Large day right now on the podcasts. Earlier this morning on the “Every day Roundup” I posted a 60 minute dialog with Rachel Juarez regarding the appellate transient David Gingras filed final week within the Clayton Echard/Laura Owens case. Rachel breaks it down like solely she will be able to: the nice and unhealthy of it, why she thinks there are good arguments that he makes, what she finally thinks will occur, the place does it go from right here, and many others. Then within the weekly podcast, we’re joined by first time visitor Rikkii Smart, who you in all probability have seen pop up throughout your TikTok lately should you watched “Love is Blind” this season, as she and Actuality Ashley have been masking the Tyler/Ashley drama higher than anybody on-line. They’ve spoken to Tyler’s child mama Bri, posted interviews together with her, spoken to those who know each events, and Rikkii has gotten below the pores and skin a lot of Ashley and Tyler they’ve already deemed her the “pretend TikTok journalist,” although all she’s doing is reporting info she’s gotten straight from the opposite events. A really fascinating chat with Rikki right now that I do know you’ll get pleasure from.
This podcast can also be up on my YouTube channel now. Go watch and subscribe right here:
You may take heed to right now’s podcast on a lot of platforms, however you may as well tune in by clicking the participant under:
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts,RSS, Stitcher, Spotify
Music written by Jimmer Podrasky
(B’Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI)
(SPOILERS) I start by going over what was on the Every day Roundup right now within the interview with Rachel Juarez. Then Rikki joins me (7:08) to speak about all of the “Love is Blind” drama post-show between Ashley & Tyler, Tyler’s first podcast look post-reunion yesterday, the questions we each have, what Tyler is lacking, Ashley’s stance on all the things, and far, far more.
Instagram – @rikkiiwise
(SPOILER) Your Every day Roundup is an intensive 60 minute dialog with “Sizzling Bench” choose Rachel Juarez breaking down the appellate courtroom transient filed by Laura Owens lawyer final week, the ramifications, the implications, the nice and unhealthy of it, and the place she sees the case heading.
You may take heed to that podcast on a lot of platforms, however you may as well tune in right here:
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts,RSS, Stitcher, Spotify
Music written by Jimmer Podrasky
(B’Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI)
_____________________
DAILY ROUNDUP 11/21 INTERVIEW WITH RACHEL JUAREZ TRANSCRIPT
You might be listening to the Every day Roundup right here as a part of the Actuality Steve podcast. I’m your host, Actuality Steve. Thanks all for tuning in. At present we’re breaking from protocol, what we usually do on this podcast. And we’re going to speak to Rachel Juarez but once more. And it’s as a result of she has nice info regarding the David Gingras podcast.
Appellate transient that he filed with the courts and it’s 75 pages lengthy. She learn it. She’s additionally gotten herself very immersed on this specific case. Once we first began off with Rachel speaking to her a few month in the past, the one factor I had despatched her was. Right here’s the 2 hour trial. Right here’s Decide Mata’s resolution.
Right here’s David Gingras first weblog submit as soon as he realized he misplaced the case. Ever since then, she has principally bought caught up on all of the briefings. And she or he is, for positive, very a lot into this case now. So it’s not simply an outsider wanting in. She’s learn plenty of the stuff. She understands it clearly quite a bit higher than the lay particular person does.
So, we spend an hour right now speaking about Gingras’s appellate transient. And also you’ll be shocked. It’s not all her coming down on him and saying, That is terrible. There’s no approach he’s gonna win. She’ll by no means say both approach. He’s 100% going to lose 100% he’s going to win as a result of she simply doesn’t say that.
She says no lawyer ought to say that. You heard that the final time she was on. However she does say that there are some issues on this appellate transient which is sensible to her from a authorized perspective. After which she provides her total ideas on all the things. We go over a few of the issues within the case. We speak about Laura.
We speak about Laura’s podcast. Quite a lot of stuff is roofed. That is an hour, slightly over an hour dialog. So, we’re simply gonna leap proper into this factor. So, right here we go together with right now’s Every day Roundup with Rachel Juarez. Alright, let’s carry her in. You understand her as one of many three judges on the syndicated courtroom present, Sizzling Bench.
