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

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

It seems like every day there’s a new legal update with Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortensen, so Ben and Ashley called in criminal defense attorney and legal correspondent, Alison Triessl, to get the facts of what’s actually happening. Alison breaks down the situation into 3 legal “buckets” and walks us through the complexities of dueling protective orders, the future of Taylor’s probation, and we find out why everyone seems to have access to evidence like 911 calls. Will Taylor's season be aired? Can the cast members sue the show? Alison is giving her expert opinion on all of it! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. A win is a win. A win is a win. I don't care what you're saying. Yep, that's me. Clivert Taylor the 4th. You might have seen the skits,

my basketball and college football journey, or my career in sports media. Well, now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifers Show. This is a place for raw, unfills of conversations with athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated.

So let's get to it. Listen to the Clifford show on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok podcast network on TikTok. What's up, everyone? I'm Ago Vodam. My next guest, it's Will Ferrell. My dad gave me the best advice ever. He goes, just give it a shot. But if you ever reach a point where you're banging your head against the wall and it doesn't feel fun anymore, it's okay to quit. If you saw it written down, it would not be an inspiration. It would not be on a calendar of, you know, the cat.

Just hang in there. Yeah, it would not be. Right, it wouldn't be that. There's a lot of luck. Listen to Thanks Dad on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist, they take matters into their own hands. I vowed I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this.

He's going to get what he deserves. We always say that, trust your girlfriends. Listen to the girlfriends. Trust me, babe. On the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I got you. In 2023, Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins. But the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax.

You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Owens, correct? I doctored the test ones. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Manchini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trapped.

Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is the best. and Ashley I almost famous podcast with IHartRadio. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the almost famous podcast. Today, we are continuing to break down all the court hearings and allegations

pertaining to Taylor Frankie Paul. And we've been saying that we've wanted to chat with the legal expert on all of this because there's so many times where Ben and I are saying something like, we're like, you know what? I don't know the legality of that. Well, today we have Alison Treeselon. She's a criminal defense attorney. and she's the legal correspondent for Access Hollywood.

Throughout the course of her 25-year career, she has represented over a thousand clients charged with committing serious crime, and she has worked on a number of high-profile cases. She's also currently the host of Legal Smart on KTLA, where she provides insight and advice on a wide variety of practical and relevant legal issues. So she is truly perfect to be talking to, us about Taylor of Ricky Paul and Dakota's issues. Hi, Allison.

Welcome to the podcast. Thank you. Thank you for having me on. Oh my gosh. You are the perfect person to be talking to today about this. There's a lot going on here. And because you are kind of an expert in high profile entertainment cases, you do it for Access Hollywood and KTLA.

You must have followed this pretty closely. Yeah. And I have to tell you, I am not, because I'm a crime junkie, sorry, so I'm a criminal defense attorney. I do legal commentary on all things criminal. I'm not necessarily someone that would watch The Bachelor's Secret Lives of Mormon Wives until now, because you guys got more stuff going on than so many of the criminal cases that I handle. I mean, it's just, it's just shocking to me what I've been missing all these years. I mean, I mean, is this something.

that it has just passed me by because I can't believe what goes on with with all these shows. It's incredible. We, that's why we need you here because I think Ashley and myself can come at it from a place of shock and awe. Okay. But we need help not only shocking and awing, but breaking this all down. I want to start kind of before we even dive into the, the situation that unfolded in February and then with the postponement of the Bachelorette. In all of your years of breaking down these stories and doing it in a high-profile way, how common is it that a person would get chosen as the lead of a reality television show with, I guess the question is, is it normal for somebody to be chosen?

I want to know as the lead of the show with the previous violent acts that, you know, Taylor, Frankie Paul had been a part of. Well, something went really wrong here in their vetting process. Okay. So this is someone who had actually pled guilty to an aggravated assault as a felony and is currently on probation. Okay. So, so, and that's one of the buckets that I want to discuss in this case. But to thoroughly understand all that's going on and to really explain it to your audience, I thought it was best if I break it into kind of three buckets of discussion. One being the child custody and the protective orders because there are a bunch of them flying around and what that really means. And then the other being the prosecution and the investigation and the investigation, the investigation, and whether there'll be prosecutions, whether her probation will be violated as a result of this.

