Ep 511 - Interview with Rachel Juarez from "Hot Bench"

0:00You are listening to the Reality Steve podcast with your host, Reality Steve. He's got all the latest info and behind the scenes juice on Taylor Frankie Paul season of The Bachelor Red and interviewing some of your favorite reality stars. Now here's Reality Steve. What's up everybody? Welcome to podcast number 511. I'm host reality Steve. Thank you all for tuning in. Great show for you today. You know where you love her. Rachel Juarez joining me for podcast number 511 today to discuss everything that went down last Friday. Even though she wasn't there, she did watch the settlement conference between Clayton Eckerd and Laura Owens. She gives her thoughts on Laura Owens pleading guilty to four felony charges last Friday in

1:00a court in Arizona. And we also talk about Jack's Taylor and Brittany Cartwright filing dueling temporary restraining orders against each other and getting them granted. So that's all coming up today on episode number 511. We'll get to all that momentarily. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat, the sweater that goes with everything, the perfect pair of pants or the T somehow always reach for first. One of the pieces that make getting dressed easy and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton and marino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. Quince also makes premium pants, fitted T's, polos and breathable active wear, quality basics designed to work across your wardrobe and hold up to every day wear. Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar to brands.

2:01They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen so you're paying for high quality, not brand markup. Me myself personally, summertime, it's hot. I've gone with the Flonet Breeze Performance Polo. I've got three different colors. I absolutely love them. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Follow up the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash reality Steve. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too, that's quince.com Q I N C E dot com slash reality Steve. So Rachel is double dipping today. She is on this podcast episode number 5 11 and she is going to be my weekly guest all NFL season long every Thursday on the sports daily that will be airing normal time, but we're also going to include video. So if you are a subscriber to the sports daily, you know it appears in your podcast feed 8 30 a.m. Eastern time every day, but it's also going to appear on my YouTube channel

3:08at 9 45 a.m. Eastern time. It'll go live every Thursday. So that starts today. We do a preview show. We don't necessarily talk about week one, but we talk about survivor, circus survivor, any sort of survivor pools, strategies you can take. You don't have to listen to us. We might be talking out of our ass. We're just trying to help everybody. Hell, I've got my own survivor contest that I'm running through splash sports. If you want to be a part of it, you can. It's open to everybody. The more people in it, the bigger the pot is and it's a winner take all pot. Right now we have $1,170 in the pot, but we have 134 entries. So there's $170 that is outstanding. I'm assuming those people will pay, but it is a little bit tricky on where you have to pay once you go on that site. But splashboards.com or download the splash sports app. Do a search for reality Steve. Find my contest, the reality Steve survivor contest. And once you click how many entries you want, it's $10 per entry.

4:11You can enter up to 20 entries. Go to the contest vault to make your payment and that will make your payments for your entries in my particular contest. If you put the money in your wallet, you can only enter other contests on splash, which there are a ton. It's a lot of fun being on splash sports, but to pay for your entries in my contest, you got to go to the contest vault. Some people are saying if you do that on the mobile app, it gets a little wonky, so you can go to the desktop and do that. But reality Steve survivor contest started it this year. I don't make any money off this. Rachel isn't making any money on this. We decided we wanted to do this together. And whatever the final pot is, however many people pay for their entries, the league safe, which is who holds the money all season long. This money doesn't even come to me and I hold it and I just pay out the winner at the end of the season. No, it is held by a third party. They take 10%. So if we get 1500, which I think we should get more than that. We're at 134.

5:13I think we can get more than 150 entries in this thing, but it's in and we got another of what nine days, 10 days before you need to be locked in. Basically, you have to make your entries and pay by Sunday, September 13th at 1 PM Eastern time when the kickoffs start for that first NFL Sunday of games because you don't have to play. If you want to bet the sea hawks or you want to choose the sea hawks or the Patriots or the Rams or the Niners, then yeah, you got to sign up before that and choose them before next week. But most people aren't going to do that, which is totally understandable because those are short spreads. Even though you're not betting the spreads in these games, you want to pick, you know, probably a team that has a better chance of winning than Seattle or New England or the Rams or the 49ers. So once it kicks off next Sunday, the 13th, that's when I'll know how many of you have paid and we'll be able to see how many entries versus how many payments the payments should

6:20obviously match the entries and I'll give people an extra three or four days. Basically, you'll have to pay like if you make some entries late, you know, 12, 55 Eastern time on Sunday, the 13th, but you forgot to pay or you put your payment in the wrong place or whatever. I'll give you four days. I'll give you till the first game in week two, which is the Thursday night game in week two, which I believe is the bills opening up their new stadium. I'll give you till that Thursday to make your payments after that. Whatever is in the pot at that point is what is in the pot and that will be, we'll know exactly at that point what everyone is playing for because it is a winner take all thing whoever is last towards the last person standing, you'll win the pot. If there's multiple people standing at the end, you split the pot, whatever it is, how many ways. So anyway, that's why Rachel is double dipping today. Also the daily roundup, I talk about big brother. I talk about the fact that basically if Devons doesn't win tonight, he's going home.