You may see her. Each day sooner or later throughout the day on one in all your channels it’s on on a regular basis And she or he is now a multi time visitor she is immersed within the Clayton Eckerd Laura Owens case it’s Rachel Juarez Rachel Thanks for approaching once more. Yeah immersed is correct Steve Properly, I like the truth that you realize once you first got here on it was in regards to the Devon stuff After which on the finish of that Devon podcast we briefly mentioned the Clayton case and like I stated on the time you didn’t even know a trial had taken place and You I caught you updated on hate, watch the 2 hour trial.
Right here’s Jinger’s weblog afterwards. And right here’s another issues to take a look at, however ever since, after which we did a podcast after that to provide me extra of your full ideas on all the things. However ever since then, you’ve principally caught your self up on all of the motions. Like, you realize, this case. Clearly, you haven’t been masking it for 15 months, however you’ve learn all of the motions and also you’re very nicely conscious of different issues which have occurred on this case now, proper?
Proper. So during the last week or so, it looks as if I sort of jumped in on the proper time when issues appear to be occurring. I’ve been ready to return due to how extensively this has been lined and pull not all actually, however plenty of the briefing within the case. And specifically, once I was capable of get the appellate transient yesterday from you, I I used to be ready to return and have a look at the briefing that occurred on these identical points.
Earlier than the trial courtroom, as a result of as I believe I could have defined final time, as Gingras has gone over, you possibly can’t increase points on attraction that haven’t already been raised within the decrease courtroom. So sort of by definition, practically all points which might be argued on attraction, Have already been argued on each side within the trial courtroom.
So earlier than approaching and sort of weighing in on the arguments that Laura and Gingras are making on attraction, I needed to have the ability to sort of see for myself what Clayton’s attorneys had been more likely to argue in response as a result of I’m not independently, you realize, educated about Arizona legislation outdoors of sort of studying these instances and studying the briefs on this case.
Gotcha. So. You learn the transient and earlier than we get into the main points of it, he did do a video, a forty five minute video the place he learn the primary 15 pages. And I do know you had ideas on that and now you’ve learn the the total 75 web page transient. Earlier than we get into particulars of it, what was your total tackle his first 15 pages?
After which, like I stated, total of the entire transient, Sort of your ideas and his, I don’t know, technique about it, the way in which he’s introduced issues each on his YouTube channel and in writing. What are your ideas on that?
Properly, I’ll inform you, I, I used to be slightly shocked frankly with the standard. It was higher than I assumed it might be by way of the authorized arguments.
After I sort of see his YouTube movies, I, it makes me sort of query his judgment slightly bit. I assumed the transient was higher than I anticipated on the authorized arguments. It was actually sort of spicier than most appellate briefs are that are normally dry. And I believe that’s constant along with his character, slightly possibly excessive at factors.
However I, I assumed that for essentially the most half, the argument was measured and pretty respectable. Which contrasted from a few of the stuff I learn earlier than the trial courtroom. So I sort of anticipated it to be one other diatribe and it wasn’t, it was extra measured and extra cheap than I anticipated.
Okay. So I assume it appears like there are two main issues.
As somebody who doesn’t know legislation in any respect, however has learn sufficient of those briefings and simply sort of gotten drained head studying them is without doubt one of the largest issues that he’s specializing in on this attraction is rule 26. And to somebody like me, I don’t actually perceive it. I Googled rule 26. And as I advised you final night time, it was like, Studying Chinese language.
I do not know what it’s speaking about. I don’t perceive it. So I assume one of the best ways is to simply let you’ve the ground and clarify what rule 26 is and why Gingras is hung up on it and seemingly making his entire argument within the attraction about. Rule 26 being I assume violated right here,
proper? Okay. So rule 26 in Arizona is a household legislation offshoot of a federal rule of civil process, which additionally exists in Arizona civil legislation, which is federal rule of civil process 11.
And principally what it does amongst, you realize, many different issues, however related to this case is it provides A celebration, a possibility to problem pleadings which might be filed with none foundation for the submitting. Alright, all of the requirements for what violates Rule 11 are slightly totally different between the principles, however principally a frivolous submitting.
