October 10, 2025 • 62 mins
Reigndrops, it’s an emergency episode, and you know what that means: the TEA is piping HOT! This morning, news broke that Eddie and Wendy Osefo have been arrested on fraud charges, and here to help break down these shocking accusations is Reali-TEA Crime Stories’ favorite judge, Judge Terrinee. Tune in for the details!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Okay, rain Drops, i know it's late
on a Friday night, and I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
You guys had plans, so.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I don't take it for granted that you guys hopped
onto Reality with the King Live as Courtney Parker and
I are going to do a special edition of Reality
Crime Stories based on the break News.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
We have Judge Tyranny who is back.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
As well, so I'm gonna bring them in in a second,
but I want to make sure that I give enough
time so that everybody is here because we haven't done
a live in a very long time when it came
to a situation like this, So.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
I'll do my shot out to the rain draws high.
Candice speaks. We are all rooting for you. Wendy.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I saw that I'm late because I was doing my research.
So before I bring in Courtney Parker and Judge Tyranny,
I do want to say this. The reason why I
wanted to make sure to have this conversation later in
the day is because I wanted to make sure, out
(01:54):
of respect to my friendship with doctor Wendy, that I
and Eddie that I wasn't just going to talk about
it immediately after came out. I'm fully aware that when
this news hit this morning, that more stuff is gonna
(02:16):
come out later in the day, so I wanted to
make sure that I wasn't going to just talk about
stuff that I wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Fully informed about.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Okay, this is serious, so I wanted to take this seriously,
and I want to make sure that I did all
of my research. I want to make sure that I've
read every single document. It's the reason why I wanted
to make sure to bring on a sitting judge, you know,
Judge Tyranny, to really break down not the case because
(02:49):
the case is still pending, so she's unable obviously to
break down the case it's pending, but to answer some
legal questions that I know that you guys wanted to know,
so I wanted to make sure that before I did
this live, I have all the information. So once again,
I want to thank you all for taking time out
(03:10):
of your Friday evening to hop on this live. So
I feel like we have everyone in here, and let's
get round in too, and let's bring in my co
host Corney Parker and Judge Tyranny.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Hello, good evening.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
How's it going party? You're muted, I.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Said, Hi, Carlos, Hi, rain.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Drops, how's it going?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
So listen, let's get right into where the rain drops
have been waiting for hours.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
To have this conversation.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
So what I want to do first, Courtney and Judge
Tyranny is I want to break down exactly what the
court documents are stating so that everybody is fully aware
of what is going on. Okay, So rain jobs, listen up,
because we are here to report on the facts and
(04:10):
to also answer any questions that you guys may have
in the chat. Okay, So first thing first, this is
the reported timeline.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
All right. April of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Four, the Oscephos reported a burglary at their Fennsburg, Maryland
home while they were on vacation in Jamaica. They told
law enforcement their bid room and closets were ransacked and
that design of jewelry and handbags were stolen. The alleged
(04:44):
losses were over four hundred thousand dollars worth of luxury goods.
Perth the court documents and media reports, this is when
the investigation was conducted, and these are the findings.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Investigator said.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
The supposed entry point, a bathroom window nine feet above
a deck, showed no signs of forced entry. Adt and
ring camera footage did not show suspicious activity during the
period of the reported breaking. Police later discovered some of
(05:24):
the stolen items. Alleged stolen items had been returned for
refunds months before the burglary. Okay, social media posts allegedly
showed doctor Wendy wearing jewelry claimed to be stolen.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Investigators then executed a search warrant and reportedly found at
least fifteen items that were part.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Of the original stolen list.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So they upon that this is what occurred in the timeline,
and these are the charges that has happened. As of
October of this year, which is this month, the Carroll
County Grand Jury induided both Wendy and Eddie Ossepho. Wendy
Osepho is being charged with some accounts of insurance fraud,
(06:23):
eight counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count
of making a false statement to a police officer. Eddie
is being charged with nine counts of insurance fraud, eight
counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count of
making a false statement to a police officer. So before
(06:49):
I bring in Courtney and the judge, I do want
to make sure that I also explained to the rain
drops what the police is a ledging that they discovered. Okay,
they are alleging, and I do want to read this
ver betim based on the actual documents that was recently
(07:13):
revealed to TMZ. So I want to take the time
out to read that so you guys can follow along
in terms of what exactly happened.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
All right. So here we go, all right, So not
my life going on, child, Here we go, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So this is the actual core document that I'm reading from,
So this is this is what they are alleging. On Thursday,
October ninth, twenty twenty five, the defendant was indicted by
the grand jury for seven consum Insurance FRAUL. I've read
you guys saw that, and a warrant was issued and
(07:57):
bail was set at fifty thousand dollars. I told you
guys what the allegations were already based on the court documents.
This is what they're alleging right now. They're saying that
investigation determinent that On April eighth, the Osephos initiated three
(08:21):
separate insurance claims for the burglary and theft, Travelers Insurance,
Jewelers Mutual Insurance, and Home Site Insurance Company for the alleged.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Losses suffered while they were away.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
They're alleging that Eddie gave recorded statements to two of
the insurance companies regarding a list of stolen items he provided.
He was asked whether any of the items on the
list have their return, which he denied. He was asked
if he had other insurance, but fell to disclose. The
Home Site and Jewelerers that he was also making a
(08:59):
claim were Travelers Insurance. They both signed a sworn statement.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Of loss, which was notarized.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
The total amount of loss claim on the sworn statement
was for the loss of twenty five hundreds for the
building and four hundred and fifty thousand dollars estimated for
contents personal property. He included an inventory of reporter stolen
items along with the receipts that claim was denied figure
(09:30):
to disclose the policy with Travelers Insurance. In the original
claim submit on April eighth to Travelers, Eddie confirmed that
he and his wife were wearing their anniversary bands when
the loss occurred. However, Eddie called Travelers Insurance on April
tenth and said he needed to update their claim, stating
(09:51):
his wife's gold diamond anniversary band was missing. That same day,
Traveler's Insurance settled that claim for twenty five one thousand,
three hundred and eighty dollars, which included the replacement price
of the band, which was four thousand, five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
One more thing.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
After the initial reported claim, on April eleven, they both
signed and submitted letters to the jeweler's mutual insurance claiming
the burglary occurred and items were reported stolen. At the
request of Jewelry's mutual insurance, the Osephas provided an initial
list of fifty seven stolen items. Included on that list
(10:31):
was Windy's gold diamond anniversary band that was already reported
in the Travelers insurance claim. Now, on April twenty second,
Eddie was interviewed during a recorded call and did not
make any mention of the jewelry claim or payout with
the Travelers. They're saying that deputies were suspicious of the
(10:51):
circumstances of the burglary and the records from stores where
some of the items were purchased, along with social media
and email accounts, and based on their investigation, they're allegend
that they found that the items that.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
They claim were stolen were returned.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Before the burglary, and they're alleging that a ring that
they said was stolen they found Wendy to have warned
that in a social media post. As of now, they
are released on bond and now we're here to talk
about exactly what is going on.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So Courtney tell us some questions to ask.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I want to start by asking Judge Tyranny this so
Ray John's we are fortunate enough to have a sitting
judge who's able to break down the law to us. Again,
this isn't for us to have colorful commentary. I want
to just stick to the law and stick to the facts.
So Courtney has her questions. I'll start by asking, okay, judge,
(12:03):
the nine counts of insurance fraud, but only eight counts
of conspiracy insurance problem?
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Are those two different things? Like?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
What are the difference between counts of insurance fraud but
other counts of conspiracy of insurance fraud?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
So I will just repeat again that I cannot speak
on the marriage or the facts of this case. So
I can't specifically say eight versus nine or nine versus eight.
I can't give legal advice. But what I will tell
you is that anytime that there is the allegations of
(12:45):
a felony, it has to be presented before a grand
jury and during the grand jury. This is not innocent
or guilt. This is just simply does the prosecutor have
enough evidence to move forward? And based on the whatever
comes from the grand jury, they determine how much evidence
(13:11):
that a prosecutor has put forth to actually bring charges.
So in order to bring the charges forward, they have
to present evidence to move forward to the grand jury,
so depending on whatever was And what's really key about
a grand jury indictment is that it is secret at
(13:33):
the time so that the witnesses are protected. So at
this time, you wouldn't technically know what was presented to
the grand jury and what they decided until the charges
are actually filed, and those charges would have been filed
(13:53):
based on their conclusions from the evidence presented.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
I do have a question, because we all were very
invested in the press conference today where the prosecutor made
it very clear his intentions for filing, as well as
the sheriff surrounding this their intentions on supporting the claims
(14:27):
against Wendy and her husband, my question becomes. One of
the things that stuck out to me was how their
investigation started immediately from when the officers were boots on
the ground at the house to questions in red flags
posing how an alleged burglar got into a second story
(14:52):
open window in a bathroom, Like all of the things
that rose suspicion for officers on at the scene are
now part of this indictment pending investigation as we speak.
