Latest / Reality with The King / BREAKING NEWS: Osef-NO Way!

Transcript

BREAKING NEWS: Osef-NO Way! · Reality with The King

0:03
Speaker 1: Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
0:07
Speaker 2: I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
0:10
Speaker 2: favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
0:13
Speaker 2: and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
0:17
Speaker 2: Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
0:23
Speaker 2: Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
0:27
Speaker 2: addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
0:31
Speaker 2: scripted as well. Okay, rain Drops, i know it's late
0:39
Speaker 2: on a Friday night, and I'm pretty sure.
0:43
Speaker 1: You guys had plans, so.
0:47
Speaker 2: I don't take it for granted that you guys hopped
0:49
Speaker 2: onto Reality with the King Live as Courtney Parker and
0:54
Speaker 2: I are going to do a special edition of Reality
0:58
Speaker 2: Crime Stories based on the break News.
1:01
Speaker 1: We have Judge Tyranny who is back.
1:04
Speaker 2: As well, so I'm gonna bring them in in a second,
1:06
Speaker 2: but I want to make sure that I give enough
1:09
Speaker 2: time so that everybody is here because we haven't done
1:14
Speaker 2: a live in a very long time when it came
1:19
Speaker 2: to a situation like this, So.
1:25
Speaker 1: I'll do my shot out to the rain draws high.
1:28
Speaker 1: Candice speaks. We are all rooting for you. Wendy.
1:32
Speaker 2: I saw that I'm late because I was doing my research.
1:40
Speaker 2: So before I bring in Courtney Parker and Judge Tyranny,
1:45
Speaker 2: I do want to say this. The reason why I
1:48
Speaker 2: wanted to make sure to have this conversation later in
1:51
Speaker 2: the day is because I wanted to make sure, out
1:54
Speaker 2: of respect to my friendship with doctor Wendy, that I
2:01
Speaker 2: and Eddie that I wasn't just going to talk about
2:06
Speaker 2: it immediately after came out. I'm fully aware that when
2:12
Speaker 2: this news hit this morning, that more stuff is gonna
2:16
Speaker 2: come out later in the day, so I wanted to
2:18
Speaker 2: make sure that I wasn't going to just talk about
2:23
Speaker 2: stuff that I wasn't.
2:26
Speaker 1: Fully informed about.
2:28
Speaker 2: Okay, this is serious, so I wanted to take this seriously,
2:32
Speaker 2: and I want to make sure that I did all
2:34
Speaker 2: of my research. I want to make sure that I've
2:37
Speaker 2: read every single document. It's the reason why I wanted
2:41
Speaker 2: to make sure to bring on a sitting judge, you know,
2:45
Speaker 2: Judge Tyranny, to really break down not the case because
2:49
Speaker 2: the case is still pending, so she's unable obviously to
2:54
Speaker 2: break down the case it's pending, but to answer some
2:58
Speaker 2: legal questions that I know that you guys wanted to know,
3:02
Speaker 2: so I wanted to make sure that before I did
3:05
Speaker 2: this live, I have all the information. So once again,
3:08
Speaker 2: I want to thank you all for taking time out
3:10
Speaker 2: of your Friday evening to hop on this live. So
3:16
Speaker 2: I feel like we have everyone in here, and let's
3:20
Speaker 2: get round in too, and let's bring in my co
3:22
Speaker 2: host Corney Parker and Judge Tyranny.
3:27
Speaker 3: Hello, good evening.
3:30
Speaker 1: How's it going party? You're muted, I.
3:35
Speaker 4: Said, Hi, Carlos, Hi, rain.
3:37
Speaker 1: Drops, how's it going?
3:41
Speaker 2: So listen, let's get right into where the rain drops
3:43
Speaker 2: have been waiting for hours.
3:46
Speaker 1: To have this conversation.
3:48
Speaker 2: So what I want to do first, Courtney and Judge
3:51
Speaker 2: Tyranny is I want to break down exactly what the
3:56
Speaker 2: court documents are stating so that everybody is fully aware
4:02
Speaker 2: of what is going on. Okay, So rain jobs, listen up,
4:07
Speaker 2: because we are here to report on the facts and
4:10
Speaker 2: to also answer any questions that you guys may have
4:15
Speaker 2: in the chat. Okay, So first thing first, this is
4:19
Speaker 2: the reported timeline.
4:21
Speaker 1: All right. April of twenty twenty.
4:23
Speaker 2: Four, the Oscephos reported a burglary at their Fennsburg, Maryland
4:29
Speaker 2: home while they were on vacation in Jamaica. They told
4:34
Speaker 2: law enforcement their bid room and closets were ransacked and
4:39
Speaker 2: that design of jewelry and handbags were stolen. The alleged
4:44
Speaker 2: losses were over four hundred thousand dollars worth of luxury goods.
4:50
Speaker 2: Perth the court documents and media reports, this is when
4:53
Speaker 2: the investigation was conducted, and these are the findings.
4:59
Speaker 1: Investigator said.
5:00
Speaker 2: The supposed entry point, a bathroom window nine feet above
5:06
Speaker 2: a deck, showed no signs of forced entry. Adt and
5:13
Speaker 2: ring camera footage did not show suspicious activity during the
5:18
Speaker 2: period of the reported breaking. Police later discovered some of
5:24
Speaker 2: the stolen items. Alleged stolen items had been returned for
5:30
Speaker 2: refunds months before the burglary. Okay, social media posts allegedly
5:38
Speaker 2: showed doctor Wendy wearing jewelry claimed to be stolen.
5:44
Speaker 1: All Right.
5:45
Speaker 2: Investigators then executed a search warrant and reportedly found at
5:52
Speaker 2: least fifteen items that were part.
5:55
Speaker 1: Of the original stolen list.
5:59
Speaker 2: So they upon that this is what occurred in the timeline,
6:05
Speaker 2: and these are the charges that has happened. As of
6:09
Speaker 2: October of this year, which is this month, the Carroll
6:13
Speaker 2: County Grand Jury induided both Wendy and Eddie Ossepho. Wendy
6:18
Speaker 2: Osepho is being charged with some accounts of insurance fraud,
6:23
Speaker 2: eight counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count
6:29
Speaker 2: of making a false statement to a police officer. Eddie
6:33
Speaker 2: is being charged with nine counts of insurance fraud, eight
6:38
Speaker 2: counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count of
6:43
Speaker 2: making a false statement to a police officer. So before
6:49
Speaker 2: I bring in Courtney and the judge, I do want
6:52
Speaker 2: to make sure that I also explained to the rain
6:54
Speaker 2: drops what the police is a ledging that they discovered. Okay,
7:03
Speaker 2: they are alleging, and I do want to read this
7:06
Speaker 2: ver betim based on the actual documents that was recently
7:13
Speaker 2: revealed to TMZ. So I want to take the time
7:17
Speaker 2: out to read that so you guys can follow along
7:21
Speaker 2: in terms of what exactly happened.
7:24
Speaker 1: All right. So here we go, all right, So not
7:32
Speaker 1: my life going on, child, Here we go, all right.
7:36
Speaker 2: So this is the actual core document that I'm reading from,
7:40
Speaker 2: So this is this is what they are alleging. On Thursday,
7:44
Speaker 2: October ninth, twenty twenty five, the defendant was indicted by
7:49
Speaker 2: the grand jury for seven consum Insurance FRAUL. I've read
7:53
Speaker 2: you guys saw that, and a warrant was issued and
7:57
Speaker 2: bail was set at fifty thousand dollars. I told you
8:02
Speaker 2: guys what the allegations were already based on the court documents.
