the court's opinion
13:03
Speaker 3: and finding certainly brought that up though it was relevant.
13:08
Speaker 2: And we will mention that Taylor's co star Jesse on
13:12
Speaker 2: Sacred Lives Mom and Wives, there's some footage out there
13:15
Speaker 2: of her saying that she knows Dakota is behind this
13:18
Speaker 2: selling of the video to TMZ, which I mean, of
13:22
Speaker 2: course he's somehow behind it. It was on his phone.
13:25
Speaker 3: Now, Ashley, I won't go so I don't know.
13:29
Speaker 2: I could somebody have stolen his phone.
13:31
Speaker 3: And then you know, I'm not sure if he released
13:35
Speaker 3: it or not. But I can assure you that Taylor's argument,
13:40
Speaker 3: Taylor's lawyer's argument was persuasive to this judge. I mean,
13:45
Speaker 3: this judge did talk about it. And what I thought
13:51
Speaker 3: was the interesting theme throughout this was the judge said,
13:56
Speaker 3: Taylor can't control her emotions. She has to learn to
13:59
Speaker 3: control her emotions. But Dakoto's actions are not just reactive,
14:06
Speaker 3: they are manipulative. They are fairly they're planned out. These recordings.
14:16
Speaker 3: I mean, you don't see real time video like this
14:20
Speaker 3: over and over and over again, and so anytime there
14:23
Speaker 3: seems to be something where she is physically abusive, he's
14:29
Speaker 3: recording it. And the judge commented on that. So I
14:35
Speaker 3: do think that both of these parties need to be
14:40
Speaker 3: kept away from each other. I think that the judge
14:42
Speaker 3: was right that both sides cause this combustible, toxic situation
14:51
Speaker 3: where if they're not legally prohibited from being together, this
14:55
Speaker 3: will happen again. Yeah.
14:58
Speaker 2: Taylor's attorney also brought up that during the twenty twenty
15:01
Speaker 2: three assault video incident, that Taylor had been struggling, particularly
15:06
Speaker 2: because she'd experienced two misharriages. Why do you think that
15:10
Speaker 2: her attorney would have made a point to talk about that, Well.
15:13
Speaker 3: I think that that. I think that it was to
15:15
Speaker 3: put in context that there were some mental stressors in
15:20
Speaker 3: her life. He also readily admitted that there was alcohol
15:25
Speaker 3: involved during that that portion of his argument that there
15:29
Speaker 3: was alcohol involved, that she had suffered these miscarriages, and
15:33
Speaker 3: that those are the things that contributed to why she
15:38
Speaker 3: acted out violently physically. And was it to garner some sympathy, maybe,
15:46
Speaker 3: but it was it was appropriate and in the context
15:50
Speaker 3: of the conversation that they were having.
15:53
Speaker 2: Now, he said that he recommended that they like the
15:59
Speaker 2: parenting time, you know, like they don't hold I guess,
16:01
Speaker 2: like hold off on ever changing the schedule until the
16:05
Speaker 2: next hearing on the first Since it's recommended, does that
16:11
Speaker 2: mean they have a.
16:12
Speaker 3: Choice not to follow it? No?
16:14
Speaker 2: No, okay, So it's just a nice way of saying,
16:16
Speaker 2: very sad, it's a very bad idea.
16:19
Speaker 3: And so he is waiting on these assessments. And what
16:24
Speaker 3: an assessment generally is is that professionals in the area
16:30
Speaker 3: of family law and custodial arrangements are deciding what is
16:38
Speaker 3: the safest thing for this child? Does this child? Does
16:44
Speaker 3: Taylor need a supervisor anytime she's around her child, someone
16:49
Speaker 3: to supervise her. Do they feel that the child now
16:54
Speaker 3: that there is a protective order prohibiting these two from
16:59
Speaker 3: being together, will will a supervisor be necessary? Remember before
17:07
Speaker 3: all of this, before this protective order, Taylor was the
17:11
Speaker 3: primary caregiver to ever she had. I think it was
17:15
Speaker 3: either seventy thirty eighty seventy. Yeah, so this is a
17:20
Speaker 3: major shift for this child. And I talked about this
17:23
Speaker 3: last time. I don't care the age. Think about the
17:27
Speaker 3: idea that the person that's primarily been taking care of
17:30
Speaker 3: you only has eight hours of supervised visit a week.