7:22Like there is no way I thought maybe all week long, bear it was kind of waffling. No, you saw the episode last night. He has basically been saying all week long and confessionals. Yeah, I've been fanboying over the icons all season long, but not anymore. Now I know I've made jury now it's time to start playing a selfish game, play my game. Devons is gone. I am targeting Devons. I am basically citing with melody, yosh, Taylor and Lala. So if Devons doesn't win tonight, he is going home. And though I don't think he does, although he might suspect it and he knows it would be a good move. Look, if Devons goes home tonight, doesn't win blockbuster and gets sent home. Yeah, he'll be disappointed, but he'll be, I don't think he's going to be all pissed off. He kind of has an idea and he just loves making moves in this game. He knows he's even saying it in confessional last night. Ponds go home. Maybe this isn't smart of me, but I think I've got the votes. Yeah. So if up is upon thinking that he was safe, but little does he know, bear it's been

8:23targeting him all week. He has an idea or he thinks bear it might and he's just hoping he won't, but he doesn't know that bear it has been 100%. I'm turning on the icons this week. I'm going to make my first move of the game. I've got some valley news for you. I'm sure you've seen it by now, Danny and Nia no longer on the valley. Well, if they're announcing that they're not coming back to the valley, I'm assuming that means there's a valley next season because if there wasn't going to be a valley next season, why would Danny and Nia make the announcement that they're not coming back? You would just say like nothing and then just wait for Bravo to make the announcement with that. Oh, by the way, there's no season four of the valley. We're canceling the show. Then Danny and Nia don't have to say anything. Why would you want to admit that you were going to get fired from the show. There's no longer on TV anymore. So it looks like we are getting a season four of the valley. Talk about that on the daily roundup. Also, we go over the dance with the stars. Perings this season, they were announced on GMA yesterday, along with their social media followings for each team.

9:25And one team is absolutely running away in terms of social media following. Nobody's going to come close to them. They have doubled up and then some the second place social media following team on dance with the stars this year. You can basically pencil them into the finals if not make them the winners. We go over that today as well on the daily roundup. So just know you're getting that earlier this morning on the daily roundup. All right, let's get going. Podcast number 511. Alrighty, let's bring her in. You know her from hot bench, the Emmy award winning hot bench. My gosh, if I don't say that, I'll get crucified. It is Rachel Juarez. Rachel, how you doing? Oh, there's the Emmy in the background. Of course, there's to you've always. Hi, I'm good. How are you? Good. You just wrapped season 13 of hot bench, right? 13 about a month ago at this point. Yeah. So this was your fourth or fifth season?

10:26Fifth. Fifth season. Fifth season. So yeah, the season that we just wrapped filming that is about to air premiering September 14th for anyone out there who's watching. Is that my fifth season on the show. And I did see the trailer for season 13 that either on hot bench showed up. It might have been you just retweeted it or reposted it. And there was a couple of things where just the way it was, obviously the way it was edited, if you don't know, but there were a couple of scenes where you were getting a little feisty with a couple of the plaintiffs or defendants. Oh, yeah. And that and that scene from the trailer at the end, I know sometimes they edit these things. That is actually not edited and pulled together. It's not franken bit or whatever they call it. That was the actual my actual interaction with that woman in her son. Where they said, that trailer end. What was it? It's I think I think it ends with them saying, why are you being so aggressive?

11:28And I said, because you're being incredibly rude. And then she says, come on, let's get out of here and they storm off the set. That's actually, I mean, there may have been one or two things in between, but that's actually what happened. It's not pulling from different episodes. That's one episode where the two of them stormed off in the middle of the case. Wow. Get up. Oh, and that one airs. Will you get a heads up in that one? I will. I will, of course. It's a good one too, because they really, they were, they were two of the rudest lit against we've had. And by, we did not go over the top on them. And they were just extraordinarily sensitive and it led to a really great episode. So, well, if I'm the HODMENGE producers, that's my, that's my premiere episode on September. That's your bread and butter. Yeah, why don't you lead with that one? I don't care when they filmed it. If it was towards the end of the filming or beginning, all these things are shot out of, it's not like you air them in the order you shot them. They just, right?