So when we look at that, when evidence of that
magnitude is presented and it feels as though law enforcement
(15:17):
felt like there were things kind of tricky and suspicious immediately,
how then is that going to potentially come back to
haunt the couple now as they're presenting new evidence saying
we suspect we not only suspect fraud, but investigators from
(15:40):
the insurance claim as well as our personal officers have
started to scour.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Your social media.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
We're looking at the crime scene and we're sending investigators
back on the crime scene to make sure that it
is your statements were reasonable and rational, which they're now
discovering or not. What are we looking at in terms
of them building a case and a case with prosecutor sticking.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
Okay, so I'm going to repeat it again because I
think it's worth repeating. We have to be very clear
to understand that a grand jury indictment has nothing to
do with proof of innocent or guilt. It is simply
enough evidence from an investigation that allows a case to
(16:34):
move forward, where we now actually go into the specifics
of a case, the evidence, the veracity of the evidence,
the credibility of the witnesses, and so it's very very
important anytime you're dealing with the case. I mean, it
sounds cliche until you're actually in that moment. You are
innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has the burden to
(16:59):
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of
the charges. Now, of course, investigators and prosecutors do their
investigations and they take their time. But anytime there is
a I guess an allegation of wrongdoing, an investigation is
(17:21):
going to occur, and you are going to follow the evidence.
These are conclusions still, but they have to be proven
in a court of law, and it has to happen
through the presentation of evidence in court. And a lot
(17:43):
of times I said this to you all before, a
lot of times, especially with high profile cases, public opinion
will come to a conclusion no evidence has been reported,
no excellent nations have been presented, and so we are
coming to these conclusions through public opinion that simply just
(18:07):
may not be true or they may be incomplete. And
I just do you want to caution people always whenever
you're talking about allegations, especially allegations that are serious and
could possibly carry up to if it's a state charge,
anywhere from ten years in custody, a federal charge up
(18:27):
to twenty years in custody, we should not jump to conclusions.
We should let the evidence take us and lead the
case and only rely on what is presented in court.
Because there is a different standard in court than what
is going to be put out into the media.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I want to tell you this socording before we ask
this question. I do want to ask you this.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I everyone knows I am in law school. I go
to the University of Reality with the King Law. I'm
trying my best to like understand this and what what
what I have learned by doing this the laws series
that I'm doing is the fact that it's one thing
(19:11):
for the prosecutors to detail their discovery along with the
sheriff's department, to say we have enough evidence. They take
it to the grand jury. The grand jury then and
stumming when I'm wrong, Judge Tyranny. The grand jury then decides, yes,
(19:32):
you have you have proven at this stage, right, you
have proven Okay, so let me.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Not proven you. The grand jury felt like, you have
delivered enough of a case.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
You built enough of a case, right, You built enough
of a case in order for us to move forward
with an.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Arrest to indict to see, so let's use that now.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
The grand jury basically says, there is enough smoke for
you to see if it's a fire. Okay, there are
no conclusions, there's no evidence of proof. Or guilt, and
it's not the sheriff's apartment that would actually present to
the grand jury. The sheriff does the investigation and turns
over the information from the investigation to the prosecutor's office.
(20:25):
The prosecutor office then presents that to the grand jury,
and the grand jury decides if enough evidence has been
presented to move forward with pursuing charges.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
And that's why you're InnoCentive proven guilty because as of now, listen,
as of now, Eddie and Wendy are innocent because they
have yet to be proven guilty.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
These are just charges.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
So the next app allegations, Yes, right, they're allegations, but
there is there's still being Again, I'm gonna ask you this.
We're there, they're being charged. So is there a difference
between being charged and allegations.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
They're not the same in one, but they can be synonymous.
So the the what they have been alleged of illegal
activity and now they have been charged, and now the
actual prosecutor has to prove their case because the standard
is beyond a reasonable doubt always in a criminal case, okay,
(21:35):
and that is a very high burden of proof, so
that that's no easy fee.
Speaker 5 (21:41):
Right, As We've seen one of these other cases that
just because you're charged in court, it is your responsibility
prosecution's responsibility to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
That's correct. It's their burden we did have, and.
Speaker 5 (22:01):
According to the press conference today, the prosecutor in this
case feels very confident that they will be able to prove.
He acknowledged that it's his responsibility, burden lies with him,
but he is confident that the charges that they brought
against them he will be able to prove. He was
(22:22):
very adamant and confident within the press conference today. So
we're going to be very interested to see how this
all unfolds. One of the questions from the rain drops
ab we see your question, and it's a good one.
Did they know that they were being investigated from the jump?
(22:43):
Do we think that they knew they were under investigation.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
That would probably be a question for Carlos. He would
be more in tune with what you know. Maybe their
state of mind is Again, those are specifics to the
case that I cannot speak to. I can repeat that
a grand jury is in secret, so evidence is presented
in grand jury to secret. That doesn't mean that in
(23:12):
any case, any witness hasn't been interviewed, but you would
have to come to a conclusion if you take an
example of a missing wife. So if a husband didn't
actually participate in it, but he is going to be
questioned by the investigators, is it reasonable that he may
(23:35):
deduce that he is being investigated. Yes, because generally all
the time, the first person we think of when someone
goes missing is the closest person to them. But there
may not be anything specific that says we are being
you are actually being investigated until they state that to
(23:55):
them or come and present charges from the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Justge Tarny, can you explain to us the difference between fraud,
conspiracy and false statement charges?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
And I apologize because you did ask me that when
we opened up, and I kind of was explaining something else.
But I think that here's what's very The second two
charges are related to the big charge. So the fraud
is the charge, and that is when you have knowingly
(24:35):
given false information or misrepresentation and someone has relied on it, okay,
and you have caused harm. The key in the fraud
to commit insurance fraud is intent. You have to knowingly
(24:56):
do it. So then their other charge, the the charges
that you mentioned to me with the conspiracy is very simple.
It's just two or more people get together and decide
to commit a crime.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
And lastly, making a foster report is exactly what it
sounds like when you talk to the authorities, you did
not tell the truth, and especially if you do it
under oath or a sworn statement.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
And the foster report is generally most of the times
going to be a misdemeanor, except in federal cases it
can be a felony lying to the federal government.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
And the thing is, as of now, this is a
state crime, not federal. So as of now it's a
state crime. Could it go to the federal level though,
judge tyranny? And if what has to happen for a
state crime to reach federal in any case a fraud, well,
(26:06):
it has.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
To actually be something that is going to break federal law.
So there are certain things like a city organ discharge
or a state charge that is related specifically to your jurisdiction,
your city, your state. Sometimes the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction. Okay,
(26:32):
you know, so we're just waking they're not going to
have jurisdiction but in a case where we're talking about
something like fraud, if there is any commerce that crosses
over interstate, then you're going to see concurrent jurisdiction between
a state and the federal government.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Generally, they're going to.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Have a discussion about who's proceeding, because you always want
to think about in prosecution of cases, making sure that
you're allocating public funds in a responsible manner. So it's
very unlikely that you would see a state and federal
prosecution at the same time.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Got it.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
I do have a question, and Carlos, can you do
you mind rereading the charges specifically so that we can
really understand because I think when we hear the bigger.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Charge of fraud and now I have at least I
do have a.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Better understanding, and hope the rain drops do as well
have a better understanding of the conspiracy part. But when
we listen to the sheriffs during the press conference say
that actual man hours went into investigating a crime that
didn't just happen to Wendy and her husband, but could
(28:03):
also have affected the neighborhood in the community at large, that's.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
What they take into account. How then does it really
How then does those.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Charges against filing a false police report or giving false
statements to the police. How does that kind of come
in play when the police are thinking about it the
larger scope, they're spending time, resources and energy looking for
someone who just quite frankly didn't exist. How does that
(28:43):
become an even more serious charge judge?
Speaker 4 (28:47):
If you can.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
So, again, a false statement to the police is always
going to you know, be a crime, but generally if
(29:10):
the it's a state case versus a federal case, it's
going to be seen as sometimes a lower level case.
If that makes sense, it does.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
It's a lower level A lower level charge to a
bigger charge, though makes it.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Different.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Does a lower level charge attached to a much larger
charge make it carry more weight? Potentially when somebody brings
something like that in front of a judge, Well, every.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Case is going to be decided on the merits and
facts of that case, and so it's really hard to
speculate on what would happen in the specific case. Remember
one time a woman in the country, she made a
false report about being kidnapped and missing, and it used
(30:09):
a lot of manpower and time, and so that jurisdiction
came down really hard on her because they wanted to
send a message that when you make false statements, you
take away from the police actually investigating crimes that could
save lives. And I think that generally that is why
(30:34):
it's such a big deal when you make a false report,
because you're taking away from when the police could be
out saving someone else's life or mitigating large damage. But
it's still a serious charge on its own. Again, I
(30:54):
didn't see the press conference. I don't know anything about
the facts specifically of this case. I am here just
really for educational commentary, because when things like this happen,
especially in the public eye, it's very important for the
public to understand because I always say that you have
(31:15):
to know these things for your own personal life. The
difference is that I'm not sure if it was a
mistermeanor or felony charge. So that is what would differentiate
whether it was more serious or equally serious. Did they
charge or were they charged with a mistermeanor or a felony?
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yes, And we'll have Corny talk about that too, because
one thing I want to bring up is this.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
They are alleging that they were able to get into
Eddie's emails, and they said that they found an email
where he allegedly told Wendy to up the amount of
the claims, adding things more to the claims that they
were able to go a little bit over the maximum
(32:04):
amount of what the home insurance agency was going to provide.
What I want to ask you about that is this,
does law enforcement have to get some sort of warrant
to tap into your emails?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Like?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
How were they able to find these How does law
enforcement able to find emails without your permission?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Yes, you absolutely have a warrant. It has to have
a warrant, and it has to be executed by a judge.
It may not necessarily be the judge in the case,
but it has to be executed by a judge because
a judge has to review the information that you have presented,
stating the reason why you need to actually collect this evidence.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
And so.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
A share supartment or prosecutor or an investigator is always
going to have to get a warrant. But again I
go back to making sure that the public, especially the
rain drops, are not making any conclusions at this point,
(33:14):
because you know, it's like having a one sided conversation.