And then the last one is that what is it, what are the ramifications because the bachelor, the bachelor was canceled or was pulled for now? And will there be lawsuits and who will they be against and can they be successful? There is a, there's a side to it also where there's some type of DCFS investigation. But not much about that has really been shared. DCFS. What is that? What is that? So the Department of Family and Social Services.

So that would be like the organization that comes in to determine what the best welfare, what is in the best welfare of the children. So and that that is something that will remain more, that they'll remain much more tight-lipped about because it's really just dealing with what. what's in the best interest of minor children. So they really keep that as confidential as possible. But in terms of explosive allegations, and I do believe that this video was a watershed moment,

not just for Taylor Frankie, Paul, and for the Bachelorette, but just in general, the idea that a person would act so violent, right? And was this available to ABC and Warner Brothers prior to casting her as the Bachelorette? Should they have known about it? Did they do enough homework to learn about it? And did they tell the contestants that a, the person that was going to be on has had this violent and we can call it a violent, volatile relationship with a male counterpart in the past? Is that something that they should have

been told about. Well, they definitely knew about it because they made it episode one of Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. Correct. Did the contestants know? And when you say that, you mean were they communicated directly with? Because yes, they could know through watching the show. Yes, they could do by a Google search, but is that enough? Right. Correct. So was it negligent, right, of the production company not to share that information because they wanted the ratings. They wanted someone who had this really kind of spicy back story that would bring in viewers, right? Bring in viewers because traditional TV is losing viewership.

So you've got to find someone that's entertaining. I'm telling two of you that, no, you've got to find someone that's entertaining and fresh and new and has a big social media presence. And was that negligent of them? So that's sort of one of the last things, if you'd allow me to discuss. because in terms of the law, what is so interesting is that you've got many things going on in different courthouses here. So there are currently essentially three protective orders that are temporary, and they are being handled by a judge, and a full-blown hearing will be held in that case, in those cases on April 30th.

But in the interim, this judge has decided there is a temporary protective order. And for those unfamiliar with protective orders, they're essentially stayaway orders or orders of temporary custody arrangements. They are the same as a restraining order in some states. That's the equivalent. And there is one where Dakota has taken out a protective order against Taylor. Taylor and then has taken out a protective order against Dakota. And then there is also one pending for Taylor's ex-husband regarding their child that was the witness and was the victim to the 2003 incident that we've all seen or most of us have seen the video.

Oh, I have not been aware of that. Is that recent? Well, it was done. What's interesting is my reports indicate that Dakota and the ex-husband essentially took out protective orders either on the same day or within a very short period of time. Now, there's a picture of the two of them at the courthouse at the same time. Nobody knows if it was planned or coordinated, but they ran into each other nonetheless at the courthouse. Right. And by the way, that would make sense. if you're getting a protective order, not that they would coordinate efforts and do it at the same time,

but because the 20-23 incident involves one child, okay, where Dakota is not the father, so he can't take out the protective order for that child because it's not his biological child. And then the ex-husband would take out one because that was his child that was involved. So he says, look, I saw this video. It is so disturbing. I actually saw, I guess it was different for him than reading about it, knowing that she was charged than to see it, that she is still posing a danger because of these February 23rd, 24th allegations of abuse against Dakota where a child is present. So there is an ongoing danger. And then Taylor says, wait a minute, I'm the victim of abuse here.

so I want a protective order. So there's three competing orders. There's three competing orders. There's different children involved. And this judge essentially said, look, I know that there are several sides to this story. But my main interest is in protecting children in this case. And the guardian ad litem that was. that was appointed to the minor child, acts as the attorney for the child. And they have a lot of say.