12:28No. I wouldn't be surprised if that episode comes in premiere week. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, big news. Last Friday in Arizona. Laura Owens pled guilty to four counts. She had 14 felony counts against her. She pled guilty to four of them counts 169 and 10. And obviously there's been a lot of online discourse about what happened that day. You watched the trial later on that night when it went up on YouTube. So I want your initial thoughts on what you saw. The things that you have heard since then and what it means for Laura Owens at this point. Well, can I start with what I didn't see and it was you in the courtroom. I was too far. I was too far. Terrible seat. I know. I was at the end of the bench. The only time you could see me is me walking out of the courtroom. I was it. Oh, I didn't stick around that long on the, on the video, I guess, but no, I was, I was peering in the audience for you and you weren't there. Yeah.

13:29Okay. What did I see? It was a pretty standard plea hearing, a change of plea hearing. I think that, you know, people that were expecting fireworks or anything interesting at that hearing at a change of plea hearing, I would have told them not to. This is pretty standard. You have them plead guilty to each individual account. You go through a litany of admonitions is what we call them. You understand your pleading guilty. You understand what that means. You've had an opportunity to talk to your lawyer. All the things that the judge gets the defendant to agree with, not because they want to force them to agree with it, but because they want to make sure that all of the protections are in place so that the defendant knows what they're doing is making a voluntary and intelligent decision. And so that they can't come back later and try to get out of the plea agreement. One of my favorite ports was him asking the judge asking her, when did you complete schooling?

14:34So I got my bachelor's in college. Okay. So you understand and you can understand and read and write in English. Yes. So what they wanted to make that perfectly clear that she knew that like what she was doing. But, you know, there are standard questions because, you know, obviously the plea deals, if you've read them, they're written at a relatively sophisticated level when you're talking about some of the, you know, and disenfranchised and uneducated folks in this country. So somebody who reported only having a third grade education, there would be a serious concern about whether they understood the document they were signing because that plea agreement is not written at a third grade level. So the thing, the biggest thing is going into last Friday, I was under the impression, as were you, as was Clayton, if you listened to the Love Trap podcast that came out the day before, not to mention the three plus years, all of us content creators have been covering this. Nobody ever thought that she was going to actually admit guilt and agree to a plea deal.

15:38We all thought she was either not going to show up that day, claim some sort of illness, gets another sort of extension because that's what she has done throughout every single thing that has appeared in the Laura Owens Clayton Eckert trial. So when I sat down, I was two rows behind Clayton and Greg. I saw the prosecutor come over to Clayton and lean over and I couldn't hear, I could hear like every third or fourth word because he was kind of whispering, but kind of not. But I was reading his lips as well and I was hearing the words waffling, I was hearing she wants to sign, but she's sick right now, she's throwing up. And then I also heard rumblings just through other people that one of the phrases I heard was she just wants to sign and get this over with, which was interesting to me because I was like, it's all we wanted for three years out of this woman is just just admit what you did and go away. But the four counts that she pled to and by the way, this is a semantics thing. So I want to ask you, is it a woman or she or Laura Owens pled guilty or she pleaded

16:40guilty or does it not matter? Well, that's a really good question. I mean, I don't think pleaded guilty is wrong, but I always say, she pled guilty. Pleaded guilty. But if you said she pleaded guilty to four counts, I don't believe that's grammatically incorrect. Yeah, that doesn't sound wrong either. Yeah, interesting. You should have prepped me for that before this, like if there were going to be a grammar quiz, you know, pleaded P O E A D E D, pleaded P O E A D. All right. No, pleaded P O E D. Fuck it. It is. I mean, it doesn't sound surprising, but for some reason pleaded is P O E A D. Pleaded is P O E D. This is just me not paying attention, just thinking on the fly. But so we were all like, whoa, you know, we were hearing this and then once Laura walked into court, we were brisk. We were basically like, oh, wow, she is going to plead, but we don't know to what which

17:46counts and which counts are getting thrown away. So when you saw the counts that she did plead guilty to, were you like, oh, wow, okay. I was a little bit because she pled to the two top counts. She pled to the two most significant counts. And that's not necessarily unusual, but it is oftentimes there will be a deliberate decision to plead to one of the lower counts, right? I don't want a second degree felony. I don't want a felony two on my record. I'll take the felony four. We can dismiss the felony two. But she pled to both of the second degree felonies. And that was significant to me. And then the other thing that jumped out, which wasn't a surprise, was that she pled guilty to at least one offense against each of the three named victims, that didn't surprise me. That's deliberate because it's an attempt to give justice to each of the individual victims so that it's not like Stormy is seeing her case against Laura just be dismissed while

18:50Laura is pleading guilty to three counts against Clayton. It's an attempt to spread out the justice a little bit. And it's a good thing to do, I think, for the peace of mind of all of the victims. And what we saw was of these four counts, two were counts against Clayton. One was against Greg and one was against Stormy. And the word artifuses is used in two of the four counts. Two of them. What is that definition? I don't even know the definition. Again, like you really need to deprep me for this. It's a scheme or artifice to defraud. So artifice is clearly a synonym of scheme. I didn't know that. The plan of some sort. I'll look up the word right now, but an artifice is just some type of plan to defraud. It's not a single fraudulent act. It's a... You know why? I was so screwed up with that because artifice is, to me, I was relating to artifacts.