They have put forth and said a lot of things,
but now on the other side the defense side, they
get to review everything. They get to review evidence, the veracity,
the authenticity of it, They get to review the relevance
(33:36):
of it. They get to a review if it was
done procedurally and what is going to actually be included
for a jury and a judge to decide ultimately what
happens in the case. So in pre trial negotiations you
go through actually going through all of the most in
(34:01):
presenting the evidence to say this is what will be
allowed to be presented in this case in court, and
that is super important. So again I just I caution
the public in any case, please allow the facts and
the evidence to guide your journey. Do not jump ahead
(34:24):
of the journey, but do be educated so that you
understand exactly what is going on and that you are
not making conclusions, you know, apprehensively or prematurely.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
Can we talk about Here's what I find fascinating, and
I know this kind of goes to your question, Michael Smith.
For one of the things that is being alleged is
that they doubled itpped, so they file multiple insurance claims
(35:00):
on the same item, and that drove up the price
of what they actually collected on through several different insurance entities.
What is shocking in all of this is that he
is an attorney, so there were a lot of risk
involved and will there be any kind I know you're saying,
(35:23):
don't jump to the conclusions, but it's very hard not
to at least be conscious of the fact that an attorney,
a prominent attorney.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Who's and his wife who is very visible on reality TV.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
They are you know, fan favorites, that they didn't have
some idea. It's not you know me or just some
regular person filing acclaim. It's somebody who actually has a
clear understanding of the law and also consciously doing something
(36:07):
that could appear as fraud, fraudulent.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
Or you know, just something shady.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
So I think the question is this though, is it?
Speaker 2 (36:21):
And I want to simpify for the brain drops, because
again I don't to ask the questions for the brain
drops to know is it illegal to claim a stolen
item or more than one insurance company?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
That would be inconsistent with the law. But again I
want to make sure we are talking in generalities and
making you are making conclusions because you're stating that someone
has consciously done something. It's IMpower to speak to someone's
(37:01):
state of minde. That is what the legal process is for.
That is what court is for, because intent must be proven.
But I'm a judge, Carlos is in the law school
of rain Drops, the I.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
Got my law degree from Law and Order University.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Humans make mistakes. You cannot criminalize mistakes. There has to
be intent. You have to knowingly and willingly break the law.
You have to knowingly and willingly mislead someone. And that
is why we must let the process lead in the courtroom,
(37:45):
not play out in the media. Headlines sound great, but
facts and evidence are what lead in a courtroom.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Yes, no, agree.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
And that's the reason why I want to make sure
to do this episode with you, because again I wanted
to make sure that we had enough time to get
all the facts that was presented, just based. And when
I say facts, I'm not saying that what they're a
legend is factual. I'm meaning facts in terms of things
that were in the court documents.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
I want to make that very clear when I say that.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
In addition to that, it was more so of the
generalities for anybody if it's doubled, if you double dip
on assurance claim, whoever you are, and was that illegal.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Now you answered that. Listen, you have to prove that
this person had intent to do it.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And I think at the end of the day, look
the reason why people are saying you're innocent to prove
and guilty, and why some people are even saying, well,
why was Wendy and Eddie smiling in their mugshots? You know, look,
Eddie is a lawyer, and perhaps there's way more information
that we will find out as this case proceeds that
(39:01):
really warrants whether or not intent was involved in these allegations.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
What I do want to ask you is this, Eddie
is a lawyer. He has a law degree.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
If any lawyer, if any lawyer is convicted of a crime,
whether it's a state crime, a federal crime, a misdemeanor
or not, is that something to where you are disbarred
from it or are there something that has to be
(39:35):
to a high degree for that to happen?
Speaker 1 (39:37):
Right?
Speaker 3 (39:39):
So the first thing, again I'm not aware, but if
you are a lawyer, then you actually graduate from law school.
There are two things that happen. You have to actually
pass the fitness test to sit for the bar, and
then you have to sit for the bar and pass it.
So I'm not sure if you are practicing attorney, because
(40:02):
people graduate from law school all the time and they
may not be practicing.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
So you have to be a practicing attorney licensed to
a state in order to lose your license. So I
just want to clarify that in each state you have
to take a fitness test to sit for the bar examination,
and then you actually have to pass the bar examination,
(40:29):
and that is how you become a practicing lawyer in
that state. But absolutely, if you are charged with a
crime and convicted right that state bar is going to
do an investigation and you will be given due diligence,
just like in any other process. But if any lawyer
(40:52):
is convicted of a crime, depending on the nature of
the crime, especially a phony crime, their license is more
than likely going to be revoked.
Speaker 4 (41:05):
In that state. Could they practice in another state?
Speaker 3 (41:10):
It is state by state, so the states would have
to decide. Let's say I am licensed in the state
of Georgia. If I lose my license in the state
of Georgia, I still have to go apply in another state.
That's the fitness test I'm talking about, where they do
a basically a background check on you and check everything
(41:32):
and say you can be trusted with someone else's life
and financial matters.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
That's a fitness test.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
That's the fitness test. So you could go to law
school and not be allowed to sit for the bar examination.
You have to pass the fitness test first.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
As a fitness test is a background it's a deep.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Guy background check, and it is not just a background
check that relates to criminality. It relates to your financial matters.
Like they want to make sure that anytime you're allowing
someone to be entrusted with other people's lives and financial matters,
that they are trustworthy.
Speaker 4 (42:17):
So if you.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Like don't pay your bills on time, or have multiple
lawsuits filed against you, you might be denied to sit
for the bar after going to law school for three years.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Wait, hold on, hold, I hold, I'll hold on, hold on,
hold on, hold on. If I am in law school all.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
And in order for me to pass the fitness test,
this background check is so deep that if you find
that I pay my bills late, I could fail the
fitness test.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
You could fail the fitness test after three years of
law school, and we don't apply until our third year,
and so you could have gone through that. But here's
the thing in a lot of space.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
It's not.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
It's like any other tests. You can try again, so
you can go resolve your matters and you can present
your case again and come back and say, I have
you know, been reformed. I've done this, this and this.
I've got my life on path. I understood through this
process and now I'm a better person, which is going
to make me a better lawyer, because there are a
(43:25):
lot of people in our community who have time, you know,
trouble not paying their bills. But it is it's a
devastating thing, to be honest with you. It happened to
a guy I knew in law school, and it was
devastating to him.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
M M.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (43:45):
Someone in the comments said it's a character as well
as fitness test, absolutely, and I thought that was very
interesting because there there was a distinction on the character.
Speaker 4 (43:57):
So your character.
Speaker 5 (44:00):
Is very as equally as important to this fitness test.
Speaker 3 (44:04):
Correct, Yes, it's the same thing character and fitness, so
that it goes into your character. But which is why
they use your financial background as a way to define
your character. But they also use things like your school background,
They use you know, your driving history. They review so
(44:30):
many things in your life to make sure that you
actually can be entrusted with the life and financial matters
of the public.
Speaker 4 (44:39):
Got it.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
And we've said all that to say that it's very
unlikely if I lose my license in one state that
another state would actually grant me the right to actually
try and pursue my license in their state.
Speaker 4 (44:58):
Is there going to be a way?
Speaker 5 (44:59):
And again we are dealing with a lot of hypotheticals
because this is just unfolding. But in the event there
there isn't redeeming quality here, right like, if this comes
to show that he's actually guilty of this, loses his
license only if he's a practicing attorney. I thought that
(45:19):
was a good note and take away that I will
take away. Is there like a grace period or is
there a period of time where you could reapply for
your license even after something like this happens should he
be convicted.
Speaker 3 (45:37):
It is going to be based on the state. So
each state is going to have different requirements, just like
they have different laws and penalties. So the state that
you know he applies to will depend.
Speaker 5 (45:51):
I know one of the rain drops ask a question
from our from a loan I mean an insurance adjuster
and the insurance adjuster in the comments stated that it
is illegal to file multiple claims.
Speaker 4 (46:07):
And I do remember and recall.
Speaker 5 (46:12):
My purse got stolen, my you know, my credit cards,
things were in there when I filled it out for
my credit cards as well as my homeowner's insurance. They
do ask you if you filed a claim with another
company to list it, list the things that you're claiming
(46:33):
with that company versus what you're claiming there.
Speaker 4 (46:38):
Those documents, especially if you're.
Speaker 5 (46:41):
In a state of you know, shock or dismay, can
become confusing because what you might be able to, what
might be covered through let's say AMEX, is not necessarily
going to be covered through anything else that you you've
(47:02):
gotten stolen. So there is a good chance considering that
that I really do hope that it was more confusing
than just malicious, because though it's just.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
One can be right.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
I think that you know, you just gave a great
example of why intent is so important and fraud because
you know, we're humans. We make human errors. Sometimes people
don't understand the language. Sometimes there's miscommunication between family members
or spouses. Sometimes the record keeping is a little sloppy. Again,
(47:42):
the intent is really important.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
That's a good question.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
So a range Job asked, So, what's interesting about this
is a married couple who are being charged for allegedly
committing crime within the same household, within insurance, but they
have different counts. What I will say is this, I'm
not a lawyer, but what I will say similarly to
(48:09):
Teresa Judais and Joe Judais.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Range dropped it, so you all know. But I'll have
to judge answer that she wants to.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
But what I can say based on my knowledge of
Teresa and Joe, a married couple who both were arrested
and charged and both sent us to jail, they went
to trial separately because and you tell me if I'm wrong, Judge,
the law views you as individuals, so you're in some cases.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
So I'm assuming in this case that Eddie and Wendy
possibly will go to trial.