8:09
Speaker 2: This is what they're alleging right now. They're saying that
8:14
Speaker 2: investigation determinent that On April eighth, the Osephos initiated three
8:21
Speaker 2: separate insurance claims for the burglary and theft, Travelers Insurance,
8:27
Speaker 2: Jewelers Mutual Insurance, and Home Site Insurance Company for the alleged.
8:33
Speaker 1: Losses suffered while they were away.
8:36
Speaker 2: They're alleging that Eddie gave recorded statements to two of
8:40
Speaker 2: the insurance companies regarding a list of stolen items he provided.
8:45
Speaker 2: He was asked whether any of the items on the
8:48
Speaker 2: list have their return, which he denied. He was asked
8:51
Speaker 2: if he had other insurance, but fell to disclose. The
8:55
Speaker 2: Home Site and Jewelerers that he was also making a
8:59
Speaker 2: claim were Travelers Insurance. They both signed a sworn statement.
9:05
Speaker 1: Of loss, which was notarized.
9:08
Speaker 2: The total amount of loss claim on the sworn statement
9:12
Speaker 2: was for the loss of twenty five hundreds for the
9:14
Speaker 2: building and four hundred and fifty thousand dollars estimated for
9:19
Speaker 2: contents personal property. He included an inventory of reporter stolen
9:24
Speaker 2: items along with the receipts that claim was denied figure
9:30
Speaker 2: to disclose the policy with Travelers Insurance. In the original
9:34
Speaker 2: claim submit on April eighth to Travelers, Eddie confirmed that
9:38
Speaker 2: he and his wife were wearing their anniversary bands when
9:43
Speaker 2: the loss occurred. However, Eddie called Travelers Insurance on April
9:47
Speaker 2: tenth and said he needed to update their claim, stating
9:51
Speaker 2: his wife's gold diamond anniversary band was missing. That same day,
9:56
Speaker 2: Traveler's Insurance settled that claim for twenty five one thousand,
10:00
Speaker 2: three hundred and eighty dollars, which included the replacement price
10:04
Speaker 2: of the band, which was four thousand, five hundred dollars.
10:08
Speaker 1: One more thing.
10:09
Speaker 2: After the initial reported claim, on April eleven, they both
10:13
Speaker 2: signed and submitted letters to the jeweler's mutual insurance claiming
10:17
Speaker 2: the burglary occurred and items were reported stolen. At the
10:22
Speaker 2: request of Jewelry's mutual insurance, the Osephas provided an initial
10:26
Speaker 2: list of fifty seven stolen items. Included on that list
10:31
Speaker 2: was Windy's gold diamond anniversary band that was already reported
10:35
Speaker 2: in the Travelers insurance claim. Now, on April twenty second,
10:39
Speaker 2: Eddie was interviewed during a recorded call and did not
10:43
Speaker 2: make any mention of the jewelry claim or payout with
10:47
Speaker 2: the Travelers. They're saying that deputies were suspicious of the
10:51
Speaker 2: circumstances of the burglary and the records from stores where
10:58
Speaker 2: some of the items were purchased, along with social media
11:02
Speaker 2: and email accounts, and based on their investigation, they're allegend
11:06
Speaker 2: that they found that the items that.
11:09
Speaker 1: They claim were stolen were returned.
11:12
Speaker 2: Before the burglary, and they're alleging that a ring that
11:17
Speaker 2: they said was stolen they found Wendy to have warned
11:21
Speaker 2: that in a social media post. As of now, they
11:26
Speaker 2: are released on bond and now we're here to talk
11:32
Speaker 2: about exactly what is going on.
11:35
Speaker 1: So Courtney tell us some questions to ask.
11:40
Speaker 2: I want to start by asking Judge Tyranny this so
11:43
Speaker 2: Ray John's we are fortunate enough to have a sitting
11:47
Speaker 2: judge who's able to break down the law to us. Again,
11:50
Speaker 2: this isn't for us to have colorful commentary. I want
11:54
Speaker 2: to just stick to the law and stick to the facts.
11:57
Speaker 2: So Courtney has her questions. I'll start by asking, okay, judge,
12:03
Speaker 2: the nine counts of insurance fraud, but only eight counts
12:09
Speaker 2: of conspiracy insurance problem?
12:11
Speaker 1: Are those two different things? Like?
12:13
Speaker 2: What are the difference between counts of insurance fraud but
12:18
Speaker 2: other counts of conspiracy of insurance fraud?
12:23
Speaker 3: So I will just repeat again that I cannot speak
12:27
Speaker 3: on the marriage or the facts of this case. So
12:30
Speaker 3: I can't specifically say eight versus nine or nine versus eight.
12:35
Speaker 3: I can't give legal advice. But what I will tell
12:39
Speaker 3: you is that anytime that there is the allegations of
12:45
Speaker 3: a felony, it has to be presented before a grand
12:48
Speaker 3: jury and during the grand jury. This is not innocent
12:53
Speaker 3: or guilt. This is just simply does the prosecutor have
12:57
Speaker 3: enough evidence to move forward? And based on the whatever
13:04
Speaker 3: comes from the grand jury, they determine how much evidence
13:11
Speaker 3: that a prosecutor has put forth to actually bring charges.
13:17
Speaker 3: So in order to bring the charges forward, they have
13:21
Speaker 3: to present evidence to move forward to the grand jury,
13:25
Speaker 3: so depending on whatever was And what's really key about
13:29
Speaker 3: a grand jury indictment is that it is secret at
13:33
Speaker 3: the time so that the witnesses are protected. So at
13:40
Speaker 3: this time, you wouldn't technically know what was presented to
13:44
Speaker 3: the grand jury and what they decided until the charges
13:50
Speaker 3: are actually filed, and those charges would have been filed
13:53
Speaker 3: based on their conclusions from the evidence presented.
14:03
Speaker 5: I do have a question, because we all were very
14:06
Speaker 5: invested in the press conference today where the prosecutor made
14:14
Speaker 5: it very clear his intentions for filing, as well as
14:20
Speaker 5: the sheriff surrounding this their intentions on supporting the claims
14:27
Speaker 5: against Wendy and her husband, my question becomes. One of
14:33
Speaker 5: the things that stuck out to me was how their
14:36
Speaker 5: investigation started immediately from when the officers were boots on
14:41
Speaker 5: the ground at the house to questions in red flags
14:46
Speaker 5: posing how an alleged burglar got into a second story
14:52
Speaker 5: open window in a bathroom, Like all of the things
14:56
Speaker 5: that rose suspicion for officers on at the scene are
15:02
Speaker 5: now part of this indictment pending investigation as we speak.
15:08
Speaker 5: So when we look at that, when evidence of that
15:11
Speaker 5: magnitude is presented and it feels as though law enforcement
15:17
Speaker 5: felt like there were things kind of tricky and suspicious immediately,
15:23
Speaker 5: how then is that going to potentially come back to
15:27
Speaker 5: haunt the couple now as they're presenting new evidence saying
15:34
Speaker 5: we suspect we not only suspect fraud, but investigators from
15:40
Speaker 5: the insurance claim as well as our personal officers have
15:44
Speaker 5: started to scour.
15:46
Speaker 4: Your social media.
15:48
Speaker 5: We're looking at the crime scene and we're sending investigators
15:52
Speaker 5: back on the crime scene to make sure that it
15:56
Speaker 5: is your statements were reasonable and rational, which they're now
16:01
Speaker 5: discovering or not. What are we looking at in terms
16:05
Speaker 5: of them building a case and a case with prosecutor sticking.