19:51I was thinking it was something physical. Oh, no, no, no. No, so that's what I was relating to. I guess the significance of artifice is it's a clever trick. It describes a sneaky plan. So it's kind of a scheme to defraud, but it's with the added element that it's done by deception. Which is what we were all saying for three years. I mean, the language, the important legal language, is a scheme or artifice to defraud. So frankly, it's a synonym for scheme. Okay, so her admitting when the judge read those counts back to her, how do you plead guilty? Yes. Are we fighting semantics here? Of because I think a lot of people literally wanted her to admit. At some point in the plea agreement that I was never pregnant. But is pleading guilty to those counts essentially saying that without saying it?

20:56I think essentially, yes. Yeah. I think if we were, if we were really trying to unearth, is it a definitive? If there were some universe in which it would make any sense that she could have been pregnant, but also engaged in some of these schemes. I believe based on the wording of the indictment, there would be room to intelligently argue that she didn't necessarily have to fake the pregnancy. But I think that that is semantics at this point. You can't have been guilty of the scheme or artifice to defraud if you were really pregnant. I mean, I suppose. Yes, what are you defrauding at that point if you are pregnant? Right. Right. It's part of the essential scheme. I suppose there's a universe in which there could be an argument that she was four weeks pregnant and miscarried it four weeks, but then went forward with all of this nonsense after that. But that's still involved the ongoing deception of a continued pregnancy.

22:00So I really think it would be silly to try to parse out. She's not admitting that she wasn't pregnant, but she did not technically admit that. No, she didn't technically admit it, but we are all under the assumption after these four pleaded guilty counts that she was never pregnant by Clayton, nor was she ever pregnant by Greg Gillespie. That is correct. We are led to believe as a public here. Yeah, I mean, I think we already thought that, but it does. Yeah, and I think that what will be very interesting is the sentencing hearing, because her lawyer did what's called allocate on her behalf. He read that there was a factual basis for the plea, but it was simply a rereading of the indictment, which is not unusual. He basically said that yes, she did, and then read the quotes from the indictment on the counts that she put guilty to. So what will be very interesting is whether she testifies at the sentencing hearing.

23:01That was going to be the next question. So the sentencing hearing is happening October 23rd. We'll all be there. Well, it's supposed to happen. Let me put that out there. I have doubts that it will happen on October 23rd, but that's a separate issue. Really? Well, no. Why? Because I need to book a flight in a hotel room. Look, I'm booking a flight as well. I'm going to go out there. But I think that there's a difference right now, the immediate consequence of her having pled guilty is not tangible to her. Nothing changes. She goes home, she didn't like get arrested and put in jail. Right? She's still out on bail. If she even has bail, she's probably on her own reconnaissance. I don't even think there's a bond. Right? She's probably out on a promise to appear. There's no immediate tangible consequence to her of having pled guilty. I think each step from here on out gets her closer to potential incarceration. I'm not so sure that there won't be a last minute emergency before the October 23rd hearing.

24:03I'm not saying there definitely will be. I just, I don't think we're, we've all of a sudden moved into a world where Laura is no longer Laura. And we're not trying to push out the inevitable and delay things. I still think there could be issues that come up legitimately or illegitimately. I mean, there obviously could be legitimate issues too. What if one of the prosecutors is ill? There could still be a continuance for that reason, you know? But I just wanted to put that caveat out there because I think that in this case, you never really know what if a particular date is going to move forward as it otherwise will. One of the things that I was hearing out there by just being there and talking to people that were there is that her lawyer did a hell of a job getting her to accept this because for three years, she's obviously doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on everything. And I never did anything wrong. And then, oh, yeah, by the way, yes, you're on her guilty on count one guilty on count six guilty

25:08on count nine guilty on count 10. It was fascinating to hear because in the three plus years we've been covering this case, the only time I've ever heard her admit that she did anything wrong was changing the name on the ultrasound. But according to her, what that was minor? It was just wasn't a big deal that I changed the name on an old. Minorly guilty. Did you expect her to minorly guilty? Yeah. And so not a big deal. Not a big deal is what she literally said on the stand or maybe it was in the deposition. Either way, she sat there and said, I did these things that you are accusing me of in these counts. It was fascinating to hear like we're just like, I can't believe this. But I know that you have your doubts about this and I know that you have a, well, this could be a Brian co-worker situation. So explain what you mean by that. So anyone who's following the Brian co-worker case knows he accepted a guilty plea. He did so ostensibly because it took the death penalty off the table.