Speaker 3 (48:47):
Separately, and if there be any case when there are
co defendants, you can have a trial. Again, we always
are talking about the use of public funds, and so
we all always want to make sure that the government
is responsibly spending the public's money because the money belongs
(49:09):
to the public in all of these cases, and so
you have the right to try any co defendant together,
but equally, because these are criminal charges and each defendant
has a right to their own defense, they can file
for emotions to separate their trials. So again that's why
(49:33):
you have to and I just keep repeating this, you
have to judge each case based on its own facts, merits,
and circumstances. It's really hard to predict, which is why
we shouldn't. We should really follow the evidence and just
what is presented in court, including the motions, because that
(49:56):
would be a motion that would be filed in court
either to move forward together or to separate the trials.
Speaker 2 (50:03):
M What what I do want to get into is this,
and first of all, Judge, thank you so much for
your insight, because I want to make sure that we
spend time really dissecting the law, because, like you said,
there's so much information going out here that I want
to make sure that we were able to.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Sort of talk about the law instead of the relatiousness.
Speaker 2 (50:23):
Now, what I will say is, as we transition into
more breaking news, Courtney Parker, who also is a Reality
to Be producer, what.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
Came out tonight is the fact is the fact that
there's a news show that's appearing.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
I Believe on Bravo and Peacock called White Swap, and
doctor Wendy is a part of White Swap. It has
been reported today that the network has decided to pull
that episode as a Now.
Speaker 5 (51:01):
Wow, and I was just reading that the they're they're
also talking about delaying next week's premiere to the following week.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Well, no premiere on Sunday.
Speaker 5 (51:20):
This the fourteenth premiere is now being possibly moved to
next week.
Speaker 2 (51:30):
Oh you mean the premiere, Wife Soma? Sorry, yes, Wifeah yeah,
So okay, So what Courneya says? She's right, So Wife
Swap was supposed to premiere on October fourteenth, rain Drops,
which is Tuesday. Courneya is saying that, yes, they pulled
the episode with Wendy in it, and now that they
(51:54):
may be pushing back the premiere. The only thing I
can assume, I can assume as a producer is if
they're pushing back the premiere, I wonder if doctor Wendy
was in the first episode.
Speaker 4 (52:06):
Absolutely absolutely, And I'm saying that with certainty.
Speaker 5 (52:10):
Because we've all been there when your show was supposed
to premiere there was all this media attention. Networks are
very calculated in their rollout so there's always the piggyback
of There's always the piggyback of promotion, whoever is hot.
(52:32):
I did a show recently and there was a tragedy
surrounding one of our celebrities.
Speaker 4 (52:38):
This particular celebrity lost.
Speaker 5 (52:41):
Two family members within the same week of my show premiering.
She was my first episode. We ended up having to
move her to the third episode because of all the promotion.
We didn't want to be insensitive, the network didn't want
to be insensitive. We needed to do immediate damage control.
(53:02):
So if they were the first episode, which I'm very
confident in assuming that they were, that's why they have to,
you know, recalibrate and they have to shuffle the episodes
and make whatever number two was number one so that
they don't mess up the network calendar and the show's
(53:25):
calendar of production.
Speaker 1 (53:28):
What is so interesting? Yeah, yeah, and it is, and
it is and it is and listen.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
One of the brands asked a good question, Carlos, why
would they do that? Why would a network pull the episode?
So again I'm speaking in generals, I to speak to
a brama representative, but what I can say is I
think we have to look at it this way. Wife
Swap is a very different show than Real Housewives, right,
the Real Housewives, as we know, we saw the premier
(53:57):
episode Potomac. We saw that it opened up with Karen
getting out of jail for her DUI conviction. We saw
that Teresa had to turn herself in go to jail.
Was then Camus follow her coming back home. I think
on Housewives that may be something that Okay, let's follow
(54:18):
the reality. The difference rain drops between Housewives and Wife Swap.
Wife Swap based on the show that was on I
believe it was Lifetime. For my mistaken that's a different show,
and it's different. It's more wholesome. It's also a show
that you know you're in these people's homes.
Speaker 1 (54:41):
You know. That show is more comedy.
Speaker 2 (54:44):
It's more so like, oh if I could live in
your house one day, what would that feel like? So
it's a very different show tonally than a Real Housewives.
And I think the other thing too is, look, this
is a brand new show, and the last thing you
want for a brand new show a series premiere is
(55:10):
this level of scandal.
Speaker 1 (55:11):
Now, granted, the range jobs in the comments, but Carlos
the Rangers will be high. I agree with you, But
I think on some.
Speaker 2 (55:20):
Yes, I'll answer a question of some own I think
in these cases leave it, leave leave that back up.
Speaker 1 (55:26):
For me as a mom, I want to make sure
I remember and read it directly.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
White Swap is a brand new show, so to have
that type of, like Cortney said, controversy may not be
appetizing for the appetizers.
Speaker 4 (55:40):
I want to make a correction. White Swap is not
a brand new show. But it's been no no, no, no, right, it's.
Speaker 5 (55:46):
It's been off the air for a significant amount of time,
so it's now coming back.
Speaker 1 (55:51):
I know.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
But the difference, right, but but it's a brand new
show for this network because they change, and they also
changed the creative is now Housewives is Housewives swapping over
with people? Got it? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (56:05):
Yeah, So I want to make sure we knew that,
Mia Simon Carlos. We really want to know. Is Bravo
still filming? Are we getting any of this for the season?
You guys are so funny.
Speaker 2 (56:18):
No, they wrapped the show. They wrapped the show. They
were not listen, they were they were not filming at.
Speaker 1 (56:25):
All this season. They wrapped the show.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
Now, look, they also were not filming when Karen was sentenced,
and as we saw, they got the cameras back when
she was released and they weren't filming then.
Speaker 1 (56:42):
Now do I think that they are going to film this?
Speaker 2 (56:47):
I think it's a high probability that we may at
the season finale of The Real Housewives of Potomac, whatever
the ending scene is, I would not be surprised if
it fades to black and it says X amount of
weeks later and then you see the girls reacting to this.
(57:10):
You see Giselle and Ashley on the phone, You see
the girls reacting to this like they did with Karen's
dure conviction, and then you get to see possibly Windy
and Eddie talk about it as much as they can
based on the severity of this case. So I would
not be surprised if cameras are back up, if not
this weekend, on Monday, this weekend, you think.
Speaker 4 (57:36):
This week, I mean, Carlos, you would have us have
cameras up right now.
Speaker 1 (57:41):
The time.
Speaker 4 (57:43):
And the press.
Speaker 2 (57:44):
Conference, yes, so you know that's that's That's what I
think is a probability of that happening. So look, Raine Jobs,
the biggest thing is this, though obviously more information is
going to be revealed.
Speaker 1 (57:59):
Again.
Speaker 2 (57:59):
I wanted to spend today's live focus just on what
was presented to us, from the press conference to the
documents that were released to us, to have Judge Tarranny,
who actually was.
Speaker 1 (58:13):
Out of town, who was hanging out with her kids.
Speaker 2 (58:16):
And she took time out of her busy schedule to
break down the legal jargon for us, because again, we
just don't know what so many things mean, and it's
I think it's helpful to have someone of her stature
on this platform to really break.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Down things to us to a science.
Speaker 2 (58:37):
And look, obviously, the more information to come out, the
more we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1 (58:42):
But I wanted this one to really.
Speaker 2 (58:43):
Feel like we were able to give you guys some
really factual definition of some of the legal jargon. That was.
Speaker 1 (58:54):
Yeah, and also appreciate.
Speaker 3 (58:57):
I appreciate y'all. It's as good for us to know.
Speaker 5 (59:04):
Not to jump to conclusions because one of the things
that you really did harp on and we will be
students of this as well, is just allowing us to
have some clarity, allowing us to not jump to conclusions,
and just kind of breaking down some of the things
that these alleged charges mean. And also the preparation for
(59:28):
the defense to do just that defend, because we hear
a lot from the prosecutors before we ever hear from
the defense.
Speaker 3 (59:39):
Yeah, and I just was going to say, I appreciate
you all inviting me in doing this for the rain
drops and the greater public. I say this to you
all all the time, because you know, it's one of
the reasons I wanted to be a guest. There were
so many things that the people in my community didn't understand.
I grew up in a low income, impoverished community in Jacksonville, Florida,
(01:00:02):
and it's so important for us to have information. Carlos,
you said, you know, we're not doing in solations. We
are actually educating, making sure that people understand what is
going on, because you just never know what will happen
in your own life or your family's life. So I
do appreciate you all making sure that you take your time.
(01:00:26):
Of course, you know your jobs allow for you or
you know, encourage you to follow the headlines. But I
love that you all are responsible in the way of
educating the public. At the same time. I think that
is so important and to be actually commended.
Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
Yes, no, no, thank you for that thank you for that,
so listen, we will be back with more information, Raine Jows,
but thank you God for taking time out on your
busy Friday night. And once again, I'll repeat it for
the judge. You are innocent until proven guilty, so more
to come when it comes to this case. So thank
(01:01:08):
you Courtney, Thank you, Judge, Tirany and rain John, thank you.
Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
And look, Bell Collective is back tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
Okay, episode two A Bell Collective that's coming on an
eight o'clock all right, it's Courtney's favorite show, Bell Collective,
eight o'clock tonight, So Rain John, I got forty five
minutes to put the kids, to bid, to warm up
your food, to cook a child, to get your wine ready.
Episode two of Bell Collective tonight on the Oprah Winfrey Network.