16:13
Speaker 3: Okay, so I'm going to repeat it again because I
16:15
Speaker 3: think it's worth repeating. We have to be very clear
16:19
Speaker 3: to understand that a grand jury indictment has nothing to
16:24
Speaker 3: do with proof of innocent or guilt. It is simply
16:28
Speaker 3: enough evidence from an investigation that allows a case to
16:34
Speaker 3: move forward, where we now actually go into the specifics
16:38
Speaker 3: of a case, the evidence, the veracity of the evidence,
16:41
Speaker 3: the credibility of the witnesses, and so it's very very
16:45
Speaker 3: important anytime you're dealing with the case. I mean, it
16:49
Speaker 3: sounds cliche until you're actually in that moment. You are
16:53
Speaker 3: innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has the burden to
16:59
Speaker 3: prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of
17:03
Speaker 3: the charges. Now, of course, investigators and prosecutors do their
17:08
Speaker 3: investigations and they take their time. But anytime there is
17:14
Speaker 3: a I guess an allegation of wrongdoing, an investigation is
17:21
Speaker 3: going to occur, and you are going to follow the evidence.
17:26
Speaker 3: These are conclusions still, but they have to be proven
17:32
Speaker 3: in a court of law, and it has to happen
17:37
Speaker 3: through the presentation of evidence in court. And a lot
17:43
Speaker 3: of times I said this to you all before, a
17:47
Speaker 3: lot of times, especially with high profile cases, public opinion
17:53
Speaker 3: will come to a conclusion no evidence has been reported,
17:57
Speaker 3: no excellent nations have been presented, and so we are
18:02
Speaker 3: coming to these conclusions through public opinion that simply just
18:07
Speaker 3: may not be true or they may be incomplete. And
18:10
Speaker 3: I just do you want to caution people always whenever
18:14
Speaker 3: you're talking about allegations, especially allegations that are serious and
18:18
Speaker 3: could possibly carry up to if it's a state charge,
18:22
Speaker 3: anywhere from ten years in custody, a federal charge up
18:27
Speaker 3: to twenty years in custody, we should not jump to conclusions.
18:31
Speaker 3: We should let the evidence take us and lead the
18:34
Speaker 3: case and only rely on what is presented in court.
18:40
Speaker 3: Because there is a different standard in court than what
18:43
Speaker 3: is going to be put out into the media.
18:46
Speaker 1: I want to tell you this socording before we ask
18:47
Speaker 1: this question. I do want to ask you this.
18:51
Speaker 2: I everyone knows I am in law school. I go
18:56
Speaker 2: to the University of Reality with the King Law. I'm
19:00
Speaker 2: trying my best to like understand this and what what
19:03
Speaker 2: what I have learned by doing this the laws series
19:07
Speaker 2: that I'm doing is the fact that it's one thing
19:11
Speaker 2: for the prosecutors to detail their discovery along with the
19:21
Speaker 2: sheriff's department, to say we have enough evidence. They take
19:25
Speaker 2: it to the grand jury. The grand jury then and
19:27
Speaker 2: stumming when I'm wrong, Judge Tyranny. The grand jury then decides, yes,
19:32
Speaker 2: you have you have proven at this stage, right, you
19:36
Speaker 2: have proven Okay, so let me.
19:40
Speaker 1: Not proven you. The grand jury felt like, you have
19:46
Speaker 1: delivered enough of a case.
19:48
Speaker 2: You built enough of a case, right, You built enough
19:51
Speaker 2: of a case in order for us to move forward
19:54
Speaker 2: with an.
19:55
Speaker 3: Arrest to indict to see, so let's use that now.
20:01
Speaker 2: Uh.
20:01
Speaker 3: The grand jury basically says, there is enough smoke for
20:05
Speaker 3: you to see if it's a fire. Okay, there are
20:08
Speaker 3: no conclusions, there's no evidence of proof. Or guilt, and
20:12
Speaker 3: it's not the sheriff's apartment that would actually present to
20:16
Speaker 3: the grand jury. The sheriff does the investigation and turns
20:20
Speaker 3: over the information from the investigation to the prosecutor's office.
20:25
Speaker 3: The prosecutor office then presents that to the grand jury,
20:30
Speaker 3: and the grand jury decides if enough evidence has been
20:34
Speaker 3: presented to move forward with pursuing charges.
20:40
Speaker 2: And that's why you're InnoCentive proven guilty because as of now, listen,
20:46
Speaker 2: as of now, Eddie and Wendy are innocent because they
20:49
Speaker 2: have yet to be proven guilty.
20:51
Speaker 1: These are just charges.
20:53
Speaker 2: So the next app allegations, Yes, right, they're allegations, but
20:58
Speaker 2: there is there's still being Again, I'm gonna ask you this.
21:03
Speaker 2: We're there, they're being charged. So is there a difference
21:05
Speaker 2: between being charged and allegations.
21:10
Speaker 3: They're not the same in one, but they can be synonymous.
21:14
Speaker 3: So the the what they have been alleged of illegal
21:18
Speaker 3: activity and now they have been charged, and now the
21:22
Speaker 3: actual prosecutor has to prove their case because the standard
21:28
Speaker 3: is beyond a reasonable doubt always in a criminal case, okay,
21:35
Speaker 3: and that is a very high burden of proof, so
21:39
Speaker 3: that that's no easy fee.
21:41
Speaker 5: Right, As We've seen one of these other cases that
21:46
Speaker 5: just because you're charged in court, it is your responsibility
21:51
Speaker 5: prosecution's responsibility to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
21:57
Speaker 3: That's correct. It's their burden we did have, and.
22:01
Speaker 5: According to the press conference today, the prosecutor in this
22:04
Speaker 5: case feels very confident that they will be able to prove.
22:11
Speaker 5: He acknowledged that it's his responsibility, burden lies with him,
22:16
Speaker 5: but he is confident that the charges that they brought
22:19
Speaker 5: against them he will be able to prove. He was
22:22
Speaker 5: very adamant and confident within the press conference today. So
22:27
Speaker 5: we're going to be very interested to see how this
22:30
Speaker 5: all unfolds. One of the questions from the rain drops
22:33
Speaker 5: ab we see your question, and it's a good one.
22:37
Speaker 5: Did they know that they were being investigated from the jump?
22:43
Speaker 5: Do we think that they knew they were under investigation.
22:49
Speaker 3: That would probably be a question for Carlos. He would
22:54
Speaker 3: be more in tune with what you know. Maybe their
22:57
Speaker 3: state of mind is Again, those are specifics to the
22:59
Speaker 3: case that I cannot speak to. I can repeat that
23:04
Speaker 3: a grand jury is in secret, so evidence is presented
23:08
Speaker 3: in grand jury to secret. That doesn't mean that in
23:12
Speaker 3: any case, any witness hasn't been interviewed, but you would
23:19
Speaker 3: have to come to a conclusion if you take an
23:22
Speaker 3: example of a missing wife. So if a husband didn't
23:27
Speaker 3: actually participate in it, but he is going to be
23:30
Speaker 3: questioned by the investigators, is it reasonable that he may
23:35
Speaker 3: deduce that he is being investigated. Yes, because generally all
23:40
Speaker 3: the time, the first person we think of when someone
23:42
Speaker 3: goes missing is the closest person to them. But there
23:46
Speaker 3: may not be anything specific that says we are being
23:51
Speaker 3: you are actually being investigated until they state that to
23:55
Speaker 3: them or come and present charges from the grand jury.