26:10He agreed to plead guilty to the four murders because in exchange, the death penalty was taken off the table for purposes of sentencing. But he's got, but he's got life in prison. Prison of course. Yes, it's a quadruple homicide. But he didn't face the death penalty. And that was something that was done contrary to the wishes of many of the victims families. They wanted a trial if necessary to ensure he received a death penalty for what happened. He has since attempted to revoke his guilty plea and say that he was not, he didn't intend to plead guilty. He was coerced into pleading guilty whatever. He's done that from prison, right? After having been sentenced, after having spent some time in prison. And he's been granted a hearing on that request to have his guilty plea revisited. Now, I don't know procedurally in Idaho whether he's entitled to a hearing. And so maybe it was granted as a matter of course. I haven't done that much studying.

27:11But there is going to, there are going to be legal proceedings discussing whether or not Brian Coburger's plea was voluntary and intelligent. I, and whether he's entitled to revoke it at this point, I don't believe that there's a strong likelihood of success there for him. Because again, there's so many of these precautions taken. So many things to ensure that, you know, a defendant has the information they need and knows what they're doing and makes clear that they're doing it voluntarily. And that's especially true. It's even, it's done even 10 times greater when you're dealing with a triple ha, or quadruple homicide, you know, unlike this, which are, you know, fraud, you know, nonviolent crimes, which are still serious, but they're a far cry from a quadruple homicide. Where the death penalty was on the table and where he's, he was pleading to life in prison. So even more precautions were taken there. So it's not that I think that Brian Coburger's going to get a trial and get out of jail tomorrow, but he has attempted to take back his guilty plea.

28:16And I do think there's at least a possibility of that in this case, particularly if the eventual sentence for Laura includes some form of incarceration. So you're saying even though the judge went over everything with her, like, do you understand? He even asked her, I'm paraphrasing here, essentially, were you coerced in designing this? No, you're on her. Were you manipulated? No, were you promised anything by signing this plea agreement? No, you're on her. She can technically later on down the line after sentencing, whether it's probation or six months in prison or a year in prison, after the fact she can come back and tell a story on a podcast in a book on an Instagram live. Yeah, I just signed that because I wanted to avoid jail time. I don't believe any of that that I signed out. That is not true. She can say whatever she wants on a podcast. That has nothing to do with revoking her plea. But if you're asking, can she go back to a court and say, yes, I said all of that, but I didn't mean it. Yes, she can. That doesn't, that's not an automatic get out of plea-free

29:19card, right? It's not like you get to come back and they say, oh, gee, you did. Okay, let's start back at the beginning. There are legal proceedings about it and it's extraordinarily difficult to do, but it doesn't mean it can't be attempted. And you think that there's a possibility that she would attempt to do that? Of course, particularly if the eventual sentence includes incarceration. What percentage would you put that at? Oh, gosh, Steve. Less than 50, but not negligible. I think there's a, I think that if she gets a sentence, a significant sentence, even though she pled guilty knowing there was no promise with respect to the sentence, saying on the top count, on the count one. And so she said six ways till Sunday that she understood she could be sentenced to up to whatever it is 12 and a half years, you know, I believe if there's a significant sentence, like a year in prison or two years in prison, I would put it in a much higher chance than she

30:25just changes her mind if the sentence is something she's expecting like probation maybe 30 days in jail or something like that. So a lot of people now are saying what is the sentence? What do they expect the sentence? What do you think that she could get? And again, something you've said from the very beginning. First time offender, nonviolent, nobody died. Or even got physically maimed or anything, right? And that's not to downplay, by the way, what these men went through. Yeah, or what she did or how horrible it was for the victims. So at this point, everyone's like, okay, what do we think? So how does it work from the prosecution side with do Clayton, Greg, and Stormy all get together? I mean, maybe not all three of, but do they go to the prosecution and say, this is what I would like to ask the judge for. This is what we all agree we think her penalty should be. Does the state decide it after talking to Clayton

31:26or all three of them like, how does it work in terms of who determines what the state is going to say? Let's just say the sentence and goes down on October 23rd. The state will go first and they will say, due to these circumstances, and we'll listen to our, we'll listen to Clayton come up, Greg, unless he's going to talk whether Stormy talks or not is a different sort, we don't know if she's going to come forward and be at that hearing, or maybe she releases a statement through somebody in rights of letter and has somebody read it. But how does it work when the state will speak that day? So there will be most likely briefing beforehand. This is not something that is just we all show up at trial or not trial. It's a hearing, which is very different than a trial, including that typically my understanding is that when you speak it, and again, I don't practice criminal law, right? I was trained in criminal law and I did some criminal law, but I don't practice it. But a sentencing here, it's a hearing, it's not a trial. Most of the speeches that are given