So the guardian ad litem is somebody who, their sole interest is the protection of the child. And so their testimony or their opinion carries a lot of weight in a courtroom. And a judge is going to say, does the guardian ad litem at this point feel that the child would be unsafe if unsupertive, and in the care and custody of Taylor. And at this point, the Guardian Midlidem said, yes, for now, I have no problem with eight hours of supervised visits. Supervised means that you can either have someone as a third party who you can hire to be present, or in this case, they're allowing a family member of Taylor's, but she cannot be

alone with the child. She gets eight hours of supervised visits. Just to be clear here, who is the guardian ad litem? So the guardian ad litem would be an attorney appointed by the court to represent the interest of the minor child. So who is the child living with him right now? Not the guardian. No, no, no. The child is with... Dakota. One child is with Dakota.

And then Taylor's other two children are with her ex-husband. Yeah. Okay. So I think that her attorney is trying to argue that she is not at all a threat to her children as long as Dakota is not in the picture. Is that correct? Correct. Because they were like, yeah, she's only violent when he's around. Okay.

So what they're arguing. is, is that this was not violence directed at any minor child. That, yes, the child was present, and that is a problem. But if you remove Dakota from the picture, Taylor alone has no ill will toward her children. She's not going to be violent toward the children. It was all when the two of them who, I don't know what the legal definition of this is, but I can tell you what I would call it in my office, is a complete cluster.

These two are so toxic, so vital, they're so volatile. This is not a, if I'm a judge or I'm a guardian ad litem, I'm saying these two can never be in the same room together. They should have never been filming a show together, by the way, while she was on probation. They don't mix. Bad things happen. Both sides are saying that there's physical abuse on either side. What does that tell me as a judge?

What does that tell me as an attorney for the minor? Well, they should never be together. They should never be together. So yes, it helps her in the sense that she's saying, look, obviously I can't be in the same room with him. Obviously, there's problems. but I've never directed any violence toward my children. Ashley, is that going to carry the day?

Is that going to carry the day? Well, a judge is going to say, and they're going to take that into account, but they are going to say, but it looks as though you were intoxicated. It looks as though you have these violent tendencies. So it's not just her saying, remove him and I'm good.

Okay. Ashley, can I get like, two minutes here to run down some rapid fires to get some clarity to where we're at. Of course, yes. Okay. A couple train of thoughts here as we make sense of all this. If the protective order goes through against Taylor, does that have any, does that mean anything in terms of her probation that was set in 2023?

Okay. So I'm going to answer that. I'm going to answer that because, and we'll do a deep dive in a bit. but the answer is they've already made a decision, it appears. The district attorney's office has already made a decision that they're not going to violate her probation. Okay. That's what it appears.

They're not going to violate her probation. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, in addition to the protective orders that are going on in one courtroom, the district attorney is investigating these allegations. from February, where they say there was other instances of domestic violence. What the district attorney just came out with, just came out with, is that they either found

that there was not enough corroboration or they could not prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt to file any new charges against her. they also said that some of those allegations were so old that the statute of limitations had passed on filing those charges. So the statement that they've made right now is that they are not pursuing charges, any new charges against Taylor. And then they even went further than that and said, and we don't believe at this point that those constitute any violence. violations of her probation. So Ashley, let me just go back and explain that a little bit. In 2023, she gets charged with five counts. One is a felony aggravated assault to her domestic violence. There's some other charges. She pleads to it and she takes a plea in abeyance, which means that she's

essentially put on diversion, which was really a sweetheart deal for her. really a sweetheart deal. They put her on probation for a period of three years that doesn't expire until August of 2026. So she's currently still on probation. In what, there were conditions placed on her. There was parenting, anger management, abstained from alcohol.