(01:01:37):
I'm gonna live two with you guys, and I'll see
y'all there. Reality with the King is executive produced by
me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership
with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find us
on my YouTube channel at be Carlos King Underscore
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Okay, rain Drops, i know it's late
on a Friday night, and I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
You guys had plans, so.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I don't take it for granted that you guys hopped
onto Reality with the King Live as Courtney Parker and
I are going to do a special edition of Reality
Crime Stories based on the break News.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
We have Judge Tyranny who is back.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
As well, so I'm gonna bring them in in a second,
but I want to make sure that I give enough
time so that everybody is here because we haven't done
a live in a very long time when it came
to a situation like this, So.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
I'll do my shot out to the rain draws high.
Candice speaks. We are all rooting for you. Wendy.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I saw that I'm late because I was doing my research.
So before I bring in Courtney Parker and Judge Tyranny,
I do want to say this. The reason why I
wanted to make sure to have this conversation later in
the day is because I wanted to make sure, out
(01:54):
of respect to my friendship with doctor Wendy, that I
and Eddie that I wasn't just going to talk about
it immediately after came out. I'm fully aware that when
this news hit this morning, that more stuff is gonna
(02:16):
come out later in the day, so I wanted to
make sure that I wasn't going to just talk about
stuff that I wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Fully informed about.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Okay, this is serious, so I wanted to take this seriously,
and I want to make sure that I did all
of my research. I want to make sure that I've
read every single document. It's the reason why I wanted
to make sure to bring on a sitting judge, you know,
Judge Tyranny, to really break down not the case because
(02:49):
the case is still pending, so she's unable obviously to
break down the case it's pending, but to answer some
legal questions that I know that you guys wanted to know,
so I wanted to make sure that before I did
this live, I have all the information. So once again,
I want to thank you all for taking time out
(03:10):
of your Friday evening to hop on this live. So
I feel like we have everyone in here, and let's
get round in too, and let's bring in my co
host Corney Parker and Judge Tyranny.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Hello, good evening.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
How's it going party? You're muted, I.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Said, Hi, Carlos, Hi, rain.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Drops, how's it going?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
So listen, let's get right into where the rain drops
have been waiting for hours.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
To have this conversation.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
So what I want to do first, Courtney and Judge
Tyranny is I want to break down exactly what the
court documents are stating so that everybody is fully aware
of what is going on. Okay, So rain jobs, listen up,
because we are here to report on the facts and
(04:10):
to also answer any questions that you guys may have
in the chat. Okay, So first thing first, this is
the reported timeline.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
All right. April of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Four, the Oscephos reported a burglary at their Fennsburg, Maryland
home while they were on vacation in Jamaica. They told
law enforcement their bid room and closets were ransacked and
that design of jewelry and handbags were stolen. The alleged
(04:44):
losses were over four hundred thousand dollars worth of luxury goods.
Perth the court documents and media reports, this is when
the investigation was conducted, and these are the findings.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Investigator said.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
The supposed entry point, a bathroom window nine feet above
a deck, showed no signs of forced entry. Adt and
ring camera footage did not show suspicious activity during the
period of the reported breaking. Police later discovered some of
(05:24):
the stolen items. Alleged stolen items had been returned for
refunds months before the burglary. Okay, social media posts allegedly
showed doctor Wendy wearing jewelry claimed to be stolen.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Investigators then executed a search warrant and reportedly found at
least fifteen items that were part.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Of the original stolen list.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So they upon that this is what occurred in the timeline,
and these are the charges that has happened. As of
October of this year, which is this month, the Carroll
County Grand Jury induided both Wendy and Eddie Ossepho. Wendy
Osepho is being charged with some accounts of insurance fraud,
(06:23):
eight counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count
of making a false statement to a police officer. Eddie
is being charged with nine counts of insurance fraud, eight
counts of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, one count of
making a false statement to a police officer. So before
(06:49):
I bring in Courtney and the judge, I do want
to make sure that I also explained to the rain
drops what the police is a ledging that they discovered. Okay,
they are alleging, and I do want to read this
ver betim based on the actual documents that was recently
(07:13):
revealed to TMZ. So I want to take the time
out to read that so you guys can follow along
in terms of what exactly happened.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
All right. So here we go, all right, So not
my life going on, child, Here we go, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So this is the actual core document that I'm reading from,
So this is this is what they are alleging. On Thursday,
October ninth, twenty twenty five, the defendant was indicted by
the grand jury for seven consum Insurance FRAUL. I've read
you guys saw that, and a warrant was issued and
(07:57):
bail was set at fifty thousand dollars. I told you
guys what the allegations were already based on the court documents.
This is what they're alleging right now. They're saying that
investigation determinent that On April eighth, the Osephos initiated three
(08:21):
separate insurance claims for the burglary and theft, Travelers Insurance,
Jewelers Mutual Insurance, and Home Site Insurance Company for the alleged.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Losses suffered while they were away.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
They're alleging that Eddie gave recorded statements to two of
the insurance companies regarding a list of stolen items he provided.
He was asked whether any of the items on the
list have their return, which he denied. He was asked
if he had other insurance, but fell to disclose. The
Home Site and Jewelerers that he was also making a
(08:59):
claim were Travelers Insurance. They both signed a sworn statement.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Of loss, which was notarized.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
The total amount of loss claim on the sworn statement
was for the loss of twenty five hundreds for the
building and four hundred and fifty thousand dollars estimated for
contents personal property. He included an inventory of reporter stolen
items along with the receipts that claim was denied figure
(09:30):
to disclose the policy with Travelers Insurance. In the original
claim submit on April eighth to Travelers, Eddie confirmed that
he and his wife were wearing their anniversary bands when
the loss occurred. However, Eddie called Travelers Insurance on April
tenth and said he needed to update their claim, stating
(09:51):
his wife's gold diamond anniversary band was missing. That same day,
Traveler's Insurance settled that claim for twenty five one thousand,
three hundred and eighty dollars, which included the replacement price
of the band, which was four thousand, five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
One more thing.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
After the initial reported claim, on April eleven, they both
signed and submitted letters to the jeweler's mutual insurance claiming
the burglary occurred and items were reported stolen. At the
request of Jewelry's mutual insurance, the Osephas provided an initial
list of fifty seven stolen items. Included on that list
(10:31):
was Windy's gold diamond anniversary band that was already reported
in the Travelers insurance claim. Now, on April twenty second,
Eddie was interviewed during a recorded call and did not
make any mention of the jewelry claim or payout with
the Travelers. They're saying that deputies were suspicious of the
(10:51):
circumstances of the burglary and the records from stores where
some of the items were purchased, along with social media
and email accounts, and based on their investigation, they're allegend
that they found that the items that.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
They claim were stolen were returned.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Before the burglary, and they're alleging that a ring that
they said was stolen they found Wendy to have warned
that in a social media post. As of now, they
are released on bond and now we're here to talk
about exactly what is going on.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So Courtney tell us some questions to ask.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I want to start by asking Judge Tyranny this so
Ray John's we are fortunate enough to have a sitting
judge who's able to break down the law to us. Again,
this isn't for us to have colorful commentary. I want
to just stick to the law and stick to the facts.
So Courtney has her questions. I'll start by asking, okay, judge,
(12:03):
the nine counts of insurance fraud, but only eight counts
of conspiracy insurance problem?
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Are those two different things? Like?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
What are the difference between counts of insurance fraud but
other counts of conspiracy of insurance fraud?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
So I will just repeat again that I cannot speak
on the marriage or the facts of this case. So
I can't specifically say eight versus nine or nine versus eight.
I can't give legal advice. But what I will tell
you is that anytime that there is the allegations of
(12:45):
a felony, it has to be presented before a grand
jury and during the grand jury. This is not innocent
or guilt. This is just simply does the prosecutor have
enough evidence to move forward? And based on the whatever
comes from the grand jury, they determine how much evidence
(13:11):
that a prosecutor has put forth to actually bring charges.
So in order to bring the charges forward, they have
to present evidence to move forward to the grand jury,
so depending on whatever was And what's really key about
a grand jury indictment is that it is secret at
(13:33):
the time so that the witnesses are protected. So at
this time, you wouldn't technically know what was presented to
the grand jury and what they decided until the charges
are actually filed, and those charges would have been filed
(13:53):
based on their conclusions from the evidence presented.
Speaker 5 (14:03):
I do have a question, because we all were very
invested in the press conference today where the prosecutor made
it very clear his intentions for filing, as well as
the sheriff surrounding this their intentions on supporting the claims
(14:27):
against Wendy and her husband, my question becomes. One of
the things that stuck out to me was how their
investigation started immediately from when the officers were boots on
the ground at the house to questions in red flags
posing how an alleged burglar got into a second story
(14:52):
open window in a bathroom, Like all of the things
that rose suspicion for officers on at the scene are
now part of this indictment pending investigation as we speak.
So when we look at that, when evidence of that
magnitude is presented and it feels as though law enforcement
(15:17):
felt like there were things kind of tricky and suspicious immediately,
how then is that going to potentially come back to
haunt the couple now as they're presenting new evidence saying
we suspect we not only suspect fraud, but investigators from
(15:40):
the insurance claim as well as our personal officers have
started to scour.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Your social media.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
We're looking at the crime scene and we're sending investigators
back on the crime scene to make sure that it
is your statements were reasonable and rational, which they're now
discovering or not. What are we looking at in terms
of them building a case and a case with prosecutor sticking.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
Okay, so I'm going to repeat it again because I
think it's worth repeating. We have to be very clear
to understand that a grand jury indictment has nothing to
do with proof of innocent or guilt. It is simply
enough evidence from an investigation that allows a case to
(16:34):
move forward, where we now actually go into the specifics
of a case, the evidence, the veracity of the evidence,
the credibility of the witnesses, and so it's very very
important anytime you're dealing with the case. I mean, it
sounds cliche until you're actually in that moment. You are
innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has the burden to
(16:59):
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of
the charges. Now, of course, investigators and prosecutors do their
investigations and they take their time. But anytime there is
a I guess an allegation of wrongdoing, an investigation is
(17:21):
going to occur, and you are going to follow the evidence.