17:35
Speaker 3: That's a major, major shift, and so in these assessments
17:38
Speaker 3: they're going to talk about the impact that's having on
17:41
Speaker 3: the child. Assessments in this setting only focus on what
17:45
Speaker 3: is in the best interests of the child, so they're
17:48
Speaker 3: concerned about safety, of course, but also continuing those very
17:54
Speaker 3: close bonds with your parents and how important that is.
17:59
Speaker 2: Do you feel comfortable making a guess as to what
18:03
Speaker 2: you think the outcome is going to be in June.
18:05
Speaker 3: Well, in the sense that, given what I heard from
18:08
Speaker 3: the judge, I think that the judge is going to
18:10
Speaker 3: loosen up some of this custodial supervision. I think that
18:16
Speaker 3: he wants there to be safety measures in place, that
18:20
Speaker 3: she's getting therapy, that she is doing all the things
18:26
Speaker 3: that she needs to do according to whatever DCFS has requested.
18:31
Speaker 3: And by the way, this is the same with Dakota.
18:33
Speaker 3: I mean, he wasn't. He wasn't particularly, He did not
18:38
Speaker 3: say that Dakota was blameless, and he did not he said, look,
18:41
Speaker 3: I am concerned that Dakota is going to use this,
18:43
Speaker 3: this fact that she has supervised visits to manipulate the situation.
18:47
Speaker 3: So I think that he will. He will make sure
18:50
Speaker 3: that both parties know that they're on a very short
18:53
Speaker 3: leash here and that if they do anything to go
18:56
Speaker 3: sideways and violate these protect orders of protect a criminal
19:01
Speaker 3: case can can follow. But I think that he will
19:04
Speaker 3: loosen up some of the restrictions for Taylor.
19:19
Speaker 2: What criminal charges would they be facing if either of
19:21
Speaker 2: them were to violate the orders?
19:23
Speaker 3: A violation of a protection order?
19:26
Speaker 2: What does that mean?
19:26
Speaker 3: Like, could they go to jail? You can go to jail, yes, okay, yeah,
19:30
Speaker 3: all right.
19:31
Speaker 2: Then some cases allow for cameras in the courtroom and
19:35
Speaker 2: some do not. There were cameras this time around. What
19:40
Speaker 2: are the pros and cons to having cameras in the courtroom?
19:42
Speaker 3: Well, I think you know, some some states absolutely ban them, right,
19:46
Speaker 3: some states span them, and all federal courts span them.
19:51
Speaker 3: The benefit is transparency. It's very important for the public.
19:55
Speaker 3: And I'm not talking about high profile cases. I'm talking
19:59
Speaker 3: about every day cases. The idea that it is open
20:03
Speaker 3: to the public, that you can see what a how
20:07
Speaker 3: a judge is ruling, how a case is being presented.
20:11
Speaker 3: So it's transparency for the for the public to know
20:15
Speaker 3: that our criminal justice system treats everybody fairly. Everybody is
20:20
Speaker 3: is given all the same constitutional rights. You know, the
20:24
Speaker 3: afforded the right to cross examined, to present witnesses, to
20:27
Speaker 3: present evidence on your own, behalf all of those things.
20:30
Speaker 3: So so is a general believer in an open courtroom.
20:34
Speaker 3: I strongly believe that transparency and people being able to
20:38
Speaker 3: understand that the criminal justice system works works in a transparent,
20:44
Speaker 3: open to the public manner, is very important to me.