You can't pick up any new offenses. Can't pick up any new offenses. So here, if, Let's just say something like, if she's drinking on the show of The Bachelor, when they're, the Bachelorette, when they're taping it, that would technically be a violation of her probation, because she has to abstain from alcohol. When you have a potential new case, the burden to, you don't have for a probation violation, the standard of proof is much lower than can we prove this beyond a reason.

doubt. So the fact that they are deciding at this point not to charge her with any new offenses is one thing, but the fact that they're not even violating her probation speaks volumes. And if I'm her lawyers, I take that information and I use it in our protective order case because anybody in the court system knows that, hey, not only are they not charging her with any new offenses, they're not even violating her probation at this point. Okay. So I want to continue down this line of questioning to get some clarity here. If new evidence, though, is presented, they've left that door open,

then they can reopen this back up, right? Not as to the ones where the statute of limitation has passed. So those charges, whatever those were, once the statute of limitations is passed, and the reason that that matters, is because, you know, if charges are years and years old and you're just being charged with them, potential witnesses that you may have had to defend yourself may not be available. Digital evidence, forensic evidence, things that you could use in your defense are maybe no longer

available. So that's why you have statute of limitations in certain cases. In certain sex cases, it's much longer statute of limitations. In murder cases, there is no statute of limitations. But in these charges, there was a statute of limitations, and that has passed. But for things that would be, let's say, the February alleged incident, if new information comes to light, yes, they can revisit it. I loved your, and this is my final kind of thing to get clarity, I loved your bucket deal. because we need some type of linear path to make sense of this all. Yeah.

And so as we sit in the bucket of the protective orders, and as you've mentioned, Tate has one out there, Dakota has one out there, and now Taylor, Frankie Paul has one out there. If all three of those get, I don't know the right word, approved, granted, what happens? Because then all three of them have protective orders against each other. So they'll have to stay away from each other. They have to stay away from each other, which, you know, when there's volatile situations,

that's not necessarily a bad thing, right? So they stay away from each other. They can't film together. And then for custody, they then have to use a third party for the exchange of the children, right? So on one extreme, I've seen where the custody swap occurs literally in the parking lot of a police. station. Okay? But on another extreme, um, is, you know, when they're really young kids, um, and that's sort of really scary for them, it's a person who they both know and trust. You know, maybe it's, uh, Taylor's parents, maybe whoever that is, they do the custody swap.

So like you can't drop them off in the driveway. Not at this age. Like, you can't watch them go to the door? You know, this is. is if they were 14, 15, that's one thing. This is two. Yeah. I mean, you know, and for the other one, it's five. We're not five. It's older now, seven or whatever, you know, whatever the age.

It's too young. So you'd have to have a mutual party, you know, a mutually agreed upon party do the custody swap. Okay. So hard for the kids. I know you're not an expert in that, but I'm like, goodness gracious, that seems hard. Look, you know, you're right. You are absolutely right.

And one of the things that courts always consider, and especially in these cases, is what is in the best interest of the child. But in this case, Ben, I have to tell you, the best interests of these children right now is for these parties to separate. They seem addicted to each other, if I may say so. and they need a court to say no more, no more. This is not working. This is not healthy for these children. And perhaps a court-imposed separation is in the best interest of these children. So if they were two years beyond want to, is this temporary?

Would this be temporary? So right now, it's only until April 30th. when there's supposed to be a hearing on a full-blown evidentiary hearing. Now, I don't know if the judge is going to be ready to hear or the attorneys are going to be ready to present their cases, right? So either side can ask for more time. The judge can say, I want more evaluations, I want more information. But right now it is set for April 30th. And if that goes forward, then the judge would make permanent orders.

And those permanent orders can be three years. They can be, you know, whatever. Sometimes the parties will separately agree to an amount of time. And if the judge approves, then that's what the order of protection will be. So like, can they can't, will they ever get to the point where they can do phone calls and be like, hey, I'm going to take the kids these days? not if orders of protection are are granted okay and a lot of parents make this mistake just because you think it's all good now you know it's all good we're doing so much better I'm just going to reach out to

that you know to to my ex-husband my ex-boyfriend and we're just going to you know forgo court interference or attorney interference, we're going to start communicating directly. That's a violation. That is a violation. You text someone, it's a violation of a protective order. So there are times where courts will say you're only going to communicate on something called a family wizard, which is a app that is monitored by the court that everyone has access to.