These are conclusions still, but they have to be proven
in a court of law, and it has to happen
through the presentation of evidence in court. And a lot
(17:43):
of times I said this to you all before, a
lot of times, especially with high profile cases, public opinion
will come to a conclusion no evidence has been reported,
no excellent nations have been presented, and so we are
coming to these conclusions through public opinion that simply just
(18:07):
may not be true or they may be incomplete. And
I just do you want to caution people always whenever
you're talking about allegations, especially allegations that are serious and
could possibly carry up to if it's a state charge,
anywhere from ten years in custody, a federal charge up
(18:27):
to twenty years in custody, we should not jump to conclusions.
We should let the evidence take us and lead the
case and only rely on what is presented in court.
Because there is a different standard in court than what
is going to be put out into the media.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I want to tell you this socording before we ask
this question. I do want to ask you this.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I everyone knows I am in law school. I go
to the University of Reality with the King Law. I'm
trying my best to like understand this and what what
what I have learned by doing this the laws series
that I'm doing is the fact that it's one thing
(19:11):
for the prosecutors to detail their discovery along with the
sheriff's department, to say we have enough evidence. They take
it to the grand jury. The grand jury then and
stumming when I'm wrong, Judge Tyranny. The grand jury then decides, yes,
(19:32):
you have you have proven at this stage, right, you
have proven Okay, so let me.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Not proven you. The grand jury felt like, you have
delivered enough of a case.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
You built enough of a case, right, You built enough
of a case in order for us to move forward
with an.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Arrest to indict to see, so let's use that now.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
The grand jury basically says, there is enough smoke for
you to see if it's a fire. Okay, there are
no conclusions, there's no evidence of proof. Or guilt, and
it's not the sheriff's apartment that would actually present to
the grand jury. The sheriff does the investigation and turns
over the information from the investigation to the prosecutor's office.
(20:25):
The prosecutor office then presents that to the grand jury,
and the grand jury decides if enough evidence has been
presented to move forward with pursuing charges.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
And that's why you're InnoCentive proven guilty because as of now, listen,
as of now, Eddie and Wendy are innocent because they
have yet to be proven guilty.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
These are just charges.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
So the next app allegations, Yes, right, they're allegations, but
there is there's still being Again, I'm gonna ask you this.
We're there, they're being charged. So is there a difference
between being charged and allegations.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
They're not the same in one, but they can be synonymous.
So the the what they have been alleged of illegal
activity and now they have been charged, and now the
actual prosecutor has to prove their case because the standard
is beyond a reasonable doubt always in a criminal case, okay,
(21:35):
and that is a very high burden of proof, so
that that's no easy fee.
Speaker 5 (21:41):
Right, As We've seen one of these other cases that
just because you're charged in court, it is your responsibility
prosecution's responsibility to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
That's correct. It's their burden we did have, and.
Speaker 5 (22:01):
According to the press conference today, the prosecutor in this
case feels very confident that they will be able to prove.
He acknowledged that it's his responsibility, burden lies with him,
but he is confident that the charges that they brought
against them he will be able to prove. He was
(22:22):
very adamant and confident within the press conference today. So
we're going to be very interested to see how this
all unfolds. One of the questions from the rain drops
ab we see your question, and it's a good one.
Did they know that they were being investigated from the jump?
(22:43):
Do we think that they knew they were under investigation.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
That would probably be a question for Carlos. He would
be more in tune with what you know. Maybe their
state of mind is Again, those are specifics to the
case that I cannot speak to. I can repeat that
a grand jury is in secret, so evidence is presented
in grand jury to secret. That doesn't mean that in
(23:12):
any case, any witness hasn't been interviewed, but you would
have to come to a conclusion if you take an
example of a missing wife. So if a husband didn't
actually participate in it, but he is going to be
questioned by the investigators, is it reasonable that he may
(23:35):
deduce that he is being investigated. Yes, because generally all
the time, the first person we think of when someone
goes missing is the closest person to them. But there
may not be anything specific that says we are being
you are actually being investigated until they state that to
(23:55):
them or come and present charges from the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Justge Tarny, can you explain to us the difference between fraud,
conspiracy and false statement charges?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
And I apologize because you did ask me that when
we opened up, and I kind of was explaining something else.
But I think that here's what's very The second two
charges are related to the big charge. So the fraud
is the charge, and that is when you have knowingly
(24:35):
given false information or misrepresentation and someone has relied on it, okay,
and you have caused harm. The key in the fraud
to commit insurance fraud is intent. You have to knowingly
(24:56):
do it. So then their other charge, the the charges
that you mentioned to me with the conspiracy is very simple.
It's just two or more people get together and decide
to commit a crime.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
And lastly, making a foster report is exactly what it
sounds like when you talk to the authorities, you did
not tell the truth, and especially if you do it
under oath or a sworn statement.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
And the foster report is generally most of the times
going to be a misdemeanor, except in federal cases it
can be a felony lying to the federal government.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
And the thing is, as of now, this is a
state crime, not federal. So as of now it's a
state crime. Could it go to the federal level though,
judge tyranny? And if what has to happen for a
state crime to reach federal in any case a fraud, well,
(26:06):
it has.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
To actually be something that is going to break federal law.
So there are certain things like a city organ discharge
or a state charge that is related specifically to your jurisdiction,
your city, your state. Sometimes the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction. Okay,
(26:32):
you know, so we're just waking they're not going to
have jurisdiction but in a case where we're talking about
something like fraud, if there is any commerce that crosses
over interstate, then you're going to see concurrent jurisdiction between
a state and the federal government.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Generally, they're going to.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Have a discussion about who's proceeding, because you always want
to think about in prosecution of cases, making sure that
you're allocating public funds in a responsible manner. So it's
very unlikely that you would see a state and federal
prosecution at the same time.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Got it.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
I do have a question, and Carlos, can you do
you mind rereading the charges specifically so that we can
really understand because I think when we hear the bigger.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Charge of fraud and now I have at least I
do have a.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Better understanding, and hope the rain drops do as well
have a better understanding of the conspiracy part. But when
we listen to the sheriffs during the press conference say
that actual man hours went into investigating a crime that
didn't just happen to Wendy and her husband, but could
(28:03):
also have affected the neighborhood in the community at large, that's.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
What they take into account. How then does it really
How then does those.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Charges against filing a false police report or giving false
statements to the police. How does that kind of come
in play when the police are thinking about it the
larger scope, they're spending time, resources and energy looking for
someone who just quite frankly didn't exist. How does that
(28:43):
become an even more serious charge judge?
Speaker 4 (28:47):
If you can.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
So, again, a false statement to the police is always
going to you know, be a crime, but generally if
(29:10):
the it's a state case versus a federal case, it's
going to be seen as sometimes a lower level case.
If that makes sense, it does.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
It's a lower level A lower level charge to a
bigger charge, though makes it.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Different.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Does a lower level charge attached to a much larger
charge make it carry more weight? Potentially when somebody brings
something like that in front of a judge, Well, every.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Case is going to be decided on the merits and
facts of that case, and so it's really hard to
speculate on what would happen in the specific case. Remember
one time a woman in the country, she made a
false report about being kidnapped and missing, and it used
(30:09):
a lot of manpower and time, and so that jurisdiction
came down really hard on her because they wanted to
send a message that when you make false statements, you
take away from the police actually investigating crimes that could
save lives. And I think that generally that is why
(30:34):
it's such a big deal when you make a false report,
because you're taking away from when the police could be
out saving someone else's life or mitigating large damage. But
it's still a serious charge on its own. Again, I
(30:54):
didn't see the press conference. I don't know anything about
the facts specifically of this case. I am here just
really for educational commentary, because when things like this happen,
especially in the public eye, it's very important for the
public to understand because I always say that you have
(31:15):
to know these things for your own personal life. The
difference is that I'm not sure if it was a
mistermeanor or felony charge. So that is what would differentiate
whether it was more serious or equally serious. Did they
charge or were they charged with a mistermeanor or a felony?
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yes, And we'll have Corny talk about that too, because
one thing I want to bring up is this.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
They are alleging that they were able to get into
Eddie's emails, and they said that they found an email
where he allegedly told Wendy to up the amount of
the claims, adding things more to the claims that they
were able to go a little bit over the maximum
(32:04):
amount of what the home insurance agency was going to provide.
What I want to ask you about that is this,
does law enforcement have to get some sort of warrant
to tap into your emails?
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Like?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
How were they able to find these How does law
enforcement able to find emails without your permission?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Yes, you absolutely have a warrant. It has to have
a warrant, and it has to be executed by a judge.
It may not necessarily be the judge in the case,
but it has to be executed by a judge because
a judge has to review the information that you have presented,
stating the reason why you need to actually collect this evidence.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
And so.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
A share supartment or prosecutor or an investigator is always
going to have to get a warrant. But again I
go back to making sure that the public, especially the
rain drops, are not making any conclusions at this point,
(33:14):
because you know, it's like having a one sided conversation.