24:02
Speaker 2: Justge Tarny, can you explain to us the difference between fraud,
24:06
Speaker 2: conspiracy and false statement charges?
24:10
Speaker 3: And I apologize because you did ask me that when
24:13
Speaker 3: we opened up, and I kind of was explaining something else.
24:17
Speaker 3: But I think that here's what's very The second two
24:24
Speaker 3: charges are related to the big charge. So the fraud
24:30
Speaker 3: is the charge, and that is when you have knowingly
24:35
Speaker 3: given false information or misrepresentation and someone has relied on it, okay,
24:44
Speaker 3: and you have caused harm. The key in the fraud
24:48
Speaker 3: to commit insurance fraud is intent. You have to knowingly
24:56
Speaker 3: do it. So then their other charge, the the charges
25:00
Speaker 3: that you mentioned to me with the conspiracy is very simple.
25:07
Speaker 3: It's just two or more people get together and decide
25:10
Speaker 3: to commit a crime.
25:12
Speaker 4: Okay.
25:14
Speaker 3: And lastly, making a foster report is exactly what it
25:18
Speaker 3: sounds like when you talk to the authorities, you did
25:21
Speaker 3: not tell the truth, and especially if you do it
25:25
Speaker 3: under oath or a sworn statement.
25:28
Speaker 1: Okay.
25:29
Speaker 3: And the foster report is generally most of the times
25:33
Speaker 3: going to be a misdemeanor, except in federal cases it
25:39
Speaker 3: can be a felony lying to the federal government.
25:43
Speaker 5: Got it.
25:43
Speaker 2: And the thing is, as of now, this is a
25:46
Speaker 2: state crime, not federal. So as of now it's a
25:53
Speaker 2: state crime. Could it go to the federal level though,
25:56
Speaker 2: judge tyranny? And if what has to happen for a
26:01
Speaker 2: state crime to reach federal in any case a fraud, well,
26:06
Speaker 2: it has.
26:07
Speaker 3: To actually be something that is going to break federal law.
26:14
Speaker 3: So there are certain things like a city organ discharge
26:19
Speaker 3: or a state charge that is related specifically to your jurisdiction,
26:24
Speaker 3: your city, your state. Sometimes the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction. Okay,
26:32
Speaker 3: you know, so we're just waking they're not going to
26:36
Speaker 3: have jurisdiction but in a case where we're talking about
26:41
Speaker 3: something like fraud, if there is any commerce that crosses
26:46
Speaker 3: over interstate, then you're going to see concurrent jurisdiction between
26:51
Speaker 3: a state and the federal government.
26:55
Speaker 1: Generally, they're going to.
27:00
Speaker 3: Have a discussion about who's proceeding, because you always want
27:04
Speaker 3: to think about in prosecution of cases, making sure that
27:07
Speaker 3: you're allocating public funds in a responsible manner. So it's
27:13
Speaker 3: very unlikely that you would see a state and federal
27:16
Speaker 3: prosecution at the same time.
27:21
Speaker 2: Got it.
27:22
Speaker 5: I do have a question, and Carlos, can you do
27:26
Speaker 5: you mind rereading the charges specifically so that we can
27:32
Speaker 5: really understand because I think when we hear the bigger.
27:37
Speaker 4: Charge of fraud and now I have at least I
27:41
Speaker 4: do have a.
27:42
Speaker 5: Better understanding, and hope the rain drops do as well
27:44
Speaker 5: have a better understanding of the conspiracy part. But when
27:48
Speaker 5: we listen to the sheriffs during the press conference say
27:53
Speaker 5: that actual man hours went into investigating a crime that
27:59
Speaker 5: didn't just happen to Wendy and her husband, but could
28:03
Speaker 5: also have affected the neighborhood in the community at large, that's.
28:07
Speaker 4: What they take into account. How then does it really
28:12
Speaker 4: How then does those.
28:16
Speaker 5: Charges against filing a false police report or giving false
28:21
Speaker 5: statements to the police. How does that kind of come
28:24
Speaker 5: in play when the police are thinking about it the
28:30
Speaker 5: larger scope, they're spending time, resources and energy looking for
28:35
Speaker 5: someone who just quite frankly didn't exist. How does that
28:43
Speaker 5: become an even more serious charge judge?
28:47
Speaker 4: If you can.
28:50
Speaker 3: So, again, a false statement to the police is always
28:58
Speaker 3: going to you know, be a crime, but generally if
29:10
Speaker 3: the it's a state case versus a federal case, it's
29:15
Speaker 3: going to be seen as sometimes a lower level case.
29:20
Speaker 3: If that makes sense, it does.
29:22
Speaker 5: It's a lower level A lower level charge to a
29:26
Speaker 5: bigger charge, though makes it.
29:30
Speaker 4: Different.
29:31
Speaker 5: Does a lower level charge attached to a much larger
29:35
Speaker 5: charge make it carry more weight? Potentially when somebody brings
29:41
Speaker 5: something like that in front of a judge, Well, every.
29:46
Speaker 3: Case is going to be decided on the merits and
29:50
Speaker 3: facts of that case, and so it's really hard to
29:54
Speaker 3: speculate on what would happen in the specific case. Remember
30:00
Speaker 3: one time a woman in the country, she made a
30:03
Speaker 3: false report about being kidnapped and missing, and it used
30:09
Speaker 3: a lot of manpower and time, and so that jurisdiction
30:15
Speaker 3: came down really hard on her because they wanted to
30:19
Speaker 3: send a message that when you make false statements, you
30:24
Speaker 3: take away from the police actually investigating crimes that could
30:28
Speaker 3: save lives. And I think that generally that is why
30:34
Speaker 3: it's such a big deal when you make a false report,
30:37
Speaker 3: because you're taking away from when the police could be
30:40
Speaker 3: out saving someone else's life or mitigating large damage. But
30:48
Speaker 3: it's still a serious charge on its own. Again, I
30:54
Speaker 3: didn't see the press conference. I don't know anything about
30:57
Speaker 3: the facts specifically of this case. I am here just
31:01
Speaker 3: really for educational commentary, because when things like this happen,
31:06
Speaker 3: especially in the public eye, it's very important for the
31:10
Speaker 3: public to understand because I always say that you have
31:15
Speaker 3: to know these things for your own personal life. The
31:19
Speaker 3: difference is that I'm not sure if it was a
31:22
Speaker 3: mistermeanor or felony charge. So that is what would differentiate
31:28
Speaker 3: whether it was more serious or equally serious. Did they
31:31
Speaker 3: charge or were they charged with a mistermeanor or a felony?
31:37
Speaker 1: Yes, And we'll have Corny talk about that too, because
31:39
Speaker 1: one thing I want to bring up is this.
31:42
Speaker 2: They are alleging that they were able to get into
31:46
Speaker 2: Eddie's emails, and they said that they found an email
31:51
Speaker 2: where he allegedly told Wendy to up the amount of
31:56
Speaker 2: the claims, adding things more to the claims that they
32:00
Speaker 2: were able to go a little bit over the maximum
32:04
Speaker 2: amount of what the home insurance agency was going to provide.
32:09
Speaker 2: What I want to ask you about that is this,
32:13
Speaker 2: does law enforcement have to get some sort of warrant
32:17
Speaker 2: to tap into your emails?
32:19
Speaker 1: Like?