But if you're texting each other or calling each other, you are in violation of. of that protective order. Alison, I could sit here for six hours and still probably not get to the bottom of this. No wonder, attorneys get paid so much to do what you do. Recently, I mean, I want to dive into this bucket now. Recently, the evidence, or I guess I don't even know if it's considered evidence, photos of Dakota have been shared publicly. There's also a 911 call from Dakota's friend.

And all this is now open to the public. Why am I seeing this? I'm not like mad about it. So, okay, so this is interesting that you're saying that because there is a fine line between what is in the public record. So any court filings, right? Well, not any. Certain court filings that are in the public record. Okay?

And you make a public record, a media company or whoever makes a public record demand for it. And they're supposed to keep confidential social security numbers. anything involving children, anything involving children, and especially with this protective order business, all of that involving the children should remain confidential. That is what is in the best interest of the child. But the 911 call is part of the public record. And it's not just limited to these people.

It's not as though they're being treated more unfairly because they are in the public eye. 911 calls are available to the public. You make a public record request. You can ask for body cam footage. Now, they have to remove any personal information, but a lot of this stuff is available to the public because they want transparency in the criminal justice system.

You talked earlier about how you said it's spoken. volumes that they didn't violate probation. Could you explain what you mean by that? Because my interpretation, and maybe I'm just making drama here, is that you're like, oh, there must be something telling on his side or like she really didn't do anything in February. I don't think that's my position. See, I'm a drama.

Yeah, I don't think that's my position. My position is that if I'm sitting with a robe on as a judge. judge, okay? And I say, one side is saying, you know, there's the all of these prior incidents, there's the new ones in February, and she's clearly not, she's, it's unsafe for her to be around her children. That's their allegations, right? That she cannot be left alone with the children. What I'm saying is that on her end of that, on her, for her defense, she says, well, I'm, I'm not, she's, she's not only saying, and Ashley, you touched upon this before, she's not only saying that the only times there's been an issue is when Dakota is around, right?

I'm only, there's only an issue with my children when Dakota is present. She also can argue, well, no criminal charges were filed against me. and even if they decided that they didn't have enough because of statute of limitations, because of insufficiency of the evidence, because they couldn't corroborate that, probation violations require a much lower standard of proof. And so if I'm her attorneys, I'm saying, wait a minute, they're not even violating her probation. So that works in her favor. Am I saying, and I don't know,

and one of the things that I dislike when attorneys go on any show is I wasn't there. I wasn't there. So I'm not going to pretend like I know what the ultimate outcome is going to be, what the facts are ultimately going to bear. It wasn't there.

But what I can tell you is what the law is, how it comes into play in certain cases, and what each side, is going to argue. And I'm also going to be able to tell you that a judge sees a case like this when they're talking about incidents where children are present

and they see a violent video where a child is not only present but gets hurt and has a goose egg on their head. And then there's another incident where it's done in a child's presence. They don't look very favorably on that because their concern is what is in the best interest of the child. And is this child safe?

And they're always going to side with what is the safest thing for these children. And then you said, oh, my goodness, this is so horrible for the children. And it absolutely is, right? Being separated from, so my understanding was the original custody agreement is that Taylor had 70%. And Dakota had 30. So with her child, right, with ever, she was the primary caretaker. She has been the primary caretaker in his life. And what a judge is being asked to do is to strip her of that and not just strip her,

strip her child of being with the person who he spent the most time in his life with. And that is awful. And it's tragic and it's hard to think about and it's painful for the children. but the judge also has to balance that against. Is it safe for this child to be with her right now? And him, right? I mean, that has to be the question. Of course.