So should you file a case frivolously, with none potential benefit, that’s a violation of Rule 11. It’s a violation of the duty that you’ve got a great religion perception that all the things you’re placing in pleadings, which features a grievance, is true. In order a part of that rule, and this is identical for rule 26 and household legislation in Arizona, should you consider {that a} get together has not complied with rule 11 or rule 26 and filed a pleading or a grievance with none good religion foundation, you then For doing so, you possibly can principally observe the next process.
You may ship them a proper written discover saying, I consider you’ve violated rule 11 by submitting your grievance. And I intend To file a movement for sanctions in opposition to you. And each totally different rule has totally different particular necessities for what that written discover has to say. Generally you even have to provide them a duplicate of the movement you propose to file.
Generally you must serve one thing on them, which is the discover. Generally you simply have to inform them in writing informally, however a method or one other, you must inform the opposite get together. I intend to hunt these sanctions in opposition to me. After which there may be what’s known as a protected harbor interval the place the opposite get together is meant to have a sure variety of time for rule 26.
I consider it’s 10 days to say, oops. You bought me. I’ll withdraw the offending pleading. So on this case, it might be I’ll withdraw the grievance and the request for reduction that I’ve made. And in the event that they try this inside the 10 day interval, they’re alleged to be free out of your threatened Rule 11 sanctions movement.
Or rule 26 on this case. So the idea is, you’re sort of giving them a warning and an opportunity to right their habits. And the reasoning underlying that, the explanation there’s a protected harbor interval, is principally to get rid of the disincentive for a celebration who does suppose, you realize what, I blew it, to simply double down and battle, proper, and trigger a bunch of litigation over simply whether or not the pleading was frivolous.
So, it provides them a possibility to say, okay, I’m withdrawing it. And so, what occurred on this case was Clayton did file a Rule 26 movement for sanctions, saying that the grievance on this case was filed with no good religion foundation and that Laura didn’t have a great religion foundation to consider the issues she alleged within the grievance.
And
finally, that movement was withdrawn. So what, principally what Gingras is arguing is that if, and the if is de facto essential right here, sanctions had been solely awarded below Rule 26. That was improper. So if this 150, 000 in sanctions was a Rule 26 sanction, it shouldn’t have been made as a result of the protected harbor side of Rule 26 was not adopted as a result of he claims that Laura was not given formal discover and given a possibility to withdraw her pleading.
So his argument is that Any sanctions below Rule 26 could be in violation of Rule 26 and subsequently, as a matter of legislation, they have to be overturned. In order that’s the sort of Rule 26 argument. However then the subsequent step is that he additionally makes the argument that another sanctions which may have been awarded for another motive, would Can also’t be awarded due to the Rule 26 Secure Harbor Provision.
In different phrases, if If you happen to resolve to withdraw your pleading, which Laura tried to do, throughout that protected harbor interval, you possibly can’t be sanctioned for any motive, discovery violations unreasonably growing the price of litigation, another motive, as a result of Rule 26 has a protected harbor provision. I do know it will get slightly sophisticated, however that’s principally it.
The difficulty right here, and once I learn the transient, I believe the arguments he makes about rule 26 and whether or not applicable discover was offered, whether or not Laura tried to remedy the violation. Might have been possibly proper. I believe I’ll simply go away it at that. There they could possibly be proper. There are some very nuanced features of the character of the discover that must be offered that very You understand, from state to state and that are actually extremely depending on experience in that jurisdiction, however being beneficiant to him, I might say he could also be proper.
The issue for him is that. Decide Mata had a number of bases. For awarding sanctions, and I don’t see an issue with any 1 of the opposite bases. So, you realize, she stated principally that Laura had engaged in a number of sanctionable conduct below many alternative theories and statutes, one in all which was Rule 26. So even being beneficiant to Gingras and saying he’s proper about Rule 26, which I’m not satisfied he’s.
However even giving him the good thing about the doubt, there are a number of different statutory bases for sanctions right here. Most particularly, the one that claims that legal professional’s charges could also be awarded for unreasonable litigation conduct. And I don’t see any good argument in his transient. There’s a argument. I don’t suppose it’s a great one that These different sanctions couldn’t be awarded simply because there may need been an issue with rule 26 sanctions
This podcast dropped at you by approach It’s okay should you don’t get all of your vacation buying achieved as early as you hope as a result of Method is making it simple to provide you approach higher presents this vacation.