32:29or not under oath, they don't, they don't swear them up on the witness stand. These are family members, victims, even the accused is usually not put under oath is my understanding. So it's an informal speaking, right? You still have to tell the truth, you're in court, but it's not for the, you're not testifying and being cross-examined the way that the way that you would be in a trial. So before that happens, sentencing memos are submitted. The state and the defense will likely put their request into writing. That's how it would work in California. And they'll explain why they're making the particular request. The formal request from the state, which could be exact or it could be arranged, is determined solely at the discretion of the prosecutor. The prosecutors have both a legal, but more importantly, an ethical duty to consult the victims. Typically, that is a formal duty. They're actually legally required to have meaningful consultation with them in some

33:32way. They are absolutely not required legally or ethically to do what the victims say. They're not just the conduit, you know, okay, she's pled guilty, now stormy and Greg and Clayton gets to decide how much time to ask for. They are supposed to and typically do listen to them and take their concerns into account, but it's up to the state to decide what they feel the proper sentences. The state, the prosecutors are supposed to be the administration of justice, you know, they represent the state, they represent the people, not the victim, although they speak for the victim often, they don't represent the victim. And so they have to determine what's fair and just. The three victims are all permitted to speak and they're basically given free reign to speak. There, I mean, someone will tell them, you know, what tends to be appropriate and what tends not to be appropriate, but anybody that listened to the Brian Koberger again sentencing hearing knows that some victims will come up and say very inappropriate things. One of the victims family members,

34:36what she said wasn't wrong, but she used very colorful and demeaning language that would not be normally considered appropriate in a courtroom when speaking about Koberger during the sentencing hearing. So it's much more informal and they are absolutely allowed to say I would like to see her spend six years in jail or they could say I want to see her spend 80 years in jail even though that's not even on the table. I think they will work with the prosecutors in terms of their speeches, but this is ultimately the victim's right to be heard. In speaking with Clayton afterwards, I get the sense that he would like Laura to see some jail time, but you know, he's not going to ask for the max for each count. He knows that that would just come across as very emotional. He just said, I get the sense that Clayton would like to see her go to jail for 12 to 18 months. That's the sense I got from him. I think he even said the phrase one year,

35:40but he said, I want to get her out of her bubble. She needs to be separated from her enabling parents, from the life that she has led and sit there for a year and understand what she did to people and the manipulation and what she put everybody through. He goes, I would be happy with her for a year. And he said, I also don't want her to suffer. I don't want her to be a statistic to where she gets out of whatever and you know, is just so broke that she can't fend for herself. She can't live and she ends up literally on the streets and homeless or government assistance or something. Right. We're right. I don't want that for her. He goes, I mean, that's a very prudent. And I think it's a very strategic and I'm not saying strategic in a bad way, but I think recognizing that saying I want her for 12, you know, to go there for 12 years would definitely come off as more emotional and less, less rational, less educated in terms of the likely range of sentences here.

36:42It's also very compassionate, you know, for the victim. I mean, there's there's some sort of, you know, emotional response, I think, expected from victims. You know, they are emotional. I think it's a very prudent. I think it's a very thoughtful and insightful way to approach it, if that's how he decides to approach it. And by the way, I agree. I think that this notion of getting her outside of her bubble, you know, taking her outside of the enabling parents and outside of a world where everybody is still defending her and disrupting that is probably her best chance of rehabilitating here. Yeah. And I think a lot of people, though, are really doubting what's going on and what is going to happen because in Clayton's Instagram video, he put out the day after it was about a five and a half minute video on his Instagram. Yeah, I saw that. Check it out. You know, he basically, and he said this to me, he said this to Stephanie Young, the narrator for a love trap podcast afterwards. Like he said, I was happy for what Laura did. I'm

37:47happy for her now because it's she is taking the proper steps to rehabilitate herself. But yet there's plenty of people online, a lot of people in the JFC community that think this is absolute bullshit. She only did this to avoid jail time or get out of a, like basically, she was convinced by her lawyer. If you take this to trial, you will get cremated. The state has too much against you right now. You need to accept these charges and deal with whatever consequences. Come with it. But when she does speak at that hearing, that's going to be the big thing of, is it, if she does speak at that hearing, we don't know. But if whatever her case may be, if she speaks or her lawyer speaks for her, is it going to be contrite? Is it going to be, I realize what I've done, judge, I realize I've made these mistakes. I realize I hurt a lot of people. And I am accepting of whatever her consequences come my way because I understand now, maybe I didn't at the time,