Of course. In cases like this, there's been a lot of theories out there. And you just kind of mentioned that nobody knows how this is going to play out. And there's a lot going on. There is this video that was released. And obviously was kind of in a lot of ways, at least from our understanding, the catalyst to the season being postponed and things kind of getting shift around. And then I believe from somebody in Taylor's camp, I don't think it was

directly her, but maybe a friend or an anonymous source said, there's more to this story here. That video was released on purpose. It's been cut down or it was taken at the right moment, at the right time. And Taylor's saying there's more to this story here. But we have the video. So in court cases like this, when it comes to the evidence that's being presented, do the videos have more weight than the word of mouth that Taylor is saying, hey, but before this video was taken, four minutes before it was actually shot, he was doing this to me. And that's why I did what I did back. Okay. I love that you're asking this question. And she is saying, look, this was taken out of context. This is edited down. This doesn't show the full picture. And you even have Dakota on the police body cam video saying, this went. on for an hour and a half. Okay. So we do have a, we have a small portion of a much greater story that evening, okay? However, it is not just the video, it's not, the judge is not just going to look at the video, okay? Apparently, there is another video that the guardian ad litem has,

that is, that was to the guardian ad litem, disturbing that the judge has seen. from 2023 or from recently? Recently. Okay. So there's a video from recently. That we don't have. Okay. That is not made available to the public.

Okay. But the guardian, the guardian explained that to the court. And that was concerning because a child was present. So Ben, when you're asking, just because there may have been a buildup, a buildup. A judge can still look at that video and say, yes, there may have been other things that led up to it. And the judge did say, there's two sides to this story. There are two sides of the story. No question.

But the child was hit in the head by a chair, by a metal chair that Taylor had thrown, and she pled guilty to it. Right? Yeah. And I, not only am I not taking sides, I don't know these people. I have no horse in the race. You know, I really hope for the children and for them that they get the help that they need because it seems that both of them are really, as I said, sort of addicted to each other. And they've got to each work on themselves, you know, because this is, this is, There are children who are affected by this and also for their own mental health.

But courts are going to look at those videos. And it's one of those things in life that you can't unsee, right? So you ask a jury to, you ask a jury to sit on a trial and to listen to the evidence and only focus on the evidence, only focus on the evidence. but it is impossible for you to ask them to throw out every single one of their life experiences. It is impossible for you to say, I want you to only think about, well, you're going to think, well, how did that affect me? You know, what did I learn when I was growing up? Certain videos can't be unseen.

That's one that can't. I mean, it's one of the ways. And as we close here, I do want to transition a little bit because it did stick with us. and it did stick obviously with the public, and the show was postponed. I think that's a proper language around what the announcement was that the network gave, was that this season of The Bachelor out was being postponed or put on pause. We could spend another six hours talking about what that even means, obviously, for the show and the network.

We'll not go forward at this time. We'll not go forward at this time was the language used. But you have a cast out there, Allison, and you mentioned at the beginning, were they privy to this information before the show? Were they not? Okay. I'm going to touch on this because this is really, really interesting to me. Very, very interesting from a legal perspective.

So there have been articles written that there may be five contestants that are considering suing. And my first reaction to that was in most agreements, with reality that with reality show contestants there's always some clause in there

that says this is no guarantee that it will be aired right if there's no guarantee that you're going to be on TV that it's going to be aired like every back

you know there's some kind of backout clause so I thought well what can they really do about it however there is something if the show and the production company were negligent,

and they put these people in a toxic, unsafe, dangerous relationship with someone that they knew had all of this background, that they knew had violent tendencies, propensities. Could, they could, and when I say that, by the way, when I say that, This is not allegations. She pled guilty to an aggravated assault, right? So this is something that they knew about. They knew that she had this.

Ashley, you brought it up. They talked about it, all right, in the season of Secret of the Mormon Wives Show. So this is not something that Warner Brothers and ABC didn't know about. So could they be held? liable by those contestants because they're saying, well, you needed to share that with us and you needed to do a better job betting. And it's not just about numbers. And it's not just about how many sponsors you can get or how it is our safety is is paramount here. I mean, but what I mean to for the contestants sake, the show would just have to have proof that they communicated to them. Right.

I mean, this is only a, there's only a case here if they have no proof did they ever told the contestants or had them sign something saying, hey, this is her background? I think that there will be a lot, if they proceed with a lawsuit. And again, I can't forecast the future. But I think in the discovery, the contestants' attorneys, if they sue, they're going to say, we want to. know what you knew about her background, what you shared with the production team, what you shared with the contestants, how open and honest were you about what has gone on with this woman in the past? And if you don't know, we need to explain it to you. From your point of view, what's your opinion on the show ever airing in any capacity?