You get it? Their hair and physique merchandise are particularly designed to customise a routine that works for you and personalize a present for everybody. everybody in your checklist. They’ve bought the go away in conditioner, which is the multitasking conditioner that detangles, it hydrates, fights frizz for each hair sort in your checklist.
They’ve bought the detox shampoo. They’ve bought the St. Bart’s hair and physique mist. This scent is just not a fundamental seaside. Get it. The St. Bart’s perfume is right here to take you away. Ingest a sprig. I believe that’s an awesome tagline. St. Bart’s perfume right here to take you a approach. Oh, you AI. Ingest a sprig. And so they have hair oil.
It’s nutrient packed, absorbs shortly, retains coloration from fading and revives harm hair simply. Save 15 % off statewide. Once you give the present of approach, whether or not the particular person in your checklist has superb medium or thick hair or a number of hair issues, methods bought you. Get in your strategy to save for the vacation. Go to the way in which.
com T H E O U A I. com for 50 % off sitewide. Enter promo code actuality. Steve, that’s the way in which. com T H E O U A I. com for 15 % off sitewide with promo code actuality. Steve additionally going to speak to you about mint cell. Like I all the time do. I’m shoving this down your throat till you modify to mint cell in your wi-fi plan.
No hoops, no BS. It’s so simple to do. They stated it was simple to get wi-fi for 15 bucks a month with a purchase order of a 3 month plan. I known as them out on it and I’m like, no approach I’m going to be locked right into a plan till the 12 months 4, 123, although I received’t be alive. When that rolls round, seems very easy to get wi-fi for 15 a month to get began, go to mint cell.
com slash actuality. Steve, there you’ll see proper now, all three month plans are solely 15 a month, together with the limitless plan. All plans include excessive velocity information. Limitless speak and textual content delivered on the nation’s largest 5G community. Plus you need to use your personal telephone with any Mint Cellular plan and convey your telephone quantity together with all of your current contacts.
Learn the way simple it’s to change to Mint Cellular and get three months of premium wi-fi service for simply 15 bucks a month. How do you do that? To get this buyer provide and your new three month premium wi-fi plan for simply 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile. com slash realitysteve. That’s mintmobile.
com slash realitysteve. Lower your wi-fi invoice to fifteen bucks a month at MintMobile. com slash RealitySteve. 45 up for a cost required, equal to fifteen a month. New prospects on first three month plan. Solely velocity slower above 40 gigabytes on the restricted plan. Extra taxes, charges, and restrictions apply.
See Mint Cellular for particulars. Okay, once you talked about earlier, Laura dismissing. And I believe you and I spoke about this over textual content when she came upon. So the pretrial listening to, the one which ended up on zoom, the place we noticed her with a child bump was finish of October of final 12 months. After which there was a trial listening to the subsequent week, which we didn’t get on video.
I believe, however it wasn’t till I believe mid November the place she was quote unquote advised that she not had the youngsters. And we don’t even know when that occurred. Yeah, you realize, that could possibly be debate may go on for days, however proper, she was advised mid November. Oh, by the way in which, you’re not pregnant. After which at that time, she principally stated, nicely, there’s nothing to debate right here anymore.
There’s no case. I’m, you realize, I would like out. Why don’t we simply drop this factor? And Gingras his argument has been like, Hey, we needed to get out of this factor. There was no infants anymore. So why are we even coping with a paternity swimsuit? There’s no infants. We would like it out. Clayton was the one which saved persevering with this.
That’s why there was so many {dollars} that had been racked up in authorized charges as a result of he was the one which needed to proceed it. We didn’t. And I stated, nicely, look, in fact he did as a result of she had slandered him for six months. After which rapidly desires out as a result of she misplaced the infants. One thing that we knew was going to be the top results of this.
All of us knew that she was by no means going to ship two infants, 9 months after Might twentieth, but it surely was only a matter of when that was going to occur and the way she was going to explain it regardless. So she strikes to dismiss this entire factor mid November after she finds out she’s not pregnant. And that’s basically, I imply, Gingras wasn’t even on the case at this level.
He didn’t take over till February or March. So when Woodnick responds and says, no, we’re not dropping this, is that this the purpose of competition right here the place Gingras stated, Hey, after November fifteenth, nothing ought to have occurred with this case. All of us ought to have gone dwelling.