38:49but now I understand the magnitude of my actions. There are a lot of people that are just like, while she may have said guilty four times, I still cannot see her actually admitting, hey, I realize my actions hurt people because just of how she's been for the last three years. How do you see it? Whether or not she testifies herself or not testifies speaks herself or has the her lawyer do it for her. Can you see her going that route and can you see it's what she should do? Yes, of course, it's what she should do. Can you see that being what she does? No, I don't believe that she is going to get up there and say, I look, I can't imagine her giving a statement. It's not required. And a lot of the dangers of a defendant speaking that you would normally have in a trial or not there, typically there's no cross examination. This is not a statement made under oath, it's just a

39:54statement. But I don't believe that she will get up there and say, I have done horrible things. I feel really bad for them and just stop. There's going to be a but and the but is going to be the majority of what she wants to talk about. Right? I don't foresee a world in which she really understands what she's done wrong and takes responsibility for it. I don't necessarily think that both can't be true to a certain extent. I think some level of responsibility had to the fact that she pled guilty shows some level of accountability. It does. Whether that is a hundred percent selfish because she knows it would be worse for her. Nobody's ever going to know for sure. But if she gives a statement at the sentencing, that would go a small way towards showing us. Although again, she's allowed to write out a complete statement with her attorney beforehand

40:58and just read it and not be subject to cross examination. So I don't think that necessarily if she speaks of the sentencing hearing, we won't necessarily know whether it is true or not, unless the content of it. I mean, she could come out and say, you're right, I've lied about everything and I've lied about Mike Merichini too and I've lied about all these other people too and I'm, I finally want to admit what I've done wrong. Then I would believe it, right? But even if she says I've heard a lot of people, I know that I've done things wrong, done things wrong period and just stops there. That could easily be a statement written for her by her attorney that she doesn't mean also. There's so many ways this could go its sentencing. I just don't believe knowing what we know about Laura. I don't believe there's a chance in the world she's going to give a statement. I don't think she'll agree to give a statement that would help her. I don't think she'll agree on content that would be helpful towards

42:00her. So then on her side, what happens? Is her mom going to get up and speak for like you're saying that the, you know, the prosecution's going to call Clayton's going to say what he wants to say, Greg's going to say what he wants to say stormy either is there and says what she wants to say or releases a statement. What is going to be her side? Does her sister come out of the woodwork for the first time and say yes. Yeah, or her mother or her father or other people her lawyer can speak on her behalf. I mean, obviously it, you know, the extent to which certain evidence is produced or you know proven if you will, that will matter to the court whether they're just things that are being claimed or not. They could have her doctor come up and say look, she really is suffering from a very serious mental illness or something and that contributed to it and that is something that a judge would absolutely take into account in a sentence in hearing if the defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time that contributed to their actions and they're now aware of that and seeking help for it. So it's unlikely to recur. Even even difficult personal

43:06circumstances often come up. My father, you know, I've been caretaking for my elderly father who's dying of cancer or Parkinson's disease. That is a, that is a mitigating factor, difficult personal circumstances that make you more likely to snap and commit a crime. Those things are all relevant, if you will. They don't all necessarily matter or impact a sentence. But those things can all be introduced and then it's really a difficult balancing act when you're the defense. Between on the one hand, you do want to explain context. You do want to provide those reasons, if you will, but you don't. Reasons as to why she did what she did? Yeah, reasons like mental illness or difficult personal circumstances that provide a a little bit of a sympathetic background to why the crimes were committed. I was isolated and alone

44:07and I wanted, you know, the the companionship of these men and that drove me to do bad things, you know, similar to like if somebody robbed a store and they said I wanted to give my child the birthday present that I couldn't afford. You know, that's a little more compassionate than I wanted a big screen TV, you know, similar to, you know, it would be more compassionate if she explained that, you know, I was isolated alone caring for an elder at home than I just wanted to be famous, right? It's an important tightrope to walk between giving those context details and sounding like you're making excuses. And I really feel like Laura is not going to agree to give a statement that isn't just 100% excuses. And I think her lawyer will let her do that. I think the lawyer is smart enough to say you cannot read this statement, ma'am. This statement is just blaming Mike for what you did to Greg and Clayton. This statement is just blaming, you know, the guy in New Jersey who we don't think exists for what

45:12happened to you, you know, I don't think she will just get up there and say yes, I had some mental illness issues, but I'm so sorry for what I've done. Yeah, see, that's the crazy thing because I would think just as someone on the outside, her plan of attack should be everything that I mentioned earlier. I'm sorry for what I did. I realize now how I impacted people's lives. I don't think I deserve prison time for this. And or jail time, I apologize to Mr. Eckerd, I apologize to Mr. Gillespie, I apologize to stormy. Please accept my heartfelt apology. I did not mean it, but I was in this headspace where I should have known better and I apologize to them. I feel like that would go a long way with the judge where the judge would be lenient to be like, okay, maybe she doesn't need to go to jail, but Steve, I think so too. I really do. I think and again, this is not this is my total speculation and guesswork, but I think the actual truth,