32:19
Speaker 2: How were they able to find these How does law
32:22
Speaker 2: enforcement able to find emails without your permission?
32:27
Speaker 3: Yes, you absolutely have a warrant. It has to have
32:30
Speaker 3: a warrant, and it has to be executed by a judge.
32:33
Speaker 3: It may not necessarily be the judge in the case,
32:37
Speaker 3: but it has to be executed by a judge because
32:39
Speaker 3: a judge has to review the information that you have presented,
32:44
Speaker 3: stating the reason why you need to actually collect this evidence.
32:50
Speaker 2: And so.
32:52
Speaker 3: A share supartment or prosecutor or an investigator is always
32:58
Speaker 3: going to have to get a warrant. But again I
33:03
Speaker 3: go back to making sure that the public, especially the
33:10
Speaker 3: rain drops, are not making any conclusions at this point,
33:14
Speaker 3: because you know, it's like having a one sided conversation.
33:20
Speaker 3: They have put forth and said a lot of things,
33:22
Speaker 3: but now on the other side the defense side, they
33:26
Speaker 3: get to review everything. They get to review evidence, the veracity,
33:32
Speaker 3: the authenticity of it, They get to review the relevance
33:36
Speaker 3: of it. They get to a review if it was
33:41
Speaker 3: done procedurally and what is going to actually be included
33:48
Speaker 3: for a jury and a judge to decide ultimately what
33:52
Speaker 3: happens in the case. So in pre trial negotiations you
33:56
Speaker 3: go through actually going through all of the most in
34:01
Speaker 3: presenting the evidence to say this is what will be
34:04
Speaker 3: allowed to be presented in this case in court, and
34:08
Speaker 3: that is super important. So again I just I caution
34:14
Speaker 3: the public in any case, please allow the facts and
34:19
Speaker 3: the evidence to guide your journey. Do not jump ahead
34:24
Speaker 3: of the journey, but do be educated so that you
34:28
Speaker 3: understand exactly what is going on and that you are
34:32
Speaker 3: not making conclusions, you know, apprehensively or prematurely.
34:39
Speaker 5: Can we talk about Here's what I find fascinating, and
34:42
Speaker 5: I know this kind of goes to your question, Michael Smith.
34:48
Speaker 5: For one of the things that is being alleged is
34:53
Speaker 5: that they doubled itpped, so they file multiple insurance claims
35:00
Speaker 5: on the same item, and that drove up the price
35:04
Speaker 5: of what they actually collected on through several different insurance entities.
35:13
Speaker 5: What is shocking in all of this is that he
35:16
Speaker 5: is an attorney, so there were a lot of risk
35:20
Speaker 5: involved and will there be any kind I know you're saying,
35:23
Speaker 5: don't jump to the conclusions, but it's very hard not
35:28
Speaker 5: to at least be conscious of the fact that an attorney,
35:33
Speaker 5: a prominent attorney.
35:35
Speaker 4: Who's and his wife who is very visible on reality TV.
35:41
Speaker 5: They are you know, fan favorites, that they didn't have
35:48
Speaker 5: some idea. It's not you know me or just some
35:54
Speaker 5: regular person filing acclaim. It's somebody who actually has a
35:59
Speaker 5: clear understanding of the law and also consciously doing something
36:07
Speaker 5: that could appear as fraud, fraudulent.
36:14
Speaker 4: Or you know, just something shady.
36:18
Speaker 1: So I think the question is this though, is it?
36:21
Speaker 2: And I want to simpify for the brain drops, because
36:23
Speaker 2: again I don't to ask the questions for the brain
36:25
Speaker 2: drops to know is it illegal to claim a stolen
36:32
Speaker 2: item or more than one insurance company?
36:39
Speaker 3: That would be inconsistent with the law. But again I
36:44
Speaker 3: want to make sure we are talking in generalities and
36:52
Speaker 3: making you are making conclusions because you're stating that someone
36:56
Speaker 3: has consciously done something. It's IMpower to speak to someone's
37:01
Speaker 3: state of minde. That is what the legal process is for.
37:05
Speaker 3: That is what court is for, because intent must be proven.
37:10
Speaker 3: But I'm a judge, Carlos is in the law school
37:14
Speaker 3: of rain Drops, the I.
37:18
Speaker 4: Got my law degree from Law and Order University.
37:21
Speaker 3: Humans make mistakes. You cannot criminalize mistakes. There has to
37:30
Speaker 3: be intent. You have to knowingly and willingly break the law.
37:35
Speaker 3: You have to knowingly and willingly mislead someone. And that
37:40
Speaker 3: is why we must let the process lead in the courtroom,
37:45
Speaker 3: not play out in the media. Headlines sound great, but
37:50
Speaker 3: facts and evidence are what lead in a courtroom.
37:56
Speaker 1: Yes, no, agree.
37:57
Speaker 2: And that's the reason why I want to make sure
37:59
Speaker 2: to do this episode with you, because again I wanted
38:03
Speaker 2: to make sure that we had enough time to get
38:05
Speaker 2: all the facts that was presented, just based. And when
38:08
Speaker 2: I say facts, I'm not saying that what they're a
38:10
Speaker 2: legend is factual. I'm meaning facts in terms of things
38:13
Speaker 2: that were in the court documents.
38:15
Speaker 1: I want to make that very clear when I say that.
38:18
Speaker 2: In addition to that, it was more so of the
38:22
Speaker 2: generalities for anybody if it's doubled, if you double dip
38:27
Speaker 2: on assurance claim, whoever you are, and was that illegal.
38:31
Speaker 1: Now you answered that. Listen, you have to prove that
38:35
Speaker 1: this person had intent to do it.
38:37
Speaker 2: And I think at the end of the day, look
38:39
Speaker 2: the reason why people are saying you're innocent to prove
38:42
Speaker 2: and guilty, and why some people are even saying, well,
38:45
Speaker 2: why was Wendy and Eddie smiling in their mugshots? You know, look,
38:50
Speaker 2: Eddie is a lawyer, and perhaps there's way more information
38:56
Speaker 2: that we will find out as this case proceeds that
39:01
Speaker 2: really warrants whether or not intent was involved in these allegations.
39:07
Speaker 1: What I do want to ask you is this, Eddie
39:11
Speaker 1: is a lawyer. He has a law degree.
39:15
Speaker 2: If any lawyer, if any lawyer is convicted of a crime,
39:23
Speaker 2: whether it's a state crime, a federal crime, a misdemeanor
39:28
Speaker 2: or not, is that something to where you are disbarred
39:32
Speaker 2: from it or are there something that has to be
39:35
Speaker 2: to a high degree for that to happen?
39:37
Speaker 1: Right?
39:39
Speaker 3: So the first thing, again I'm not aware, but if
39:44
Speaker 3: you are a lawyer, then you actually graduate from law school.
39:48
Speaker 3: There are two things that happen. You have to actually
39:51
Speaker 3: pass the fitness test to sit for the bar, and
39:54
Speaker 3: then you have to sit for the bar and pass it.
39:58
Speaker 3: So I'm not sure if you are practicing attorney, because
40:02
Speaker 3: people graduate from law school all the time and they
40:04
Speaker 3: may not be practicing.
40:06
Speaker 1: Ah.