20:48
Speaker 3: There are certain exceptions that I absolutely believe so in
20:52
Speaker 3: a any type of sexual assault, sexual violence, if the
20:57
Speaker 3: if the victim does not want to go on camera,
21:00
Speaker 3: does not want to have any of their testimony on camera,
21:07
Speaker 3: they should absolutely have that right, no question. Miners the
21:10
Speaker 3: same thing. Miners should absolutely be protected. When there is
21:15
Speaker 3: a discussion of the miners well being or personal matters,
21:19
Speaker 3: or matters of sexual or domestic violence, a court may say,
21:24
Speaker 3: you know, we do not want to televise this, and
21:28
Speaker 3: that makes a lot of sense to me. That makes
21:30
Speaker 3: a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately, there's only really
21:35
Speaker 3: media requests when it's a high publicity case, right, So
21:40
Speaker 3: for the most part, we're only seeing cases that are
21:42
Speaker 3: televised because they have some public interest, and so are
21:48
Speaker 3: we sort of looking in to scrutinize and to mock
21:54
Speaker 3: and to and because of our inherent interests of chaos
21:58
Speaker 3: or whatever that is versus the we're looking at this
22:03
Speaker 3: to make sure that everybody's treated the same and that
22:06
Speaker 3: there's open transparency in courts. That's something that I probably
22:12
Speaker 3: cannot answer, but from a general standpoint, I think that
22:16
Speaker 3: having open court rooms so that the public, so that
22:21
Speaker 3: the public can see what's going on, is so very
22:24
Speaker 3: important to our system.
22:26
Speaker 2: Did this live stream on court TV or online?
22:29
Speaker 3: It did? It? Did?
22:31
Speaker 4: It?
22:32
Speaker 2: Did?
22:32
Speaker 1: Yeah?
22:32
Speaker 2: Is there anything that I missed from the outcome of
22:35
Speaker 2: this hearing?
22:36
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, look, I think that the judge has
22:39
Speaker 3: been very clear here. There are no winners in this case, right,
22:43
Speaker 3: I mean, both have protective orders against them. That's three
22:47
Speaker 3: years that these two if the if the protective order
22:52
Speaker 3: is not changed at some point in the future, these
22:55
Speaker 3: two will be prohiboted from having any contact to the
22:59
Speaker 3: next three years. So there are no winners here. Because
23:03
Speaker 3: they share a child and co parenting is difficult enough.
23:08
Speaker 3: It's difficult enough, but I think that they hopefully can
23:13
Speaker 3: take from this that their child is most important and
23:18
Speaker 3: they have to do everything they can to make sure
23:21
Speaker 3: that their child is safe and free of harmon then
23:25
Speaker 3: work Arnie or Carnie on themselves. I mean, each of
23:29
Speaker 3: them can work on themselves. Dakota is not blameless here,
23:33
Speaker 3: He is not blameless. You know, they both return to
23:37
Speaker 3: this relationship, this toxic dysfunctional those are the judges words,
23:41
Speaker 3: this toxic dysfunctional relationship. They return over and over again.
23:46
Speaker 3: I said it that the last podcast time I was
23:49
Speaker 3: on your show, and I'll say it again. These two
23:51
Speaker 3: appear to be addicted to each other, and like any
23:54
Speaker 3: other addiction, they have to work on it. They have
23:57
Speaker 3: to work on it.
23:57
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much, Alison. I'm sure if you
24:01
Speaker 2: would be down, we would love to have you back
24:04
Speaker 2: in June when we maybe get more Maybe it'll be
24:09
Speaker 2: you know, I just feel like all these things usually
24:12
Speaker 2: drag out, right. Yeah, So is there even a chance
24:16
Speaker 2: that June we may not have an answer.
24:20
Speaker 3: I don't think so. And the reason I'm saying that
24:22
Speaker 3: is because June is plenty of time to get the
24:24
Speaker 3: assessments done, and it is if the judge is going
24:27
Speaker 3: to change, I mean, if the judge is going to
24:29
Speaker 3: change the supervision at all. It is quite unfair to
24:33
Speaker 3: the child and to Taylor that she's has such limited
24:37
Speaker 3: access and time with her son.
24:40
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, well, thank you Allison, my pleasure. We
24:44
Speaker 2: will hopefully see you next time.
24:46
Speaker 3: My pleasure. Would love to thank you so much.
24:48
Speaker 2: All right, until next time, I've been Ashley, Bye bye.
24:52
Speaker 1: Follow the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast on
24:55
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio or subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.