My cynical view is it will air. At some point, on some platform, it will air, okay? Because all the buzz around it has made it, you know, the forbidden fruit. Right. I mean, that now everybody, of course, wants to watch it. Where does it air? Does it air on Hula? Does it air on ABC?

Does it make a difference, by the way, that no new charges have been filed against her? Does that help? Does that, that may very well help. That's why, if you would like to come back, around April 30th or the week following, we would love to have you because we're going to get an influx of news then. There's going to be a lot happening. And I don't know what's interesting about that is because, as I've just sort of laid out for you, you know, in a Clifflnote version, there's so many competing stories. There's so many different legal actions taking place.

I don't know if this hearing will actually proceed on the 30th or one side will say I need more time or the judge will say, wait a minute, let's just continue it. All the orders stay in place because you know that Taylor doesn't want to continue this eight hours of supervised visitation. No. Why do I feel like everything's always delayed, like especially in like celebrity cases? Actually, it's not celebrity cases. It's not celebrity. Those are the only ones I know. I mean, no, I'm telling you, the criminal justice system moves very, very slowly.

As we come on air, because I'm going to cover this after, David was just arrested for the murder of Celeste Rivas in Los Angeles. The rapper David was arrested. And it was a seven-month investigation, and LAPD was getting tons of pressure. Why aren't you, you know, in the DA's office, why aren't you filing? Why aren't you filing? Well, seven months on a murder case is not that long at all. Hey, to close up here, I just want to bring a little bit clarity on April 30th, obviously, and we talked about me possibly if you're free, your time is valuable, I know.

But if you want to come back on and maybe help us break down all the stuff we find out then. But what exactly is being done on April 30th? Is it the protective order cases or is it the, like what exactly is being done on people 30? So the protective order and then the custody issues, right, the custody issues will also be addressed. In the same hearing? Yes. Okay. But now the question is, right, even though Taylor filed her protective order after the two men filed theirs, will all three be heard on the same day and the same time for judicial efficiency.

and for continuity, it makes sense that it would, right? So she's because it is going to be duplicitous for them to have testimony in repeated court hearings when the testimony is essentially the same. But we don't know yet if all three of them are going to be. We do not know if we don't know if they're going to go forward fully. Okay. I know that a lot of people are out there, even though we've touched on us in a previous episode, are thinking, why did she get a protective order against them if she already couldn't be in any in any like close quarters to that?

I love that you ask that because I have an answer. Yes. I have an answer. And her answer was that he is stalking her, allegedly, that he is harassing her. And so she believes that she is also entitled to a protective order. And by the way, that may be true, right? That may be true because just because you have a protective order against you, right? If the person calls you and you're the one with the protective order, you're the only one that gets in trouble.

But if you both have them and he initiates that call or he texts you, he's in violation as well. Okay. somebody like you on to instead of the rumors and opinions and speculations that we would give between the two of us we have somebody on here to make bring clarity and expertise to it and you definitely did that today so thanks for joining us and i kind of i'm not sure i'm not sure if i'm not sure if i want to thank you or curse you that you've sucked me in to my goodness i mean something had to bring in the bachelor nation i mean i guess i'll have to take a break from all my crime shows i don't know yeah well ashley you can watch ashley season on

Apple TV and season 20 of The Bachelor somewhere out there as well if you ever want to dive back in again. Awesome. So great, guys. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. Bye. Bye.

And this has been the breakdown of the upcoming court hearing on April 30th. Allison was amazing. It's always helpful to have somebody like that on here. We'll be back with headlines, the Real Housewives of Rhode Island breakdowns. Any breaking news that happens here on the whole. Almost Famous Podcasts. We're always here. We're always doing something.

Always breaking news. Until next time, I've been Ben. I've been Ashley. See ya. Follow the Ben and Ashley I, almost famous podcast on IHeart Radio or subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast.

Guaranteed human.