They have put forth and said a lot of things,
but now on the other side the defense side, they
get to review everything. They get to review evidence, the veracity,
the authenticity of it, They get to review the relevance
(33:36):
of it. They get to a review if it was
done procedurally and what is going to actually be included
for a jury and a judge to decide ultimately what
happens in the case. So in pre trial negotiations you
go through actually going through all of the most in
(34:01):
presenting the evidence to say this is what will be
allowed to be presented in this case in court, and
that is super important. So again I just I caution
the public in any case, please allow the facts and
the evidence to guide your journey. Do not jump ahead
(34:24):
of the journey, but do be educated so that you
understand exactly what is going on and that you are
not making conclusions, you know, apprehensively or prematurely.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
Can we talk about Here's what I find fascinating, and
I know this kind of goes to your question, Michael Smith.
For one of the things that is being alleged is
that they doubled itpped, so they file multiple insurance claims
(35:00):
on the same item, and that drove up the price
of what they actually collected on through several different insurance entities.
What is shocking in all of this is that he
is an attorney, so there were a lot of risk
involved and will there be any kind I know you're saying,
(35:23):
don't jump to the conclusions, but it's very hard not
to at least be conscious of the fact that an attorney,
a prominent attorney.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Who's and his wife who is very visible on reality TV.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
They are you know, fan favorites, that they didn't have
some idea. It's not you know me or just some
regular person filing acclaim. It's somebody who actually has a
clear understanding of the law and also consciously doing something
(36:07):
that could appear as fraud, fraudulent.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
Or you know, just something shady.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
So I think the question is this though, is it?
Speaker 2 (36:21):
And I want to simpify for the brain drops, because
again I don't to ask the questions for the brain
drops to know is it illegal to claim a stolen
item or more than one insurance company?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
That would be inconsistent with the law. But again I
want to make sure we are talking in generalities and
making you are making conclusions because you're stating that someone
has consciously done something. It's IMpower to speak to someone's
(37:01):
state of minde. That is what the legal process is for.
That is what court is for, because intent must be proven.
But I'm a judge, Carlos is in the law school
of rain Drops, the I.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
Got my law degree from Law and Order University.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Humans make mistakes. You cannot criminalize mistakes. There has to
be intent. You have to knowingly and willingly break the law.
You have to knowingly and willingly mislead someone. And that
is why we must let the process lead in the courtroom,
(37:45):
not play out in the media. Headlines sound great, but
facts and evidence are what lead in a courtroom.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Yes, no, agree.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
And that's the reason why I want to make sure
to do this episode with you, because again I wanted
to make sure that we had enough time to get
all the facts that was presented, just based. And when
I say facts, I'm not saying that what they're a
legend is factual. I'm meaning facts in terms of things
that were in the court documents.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
I want to make that very clear when I say that.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
In addition to that, it was more so of the
generalities for anybody if it's doubled, if you double dip
on assurance claim, whoever you are, and was that illegal.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Now you answered that. Listen, you have to prove that
this person had intent to do it.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And I think at the end of the day, look
the reason why people are saying you're innocent to prove
and guilty, and why some people are even saying, well,
why was Wendy and Eddie smiling in their mugshots? You know, look,
Eddie is a lawyer, and perhaps there's way more information
that we will find out as this case proceeds that
(39:01):
really warrants whether or not intent was involved in these allegations.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
What I do want to ask you is this, Eddie
is a lawyer. He has a law degree.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
If any lawyer, if any lawyer is convicted of a crime,
whether it's a state crime, a federal crime, a misdemeanor
or not, is that something to where you are disbarred
from it or are there something that has to be
(39:35):
to a high degree for that to happen?
Speaker 1 (39:37):
Right?
Speaker 3 (39:39):
So the first thing, again I'm not aware, but if
you are a lawyer, then you actually graduate from law school.
There are two things that happen. You have to actually
pass the fitness test to sit for the bar, and
then you have to sit for the bar and pass it.
So I'm not sure if you are practicing attorney, because
(40:02):
people graduate from law school all the time and they
may not be practicing.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
So you have to be a practicing attorney licensed to
a state in order to lose your license. So I
just want to clarify that in each state you have
to take a fitness test to sit for the bar examination,
and then you actually have to pass the bar examination,
(40:29):
and that is how you become a practicing lawyer in
that state. But absolutely, if you are charged with a
crime and convicted right that state bar is going to
do an investigation and you will be given due diligence,
just like in any other process. But if any lawyer
(40:52):
is convicted of a crime, depending on the nature of
the crime, especially a phony crime, their license is more
than likely going to be revoked.
Speaker 4 (41:05):
In that state. Could they practice in another state?
Speaker 3 (41:10):
It is state by state, so the states would have
to decide. Let's say I am licensed in the state
of Georgia. If I lose my license in the state
of Georgia, I still have to go apply in another state.
That's the fitness test I'm talking about, where they do
a basically a background check on you and check everything
(41:32):
and say you can be trusted with someone else's life
and financial matters.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
That's a fitness test.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
That's the fitness test. So you could go to law
school and not be allowed to sit for the bar examination.
You have to pass the fitness test first.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
As a fitness test is a background it's a deep.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Guy background check, and it is not just a background
check that relates to criminality. It relates to your financial matters.
Like they want to make sure that anytime you're allowing
someone to be entrusted with other people's lives and financial matters,
that they are trustworthy.
Speaker 4 (42:17):
So if you.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Like don't pay your bills on time, or have multiple
lawsuits filed against you, you might be denied to sit
for the bar after going to law school for three years.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Wait, hold on, hold, I hold, I'll hold on, hold on,
hold on, hold on. If I am in law school all.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
And in order for me to pass the fitness test,
this background check is so deep that if you find
that I pay my bills late, I could fail the
fitness test.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
You could fail the fitness test after three years of
law school, and we don't apply until our third year,
and so you could have gone through that. But here's
the thing in a lot of space.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
It's not.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
It's like any other tests. You can try again, so
you can go resolve your matters and you can present
your case again and come back and say, I have
you know, been reformed. I've done this, this and this.
I've got my life on path. I understood through this
process and now I'm a better person, which is going
to make me a better lawyer, because there are a
(43:25):
lot of people in our community who have time, you know,
trouble not paying their bills. But it is it's a
devastating thing, to be honest with you. It happened to
a guy I knew in law school, and it was
devastating to him.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
M M.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (43:45):
Someone in the comments said it's a character as well
as fitness test, absolutely, and I thought that was very
interesting because there there was a distinction on the character.
Speaker 4 (43:57):
So your character.
Speaker 5 (44:00):
Is very as equally as important to this fitness test.
Speaker 3 (44:04):
Correct, Yes, it's the same thing character and fitness, so
that it goes into your character. But which is why
they use your financial background as a way to define
your character. But they also use things like your school background,
They use you know, your driving history. They review so
(44:30):
many things in your life to make sure that you
actually can be entrusted with the life and financial matters
of the public.
Speaker 4 (44:39):
Got it.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
And we've said all that to say that it's very
unlikely if I lose my license in one state that
another state would actually grant me the right to actually
try and pursue my license in their state.
Speaker 4 (44:58):
Is there going to be a way?
Speaker 5 (44:59):
And again we are dealing with a lot of hypotheticals
because this is just unfolding. But in the event there
there isn't redeeming quality here, right like, if this comes
to show that he's actually guilty of this, loses his
license only if he's a practicing attorney. I thought that
(45:19):
was a good note and take away that I will
take away. Is there like a grace period or is
there a period of time where you could reapply for
your license even after something like this happens should he
be convicted.
Speaker 3 (45:37):
It is going to be based on the state. So
each state is going to have different requirements, just like
they have different laws and penalties. So the state that
you know he applies to will depend.
Speaker 5 (45:51):
I know one of the rain drops ask a question
from our from a loan I mean an insurance adjuster
and the insurance adjuster in the comments stated that it
is illegal to file multiple claims.
Speaker 4 (46:07):
And I do remember and recall.
Speaker 5 (46:12):
My purse got stolen, my you know, my credit cards,
things were in there when I filled it out for
my credit cards as well as my homeowner's insurance. They
do ask you if you filed a claim with another
company to list it, list the things that you're claiming
(46:33):
with that company versus what you're claiming there.
Speaker 4 (46:38):
Those documents, especially if you're.
Speaker 5 (46:41):
In a state of you know, shock or dismay, can
become confusing because what you might be able to, what
might be covered through let's say AMEX, is not necessarily
going to be covered through anything else that you you've
(47:02):
gotten stolen. So there is a good chance considering that
that I really do hope that it was more confusing
than just malicious, because though it's just.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
One can be right.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
I think that you know, you just gave a great
example of why intent is so important and fraud because
you know, we're humans. We make human errors. Sometimes people
don't understand the language. Sometimes there's miscommunication between family members
or spouses. Sometimes the record keeping is a little sloppy. Again,
(47:42):
the intent is really important.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
That's a good question.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
So a range Job asked, So, what's interesting about this
is a married couple who are being charged for allegedly
committing crime within the same household, within insurance, but they
have different counts. What I will say is this, I'm
not a lawyer, but what I will say similarly to
(48:09):
Teresa Judais and Joe Judais.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Range dropped it, so you all know. But I'll have
to judge answer that she wants to.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
But what I can say based on my knowledge of
Teresa and Joe, a married couple who both were arrested
and charged and both sent us to jail, they went
to trial separately because and you tell me if I'm wrong, Judge,
the law views you as individuals, so you're in some cases.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
So I'm assuming in this case that Eddie and Wendy
possibly will go to trial.