40:09
Speaker 3: So you have to be a practicing attorney licensed to
40:13
Speaker 3: a state in order to lose your license. So I
40:17
Speaker 3: just want to clarify that in each state you have
40:22
Speaker 3: to take a fitness test to sit for the bar examination,
40:25
Speaker 3: and then you actually have to pass the bar examination,
40:29
Speaker 3: and that is how you become a practicing lawyer in
40:32
Speaker 3: that state. But absolutely, if you are charged with a
40:36
Speaker 3: crime and convicted right that state bar is going to
40:44
Speaker 3: do an investigation and you will be given due diligence,
40:48
Speaker 3: just like in any other process. But if any lawyer
40:52
Speaker 3: is convicted of a crime, depending on the nature of
40:57
Speaker 3: the crime, especially a phony crime, their license is more
41:03
Speaker 3: than likely going to be revoked.
41:05
Speaker 4: In that state. Could they practice in another state?
41:10
Speaker 3: It is state by state, so the states would have
41:13
Speaker 3: to decide. Let's say I am licensed in the state
41:17
Speaker 3: of Georgia. If I lose my license in the state
41:20
Speaker 3: of Georgia, I still have to go apply in another state.
41:24
Speaker 3: That's the fitness test I'm talking about, where they do
41:28
Speaker 3: a basically a background check on you and check everything
41:32
Speaker 3: and say you can be trusted with someone else's life
41:38
Speaker 3: and financial matters.
41:41
Speaker 1: That's a fitness test.
41:43
Speaker 3: That's the fitness test. So you could go to law
41:45
Speaker 3: school and not be allowed to sit for the bar examination.
41:50
Speaker 3: You have to pass the fitness test first.
41:54
Speaker 2: As a fitness test is a background it's a deep.
41:59
Speaker 3: Guy background check, and it is not just a background
42:03
Speaker 3: check that relates to criminality. It relates to your financial matters.
42:07
Speaker 3: Like they want to make sure that anytime you're allowing
42:10
Speaker 3: someone to be entrusted with other people's lives and financial matters,
42:15
Speaker 3: that they are trustworthy.
42:17
Speaker 4: So if you.
42:19
Speaker 3: Like don't pay your bills on time, or have multiple
42:23
Speaker 3: lawsuits filed against you, you might be denied to sit
42:26
Speaker 3: for the bar after going to law school for three years.
42:30
Speaker 1: Wait, hold on, hold, I hold, I'll hold on, hold on,
42:32
Speaker 1: hold on, hold on. If I am in law school all.
42:38
Speaker 2: And in order for me to pass the fitness test,
42:42
Speaker 2: this background check is so deep that if you find
42:45
Speaker 2: that I pay my bills late, I could fail the
42:48
Speaker 2: fitness test.
42:50
Speaker 3: You could fail the fitness test after three years of
42:52
Speaker 3: law school, and we don't apply until our third year,
42:56
Speaker 3: and so you could have gone through that. But here's
42:58
Speaker 3: the thing in a lot of space.
43:01
Speaker 4: It's not.
43:03
Speaker 3: It's like any other tests. You can try again, so
43:07
Speaker 3: you can go resolve your matters and you can present
43:09
Speaker 3: your case again and come back and say, I have
43:13
Speaker 3: you know, been reformed. I've done this, this and this.
43:17
Speaker 3: I've got my life on path. I understood through this
43:20
Speaker 3: process and now I'm a better person, which is going
43:22
Speaker 3: to make me a better lawyer, because there are a
43:25
Speaker 3: lot of people in our community who have time, you know,
43:28
Speaker 3: trouble not paying their bills. But it is it's a
43:32
Speaker 3: devastating thing, to be honest with you. It happened to
43:35
Speaker 3: a guy I knew in law school, and it was
43:38
Speaker 3: devastating to him.
43:41
Speaker 2: M M.
43:44
Speaker 1: Okay.
43:45
Speaker 4: Yeah.
43:45
Speaker 5: Someone in the comments said it's a character as well
43:49
Speaker 5: as fitness test, absolutely, and I thought that was very
43:52
Speaker 5: interesting because there there was a distinction on the character.
43:57
Speaker 4: So your character.
44:00
Speaker 5: Is very as equally as important to this fitness test.
44:04
Speaker 3: Correct, Yes, it's the same thing character and fitness, so
44:09
Speaker 3: that it goes into your character. But which is why
44:13
Speaker 3: they use your financial background as a way to define
44:18
Speaker 3: your character. But they also use things like your school background,
44:22
Speaker 3: They use you know, your driving history. They review so
44:30
Speaker 3: many things in your life to make sure that you
44:33
Speaker 3: actually can be entrusted with the life and financial matters
44:37
Speaker 3: of the public.
44:39
Speaker 4: Got it.
44:40
Speaker 3: And we've said all that to say that it's very
44:44
Speaker 3: unlikely if I lose my license in one state that
44:48
Speaker 3: another state would actually grant me the right to actually
44:54
Speaker 3: try and pursue my license in their state.
44:58
Speaker 4: Is there going to be a way?
44:59
Speaker 5: And again we are dealing with a lot of hypotheticals
45:02
Speaker 5: because this is just unfolding. But in the event there
45:07
Speaker 5: there isn't redeeming quality here, right like, if this comes
45:12
Speaker 5: to show that he's actually guilty of this, loses his
45:17
Speaker 5: license only if he's a practicing attorney. I thought that
45:19
Speaker 5: was a good note and take away that I will
45:22
Speaker 5: take away. Is there like a grace period or is
45:27
Speaker 5: there a period of time where you could reapply for
45:31
Speaker 5: your license even after something like this happens should he
45:35
Speaker 5: be convicted.
45:37
Speaker 3: It is going to be based on the state. So
45:40
Speaker 3: each state is going to have different requirements, just like
45:43
Speaker 3: they have different laws and penalties. So the state that
45:47
Speaker 3: you know he applies to will depend.
45:51
Speaker 5: I know one of the rain drops ask a question
45:54
Speaker 5: from our from a loan I mean an insurance adjuster
46:00
Speaker 5: and the insurance adjuster in the comments stated that it
46:04
Speaker 5: is illegal to file multiple claims.
46:07
Speaker 4: And I do remember and recall.
46:12
Speaker 5: My purse got stolen, my you know, my credit cards,
46:16
Speaker 5: things were in there when I filled it out for
46:20
Speaker 5: my credit cards as well as my homeowner's insurance. They
46:25
Speaker 5: do ask you if you filed a claim with another
46:29
Speaker 5: company to list it, list the things that you're claiming
46:33
Speaker 5: with that company versus what you're claiming there.
46:38
Speaker 4: Those documents, especially if you're.
46:41
Speaker 5: In a state of you know, shock or dismay, can
46:47
Speaker 5: become confusing because what you might be able to, what
46:53
Speaker 5: might be covered through let's say AMEX, is not necessarily
46:57
Speaker 5: going to be covered through anything else that you you've
47:02
Speaker 5: gotten stolen. So there is a good chance considering that
47:08
Speaker 5: that I really do hope that it was more confusing
47:12
Speaker 5: than just malicious, because though it's just.
47:16
Speaker 4: One can be right.
47:18
Speaker 3: I think that you know, you just gave a great
47:21
Speaker 3: example of why intent is so important and fraud because
47:25
Speaker 3: you know, we're humans. We make human errors. Sometimes people
47:29
Speaker 3: don't understand the language. Sometimes there's miscommunication between family members
47:34
Speaker 3: or spouses. Sometimes the record keeping is a little sloppy. Again,
47:42
Speaker 3: the intent is really important.
47:47
Speaker 1: That's a good question.