So it, it’s a level of competition in Gingras makes it one legally.
It isn’t as a result of that’s not the way it works. And it’s not as a result of, you realize, it’s so offensive that she’s defamed him. It’s as a result of he had filed. a response to her grievance, the place he requested, he being Clayton, for affirmative reduction. So should you, you realize, sort of take this outdoors of the household legislation context, if I sue you, Steve, for breach of contract, and also you reply, nicely, I didn’t breach the contract, really, Rachel, You breached the contract and now I’m suing you additionally.
And you realize, you see these on courtroom reveals, together with scorching bench on a regular basis. It’s a counterclaim. That counterclaim is now like its personal case. And. After I’ve responded to your grievance or after Clayton had responded to Laura’s grievance, if the particular person responding information a counterclaim or asks for affirmative reduction as Clayton did, it is sensible and it’s the case that the plaintiff can not say, oops, I would like this all to be over.
Now it’s throughout as a result of now the opposite particular person has a case in opposition to you and you may’t make that go away. By simply calling uncle, proper? You may’t simply say, Oh God, I bought caught. Okay. Now all the things will get to go away. And I went again and pulled Clayton’s unique response and I bought to provide the man credit score. I used to be tremendous impressed, you realize, trigger it’s a 4 and also you fill out for the courtroom.
He, on the very finish, Checked slightly field saying, I would like different reduction, together with sanctions and now Clayton has an affirmative declare for reduction. So at that time, which was months earlier than Laura sought dismissal, she now can not simply dismiss the entire case. and make all of it go away. She will nonetheless say, I don’t need my very own launch that I requested for, however she not has any absolute proper to simply make this case go away for apparent causes.
As a result of then individuals who sued others after which had a counter declare filed in opposition to them may principally simply make the counter declare go away by simply saying, okay, I would like all of it to be achieved. So that’s simply improper as a matter of legislation.
Yeah. Okay.
The opposite essential factor to notice is, you realize, Gingras has stated many occasions, and we’ve seen plenty of form of insistence, that Laura, as quickly as she knew she wasn’t pregnant, she didn’t wish to do anything anymore.
Yeah.
However that’s probably not how this occurred. She didn’t instantly go to the courtroom and say, Please dismiss my case.
We’re speaking about November when she came upon, technically, Appropriate. That nobody was pregnant.
Okay. Appropriate. Appropriate. She requested. For mediation. After she ought to have identified. That she was not pregnant due to the HCG check that she, by the way in which, altered, however totally different story, proper?
She requested for mediation and this was the second or third submitting on this case That was actually very unreasonable and improper The place she was principally begging the courtroom to make Clayton speak to her, proper? She filed a movement for communication You understand, previous to that, which once I first heard that, I assumed possibly that’s a procedural factor in Arizona that I’ve simply by no means heard of.
It’s not. It’s, it’s simply ridiculous. You understand, she principally filed a movement begging Clayton to fulfill together with her and he or she now says, oh, nicely, that was going to be my strategy to inform him I’m not pregnant anymore. However you don’t get to do this. You don’t get to make use of the courtroom assets for that function. After which, when Clayton didn’t conform to mediation or, you realize, issues simply sort of saved going, she didn’t instantly file for dismissal both.
She waited over a month. And it wasn’t till she noticed, oh, Clayton isn’t going to simply go away now that the gig is up, that she all of a sudden determined, ooh, okay, possibly, possibly I picked the improper particular person this time.
Okay, right here’s my query about this movement for communication now. Principally begging him to speak to her, however he’s a man that she had an order of safety in opposition to.
So which is it? Would you like him to by no means are available in contact with you? It is a lady who claims she was fearing for her life as a result of Greg Gillespie and Mike Maracini had been sitting in on the trial with safety guards there. And but she’s claiming I’m fearing for my life. Now she has an order of safety in opposition to Clayton.
And but she’s saying, Hey, we have to meet. I wish to speak to you. Like, this doesn’t make any sense to me.
In fact it doesn’t. Now, I don’t know, I can’t bear in mind which one got here first. I’m fairly positive that when she filed the movement to communication, the movement for communication, no matter, there wasn’t any order of safety in place that might have prevented that.
However, however regardless, these had been all taking place across the identical time.
Yeah.