Speaker 3 (48:47):
Separately, and if there be any case when there are
co defendants, you can have a trial. Again, we always
are talking about the use of public funds, and so
we all always want to make sure that the government
is responsibly spending the public's money because the money belongs
(49:09):
to the public in all of these cases, and so
you have the right to try any co defendant together,
but equally, because these are criminal charges and each defendant
has a right to their own defense, they can file
for emotions to separate their trials. So again that's why
(49:33):
you have to and I just keep repeating this, you
have to judge each case based on its own facts, merits,
and circumstances. It's really hard to predict, which is why
we shouldn't. We should really follow the evidence and just
what is presented in court, including the motions, because that
(49:56):
would be a motion that would be filed in court
either to move forward together or to separate the trials.
Speaker 2 (50:03):
M What what I do want to get into is this,
and first of all, Judge, thank you so much for
your insight, because I want to make sure that we
spend time really dissecting the law, because, like you said,
there's so much information going out here that I want
to make sure that we were able to.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Sort of talk about the law instead of the relatiousness.
Speaker 2 (50:23):
Now, what I will say is, as we transition into
more breaking news, Courtney Parker, who also is a Reality
to Be producer, what.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
Came out tonight is the fact is the fact that
there's a news show that's appearing.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
I Believe on Bravo and Peacock called White Swap, and
doctor Wendy is a part of White Swap. It has
been reported today that the network has decided to pull
that episode as a Now.
Speaker 5 (51:01):
Wow, and I was just reading that the they're they're
also talking about delaying next week's premiere to the following week.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Well, no premiere on Sunday.
Speaker 5 (51:20):
This the fourteenth premiere is now being possibly moved to
next week.
Speaker 2 (51:30):
Oh you mean the premiere, Wife Soma? Sorry, yes, Wifeah yeah,
So okay, So what Courneya says? She's right, So Wife
Swap was supposed to premiere on October fourteenth, rain Drops,
which is Tuesday. Courneya is saying that, yes, they pulled
the episode with Wendy in it, and now that they
(51:54):
may be pushing back the premiere. The only thing I
can assume, I can assume as a producer is if
they're pushing back the premiere, I wonder if doctor Wendy
was in the first episode.
Speaker 4 (52:06):
Absolutely absolutely, And I'm saying that with certainty.
Speaker 5 (52:10):
Because we've all been there when your show was supposed
to premiere there was all this media attention. Networks are
very calculated in their rollout so there's always the piggyback
of There's always the piggyback of promotion, whoever is hot.
(52:32):
I did a show recently and there was a tragedy
surrounding one of our celebrities.
Speaker 4 (52:38):
This particular celebrity lost.
Speaker 5 (52:41):
Two family members within the same week of my show premiering.
She was my first episode. We ended up having to
move her to the third episode because of all the promotion.
We didn't want to be insensitive, the network didn't want
to be insensitive. We needed to do immediate damage control.
(53:02):
So if they were the first episode, which I'm very
confident in assuming that they were, that's why they have to,
you know, recalibrate and they have to shuffle the episodes
and make whatever number two was number one so that
they don't mess up the network calendar and the show's
(53:25):
calendar of production.
Speaker 1 (53:28):
What is so interesting? Yeah, yeah, and it is, and
it is and it is and listen.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
One of the brands asked a good question, Carlos, why
would they do that? Why would a network pull the episode?
So again I'm speaking in generals, I to speak to
a brama representative, but what I can say is I
think we have to look at it this way. Wife
Swap is a very different show than Real Housewives, right,
the Real Housewives, as we know, we saw the premier
(53:57):
episode Potomac. We saw that it opened up with Karen
getting out of jail for her DUI conviction. We saw
that Teresa had to turn herself in go to jail.
Was then Camus follow her coming back home. I think
on Housewives that may be something that Okay, let's follow
(54:18):
the reality. The difference rain drops between Housewives and Wife Swap.
Wife Swap based on the show that was on I
believe it was Lifetime. For my mistaken that's a different show,
and it's different. It's more wholesome. It's also a show
that you know you're in these people's homes.
Speaker 1 (54:41):
You know. That show is more comedy.
Speaker 2 (54:44):
It's more so like, oh if I could live in
your house one day, what would that feel like? So
it's a very different show tonally than a Real Housewives.
And I think the other thing too is, look, this
is a brand new show, and the last thing you
want for a brand new show a series premiere is
(55:10):
this level of scandal.
Speaker 1 (55:11):
Now, granted, the range jobs in the comments, but Carlos
the Rangers will be high. I agree with you, But
I think on some.
Speaker 2 (55:20):
Yes, I'll answer a question of some own I think
in these cases leave it, leave leave that back up.
Speaker 1 (55:26):
For me as a mom, I want to make sure
I remember and read it directly.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
White Swap is a brand new show, so to have
that type of, like Cortney said, controversy may not be
appetizing for the appetizers.
Speaker 4 (55:40):
I want to make a correction. White Swap is not
a brand new show. But it's been no no, no, no, right, it's.
Speaker 5 (55:46):
It's been off the air for a significant amount of time,
so it's now coming back.
Speaker 1 (55:51):
I know.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
But the difference, right, but but it's a brand new
show for this network because they change, and they also
changed the creative is now Housewives is Housewives swapping over
with people? Got it? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (56:05):
Yeah, So I want to make sure we knew that,
Mia Simon Carlos. We really want to know. Is Bravo
still filming? Are we getting any of this for the season?
You guys are so funny.
Speaker 2 (56:18):
No, they wrapped the show. They wrapped the show. They
were not listen, they were they were not filming at.
Speaker 1 (56:25):
All this season. They wrapped the show.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
Now, look, they also were not filming when Karen was sentenced,
and as we saw, they got the cameras back when
she was released and they weren't filming then.
Speaker 1 (56:42):
Now do I think that they are going to film this?
Speaker 2 (56:47):
I think it's a high probability that we may at
the season finale of The Real Housewives of Potomac, whatever
the ending scene is, I would not be surprised if
it fades to black and it says X amount of
weeks later and then you see the girls reacting to this.
(57:10):
You see Giselle and Ashley on the phone, You see
the girls reacting to this like they did with Karen's
dure conviction, and then you get to see possibly Windy
and Eddie talk about it as much as they can
based on the severity of this case. So I would
not be surprised if cameras are back up, if not
this weekend, on Monday, this weekend, you think.
Speaker 4 (57:36):
This week, I mean, Carlos, you would have us have
cameras up right now.
Speaker 1 (57:41):
The time.
Speaker 4 (57:43):
And the press.
Speaker 2 (57:44):
Conference, yes, so you know that's that's That's what I
think is a probability of that happening. So look, Raine Jobs,
the biggest thing is this, though obviously more information is
going to be revealed.
Speaker 1 (57:59):
Again.
Speaker 2 (57:59):
I wanted to spend today's live focus just on what
was presented to us, from the press conference to the
documents that were released to us, to have Judge Tarranny,
who actually was.
Speaker 1 (58:13):
Out of town, who was hanging out with her kids.
Speaker 2 (58:16):
And she took time out of her busy schedule to
break down the legal jargon for us, because again, we
just don't know what so many things mean, and it's
I think it's helpful to have someone of her stature
on this platform to really break.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Down things to us to a science.
Speaker 2 (58:37):
And look, obviously, the more information to come out, the
more we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1 (58:42):
But I wanted this one to really.
Speaker 2 (58:43):
Feel like we were able to give you guys some
really factual definition of some of the legal jargon. That was.
Speaker 1 (58:54):
Yeah, and also appreciate.
Speaker 3 (58:57):
I appreciate y'all. It's as good for us to know.
Speaker 5 (59:04):
Not to jump to conclusions because one of the things
that you really did harp on and we will be
students of this as well, is just allowing us to
have some clarity, allowing us to not jump to conclusions,
and just kind of breaking down some of the things
that these alleged charges mean. And also the preparation for
(59:28):
the defense to do just that defend, because we hear
a lot from the prosecutors before we ever hear from
the defense.
Speaker 3 (59:39):
Yeah, and I just was going to say, I appreciate
you all inviting me in doing this for the rain
drops and the greater public. I say this to you
all all the time, because you know, it's one of
the reasons I wanted to be a guest. There were
so many things that the people in my community didn't understand.
I grew up in a low income, impoverished community in Jacksonville, Florida,
(01:00:02):
and it's so important for us to have information. Carlos,
you said, you know, we're not doing in solations. We
are actually educating, making sure that people understand what is
going on, because you just never know what will happen
in your own life or your family's life. So I
do appreciate you all making sure that you take your time.
(01:00:26):
Of course, you know your jobs allow for you or
you know, encourage you to follow the headlines. But I
love that you all are responsible in the way of
educating the public. At the same time. I think that
is so important and to be actually commended.
Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
Yes, no, no, thank you for that thank you for that,
so listen, we will be back with more information, Raine Jows,
but thank you God for taking time out on your
busy Friday night. And once again, I'll repeat it for
the judge. You are innocent until proven guilty, so more
to come when it comes to this case. So thank
(01:01:08):
you Courtney, Thank you, Judge, Tirany and rain John, thank you.
Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
And look, Bell Collective is back tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
Okay, episode two A Bell Collective that's coming on an
eight o'clock all right, it's Courtney's favorite show, Bell Collective,
eight o'clock tonight, So Rain John, I got forty five
minutes to put the kids, to bid, to warm up
your food, to cook a child, to get your wine ready.
Episode two of Bell Collective tonight on the Oprah Winfrey Network.
(01:01:37):
I'm gonna live two with you guys, and I'll see
y'all there. Reality with the King is executive produced by
me Carlos King, produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership
with the Lack Effect Network. You can also find us
on my YouTube channel at be Carlos King Underscore
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.