47:48
Speaker 2: So a range Job asked, So, what's interesting about this
47:52
Speaker 2: is a married couple who are being charged for allegedly
47:58
Speaker 2: committing crime within the same household, within insurance, but they
48:03
Speaker 2: have different counts. What I will say is this, I'm
48:06
Speaker 2: not a lawyer, but what I will say similarly to
48:09
Speaker 2: Teresa Judais and Joe Judais.
48:11
Speaker 1: Range dropped it, so you all know. But I'll have
48:14
Speaker 1: to judge answer that she wants to.
48:15
Speaker 2: But what I can say based on my knowledge of
48:17
Speaker 2: Teresa and Joe, a married couple who both were arrested
48:23
Speaker 2: and charged and both sent us to jail, they went
48:29
Speaker 2: to trial separately because and you tell me if I'm wrong, Judge,
48:34
Speaker 2: the law views you as individuals, so you're in some cases.
48:40
Speaker 1: So I'm assuming in this case that Eddie and Wendy
48:44
Speaker 1: possibly will go to trial.
48:47
Speaker 3: Separately, and if there be any case when there are
48:51
Speaker 3: co defendants, you can have a trial. Again, we always
48:55
Speaker 3: are talking about the use of public funds, and so
48:59
Speaker 3: we all always want to make sure that the government
49:03
Speaker 3: is responsibly spending the public's money because the money belongs
49:09
Speaker 3: to the public in all of these cases, and so
49:13
Speaker 3: you have the right to try any co defendant together,
49:18
Speaker 3: but equally, because these are criminal charges and each defendant
49:24
Speaker 3: has a right to their own defense, they can file
49:28
Speaker 3: for emotions to separate their trials. So again that's why
49:33
Speaker 3: you have to and I just keep repeating this, you
49:35
Speaker 3: have to judge each case based on its own facts, merits,
49:40
Speaker 3: and circumstances. It's really hard to predict, which is why
49:45
Speaker 3: we shouldn't. We should really follow the evidence and just
49:52
Speaker 3: what is presented in court, including the motions, because that
49:56
Speaker 3: would be a motion that would be filed in court
49:58
Speaker 3: either to move forward together or to separate the trials.
50:03
Speaker 2: M What what I do want to get into is this,
50:08
Speaker 2: and first of all, Judge, thank you so much for
50:10
Speaker 2: your insight, because I want to make sure that we
50:12
Speaker 2: spend time really dissecting the law, because, like you said,
50:15
Speaker 2: there's so much information going out here that I want
50:17
Speaker 2: to make sure that we were able to.
50:19
Speaker 1: Sort of talk about the law instead of the relatiousness.
50:23
Speaker 2: Now, what I will say is, as we transition into
50:26
Speaker 2: more breaking news, Courtney Parker, who also is a Reality
50:31
Speaker 2: to Be producer, what.
50:33
Speaker 1: Came out tonight is the fact is the fact that
50:41
Speaker 1: there's a news show that's appearing.
50:43
Speaker 2: I Believe on Bravo and Peacock called White Swap, and
50:47
Speaker 2: doctor Wendy is a part of White Swap. It has
50:51
Speaker 2: been reported today that the network has decided to pull
50:57
Speaker 2: that episode as a Now.
51:01
Speaker 5: Wow, and I was just reading that the they're they're
51:10
Speaker 5: also talking about delaying next week's premiere to the following week.
51:18
Speaker 1: Well, no premiere on Sunday.
51:20
Speaker 5: This the fourteenth premiere is now being possibly moved to
51:28
Speaker 5: next week.
51:30
Speaker 2: Oh you mean the premiere, Wife Soma? Sorry, yes, Wifeah yeah,
51:33
Speaker 2: So okay, So what Courneya says? She's right, So Wife
51:38
Speaker 2: Swap was supposed to premiere on October fourteenth, rain Drops,
51:43
Speaker 2: which is Tuesday. Courneya is saying that, yes, they pulled
51:49
Speaker 2: the episode with Wendy in it, and now that they
51:54
Speaker 2: may be pushing back the premiere. The only thing I
51:56
Speaker 2: can assume, I can assume as a producer is if
52:00
Speaker 2: they're pushing back the premiere, I wonder if doctor Wendy
52:05
Speaker 2: was in the first episode.
52:06
Speaker 4: Absolutely absolutely, And I'm saying that with certainty.
52:10
Speaker 5: Because we've all been there when your show was supposed
52:14
Speaker 5: to premiere there was all this media attention. Networks are
52:21
Speaker 5: very calculated in their rollout so there's always the piggyback
52:25
Speaker 5: of There's always the piggyback of promotion, whoever is hot.
52:32
Speaker 5: I did a show recently and there was a tragedy
52:36
Speaker 5: surrounding one of our celebrities.
52:38
Speaker 4: This particular celebrity lost.
52:41
Speaker 5: Two family members within the same week of my show premiering.
52:46
Speaker 5: She was my first episode. We ended up having to
52:50
Speaker 5: move her to the third episode because of all the promotion.
52:55
Speaker 5: We didn't want to be insensitive, the network didn't want
52:57
Speaker 5: to be insensitive. We needed to do immediate damage control.
53:02
Speaker 5: So if they were the first episode, which I'm very
53:06
Speaker 5: confident in assuming that they were, that's why they have to,
53:12
Speaker 5: you know, recalibrate and they have to shuffle the episodes
53:17
Speaker 5: and make whatever number two was number one so that
53:21
Speaker 5: they don't mess up the network calendar and the show's
53:25
Speaker 5: calendar of production.
53:28
Speaker 1: What is so interesting? Yeah, yeah, and it is, and
53:31
Speaker 1: it is and it is and listen.
53:34
Speaker 2: One of the brands asked a good question, Carlos, why
53:36
Speaker 2: would they do that? Why would a network pull the episode?
53:39
Speaker 2: So again I'm speaking in generals, I to speak to
53:42
Speaker 2: a brama representative, but what I can say is I
53:46
Speaker 2: think we have to look at it this way. Wife
53:49
Speaker 2: Swap is a very different show than Real Housewives, right,
53:53
Speaker 2: the Real Housewives, as we know, we saw the premier
53:57
Speaker 2: episode Potomac. We saw that it opened up with Karen
54:01
Speaker 2: getting out of jail for her DUI conviction. We saw
54:04
Speaker 2: that Teresa had to turn herself in go to jail.
54:09
Speaker 2: Was then Camus follow her coming back home. I think
54:14
Speaker 2: on Housewives that may be something that Okay, let's follow
54:18
Speaker 2: the reality. The difference rain drops between Housewives and Wife Swap.
54:24
Speaker 2: Wife Swap based on the show that was on I
54:28
Speaker 2: believe it was Lifetime. For my mistaken that's a different show,
54:33
Speaker 2: and it's different. It's more wholesome. It's also a show
54:37
Speaker 2: that you know you're in these people's homes.
54:41
Speaker 1: You know. That show is more comedy.
54:44
Speaker 2: It's more so like, oh if I could live in
54:47
Speaker 2: your house one day, what would that feel like? So
54:51
Speaker 2: it's a very different show tonally than a Real Housewives.
54:55
Speaker 2: And I think the other thing too is, look, this
54:59
Speaker 2: is a brand new show, and the last thing you
55:04
Speaker 2: want for a brand new show a series premiere is
55:10
Speaker 2: this level of scandal.
55:11
Speaker 1: Now, granted, the range jobs in the comments, but Carlos
55:14
Speaker 1: the Rangers will be high. I agree with you, But
55:17
Speaker 1: I think on some.
55:20
Speaker 2: Yes, I'll answer a question of some own I think
55:23
Speaker 2: in these cases leave it, leave leave that back up.
55:26
Speaker 1: For me as a mom, I want to make sure
55:27
Speaker 1: I remember and read it directly.
55:31
Speaker 2: White Swap is a brand new show, so to have
55:33
Speaker 2: that type of, like Cortney said, controversy may not be
55:37
Speaker 2: appetizing for the appetizers.
55:40
Speaker 4: I want to make a correction. White Swap is not
55:42
Speaker 4: a brand new show. But it's been no no, no, no, right, it's.
55:46
Speaker 5: It's been off the air for a significant amount of time,
55:49
Speaker 5: so it's now coming back.
55:51
Speaker 1: I know.
55:52
Speaker 2: But the difference, right, but but it's a brand new
55:55
Speaker 2: show for this network because they change, and they also
55:58
Speaker 2: changed the creative is now Housewives is Housewives swapping over
56:04
Speaker 2: with people? Got it? Yeah?
56:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I want to make sure we knew that,
56:08
Speaker 1: Mia Simon Carlos. We really want to know. Is Bravo
56:10
Speaker 1: still filming? Are we getting any of this for the season?
56:13
Speaker 1: You guys are so funny.
56:18
Speaker 2: No, they wrapped the show. They wrapped the show. They
56:22
Speaker 2: were not listen, they were they were not filming at.
56:25
Speaker 1: All this season. They wrapped the show.
56:29
Speaker 2: Now, look, they also were not filming when Karen was sentenced,
56:36
Speaker 2: and as we saw, they got the cameras back when
56:40
Speaker 2: she was released and they weren't filming then.
56:42
Speaker 1: Now do I think that they are going to film this?
56:47
Speaker 2: I think it's a high probability that we may at
56:54
Speaker 2: the season finale of The Real Housewives of Potomac, whatever
56:59
Speaker 2: the ending scene is, I would not be surprised if
57:02
Speaker 2: it fades to black and it says X amount of
57:05
Speaker 2: weeks later and then you see the girls reacting to this.
57:10
Speaker 2: You see Giselle and Ashley on the phone, You see
57:13
Speaker 2: the girls reacting to this like they did with Karen's
57:16
Speaker 2: dure conviction, and then you get to see possibly Windy
57:20
Speaker 2: and Eddie talk about it as much as they can
57:24
Speaker 2: based on the severity of this case. So I would
57:27
Speaker 2: not be surprised if cameras are back up, if not
57:30
Speaker 2: this weekend, on Monday, this weekend, you think.
57:36
Speaker 4: This week, I mean, Carlos, you would have us have
57:38
Speaker 4: cameras up right now.
57:41
Speaker 1: The time.
57:43
Speaker 4: And the press.
57:44
Speaker 2: Conference, yes, so you know that's that's That's what I
57:49
Speaker 2: think is a probability of that happening. So look, Raine Jobs,
57:53
Speaker 2: the biggest thing is this, though obviously more information is
57:57
Speaker 2: going to be revealed.
57:59
Speaker 1: Again.
57:59
Speaker 2: I wanted to spend today's live focus just on what
58:03
Speaker 2: was presented to us, from the press conference to the
58:07
Speaker 2: documents that were released to us, to have Judge Tarranny,
58:12
Speaker 2: who actually was.
58:13
Speaker 1: Out of town, who was hanging out with her kids.
58:16
Speaker 2: And she took time out of her busy schedule to
58:20
Speaker 2: break down the legal jargon for us, because again, we
58:25
Speaker 2: just don't know what so many things mean, and it's
58:29
Speaker 2: I think it's helpful to have someone of her stature
58:33
Speaker 2: on this platform to really break.
58:36
Speaker 1: Down things to us to a science.
58:37
Speaker 2: And look, obviously, the more information to come out, the
58:41
Speaker 2: more we'll talk about it.
58:42
Speaker 1: But I wanted this one to really.
58:43
Speaker 2: Feel like we were able to give you guys some
58:47
Speaker 2: really factual definition of some of the legal jargon. That was.
58:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, and also appreciate.
58:57
Speaker 3: I appreciate y'all. It's as good for us to know.
59:04
Speaker 5: Not to jump to conclusions because one of the things
59:07
Speaker 5: that you really did harp on and we will be
59:11
Speaker 5: students of this as well, is just allowing us to
59:16
Speaker 5: have some clarity, allowing us to not jump to conclusions,
59:20
Speaker 5: and just kind of breaking down some of the things
59:22
Speaker 5: that these alleged charges mean. And also the preparation for
59:28
Speaker 5: the defense to do just that defend, because we hear
59:32
Speaker 5: a lot from the prosecutors before we ever hear from
59:36
Speaker 5: the defense.
59:39
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I just was going to say, I appreciate
59:41
Speaker 3: you all inviting me in doing this for the rain
59:45
Speaker 3: drops and the greater public. I say this to you
59:47
Speaker 3: all all the time, because you know, it's one of
59:51
Speaker 3: the reasons I wanted to be a guest. There were
59:52
Speaker 3: so many things that the people in my community didn't understand.
59:56
Speaker 3: I grew up in a low income, impoverished community in Jacksonville, Florida,
1:00:02
Speaker 3: and it's so important for us to have information. Carlos,
1:00:06
Speaker 3: you said, you know, we're not doing in solations. We
1:00:10
Speaker 3: are actually educating, making sure that people understand what is
1:00:15
Speaker 3: going on, because you just never know what will happen
1:00:18
Speaker 3: in your own life or your family's life. So I
1:00:21
Speaker 3: do appreciate you all making sure that you take your time.
1:00:26
Speaker 3: Of course, you know your jobs allow for you or
1:00:30
Speaker 3: you know, encourage you to follow the headlines. But I
1:00:33
Speaker 3: love that you all are responsible in the way of
1:00:36
Speaker 3: educating the public. At the same time. I think that
1:00:39
Speaker 3: is so important and to be actually commended.
1:00:47
Speaker 2: Yes, no, no, thank you for that thank you for that,
1:00:50
Speaker 2: so listen, we will be back with more information, Raine Jows,
1:00:54
Speaker 2: but thank you God for taking time out on your
1:00:56
Speaker 2: busy Friday night. And once again, I'll repeat it for
1:01:01
Speaker 2: the judge. You are innocent until proven guilty, so more
1:01:05
Speaker 2: to come when it comes to this case. So thank
1:01:08
Speaker 2: you Courtney, Thank you, Judge, Tirany and rain John, thank you.
1:01:10
Speaker 2: Have a great weekend.
1:01:12
Speaker 1: And look, Bell Collective is back tonight.
1:01:14
Speaker 2: Okay, episode two A Bell Collective that's coming on an
1:01:18
Speaker 2: eight o'clock all right, it's Courtney's favorite show, Bell Collective,
1:01:23
Speaker 2: eight o'clock tonight, So Rain John, I got forty five
1:01:26
Speaker 2: minutes to put the kids, to bid, to warm up
1:01:29
Speaker 2: your food, to cook a child, to get your wine ready.
1:01:33
Speaker 2: Episode two of Bell Collective tonight on the Oprah Winfrey Network.
1:01:37
Speaker 2: I'm gonna live two with you guys, and I'll see
1:01:39
Speaker 2: y'all there. Reality with the King is executive produced by
1:01:46
Speaker 2: me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership
1:01:51
Speaker 2: with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find us
1:01:55
Speaker 2: on my YouTube channel at be Carlos King Underscore