46:14would be very compelling, which I think is probably, you know, I was at home caring for, you know, my elderly father, I've never made anything of myself, right? I've had no success in life. My biological clock was ticking. My sister has this wonderful life in children. Meanwhile, I find out I can't have children, which is what I believe. Again, I don't know that that's true, but I believe that's what happened because we know she has claimed to have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which can make it very difficult to carry a child health in a healthy way. You know, I found out I wasn't going to be able to have a family. I'm alone. My clock is ticking. I have nothing in my life and I was horribly depressed and I did these desperate things and I it came from a place of both mental illness and sadness and now I finally realized how wrong it was. I think that's probably the truth and I think that's a very sympathetic truth. I just don't think we're going to get it. Because she just is too stubborn? Yeah. Yeah, I don't,

47:23I don't think that we've hit a point where she finally says, you know what, the gig is up. I don't think she's there. I think for reasons that are both public and non-public, I think she has not come to this, she's not had a moment, you know, come to Jesus moment where she's like, look what I've done to all of these men. I think that she would still fully accuse Mike of all the things she's accused him of, including the things that we've disproven with evidence, including from the forensic analyst of his laptop. You know, I don't think she would readily step forward and say, yes, I claimed, you know, I faked having cancer. Yes, I did this. Yes, I did this. I don't think any of that would happen. I think this is a limited, remorse situation. And I don't think her lawyer will let her give a statement like that. It would be very stupid if the statement was, okay, yeah, I realized I did some wrong things. But let me tell you, I really was abused by Mike Merichini and Clayton really did screw up my real estate

48:26deals and he put me under, you know, and I lost my award-winning podcast and so that's not going to go over well. So then if you're her lawyer, if you're Christian looters, and you don't let her speak that day or read from a prepared statement, and if he does, it's going to be a prepared statement that he has already, you know, approved himself. That is so carefully. What do you do if you're Christian looters? You have to make the case for her. If you're not going to let her speak or read from a prepared statement, then it's Christian looters job to be like, I think this about my client, I think this and it just doesn't seem like it would have the same effect if he says my client is very sorry for what she did to these victims. It doesn't have the same effect. So then why not let her speak and tell her to say that. I mean, I guess you can tell her. She just has to agree to it and you don't think she would agree to that. Right. I mean, this goes back to, you know, one of her early attorneys, I think it was Alexis

49:31Linval who, who she basically reported to the bar for asking her to sign something that we now know is true. And she claimed she was trying to get her to admit to perjury. Again, this woman was was, you know, this lawyer suggested to her, all you have to say is you weren't pregnant or you're not pregnant, whatever it was, you know, and they'll get rid of the case. It'll all go away. We won't be here. And not only did Laura refuse to do that, but she reported her to the bar for trying to coerce her into fals, into testifying falsely in order to get a case dismissed, which is an extraordinarily vicious thing to do when you know it's true, you know. And it's not just that she wouldn't do it. It's that she tried to take away this woman's bar license for trying to have her say something by by insisting it was a lie when she knew it was true. That's, that's vicious. And I, I just don't,

50:32I don't see her just saying, oh, sure, I'll just say whatever in order to get a lighter sentence. We've never, because if that were the case, she would have done it three years ago. And it's, it's very different to me for her to say guilty to count one, then it is to get up there and say, I made this all up because I wanted male attention and because I wanted a companion and because I was broken from my own actions, not from what anybody else did to me. That's like night and day in terms of what she's actually admitting to. Yeah, that's what's going to make October 23rd. Assuming it happens, just fascinating. That's why I want to be there. And just really everybody's curious. Like what is she going, what is she going to say? What is she going to do? Is she going to speak? Is her lawyer going to allow her to speak? Like it's just, and then what is her penalty going to be? Is this judge lenient towards women? What is his track record on something like this? We all know, like you said, nonviolent first time offender, nobody's dead and nobody got physically hurt.

51:33It's just that's why everybody thinking, oh my gosh, all those 14 felony counts, you add it up. That's 35 years in prison. I think it's like 100 years in prison. You have to add them all up. Oh my god, it's like 70 or 80 years. I mean, the presumptive sentence is many years. You have to put it back into context, right? When you talk about mitigating factors, it's legally mitigating factors are things that largely follow Laura's favor here. Not it's not the things that we think of like how horrible this is. Yeah. But with that said, all of us do believe that she should serve some sort of jail time. I do. Yeah. Whether or not that, what that number is is different for everybody. And I think, and will it appease enough people, not that it matters, you know, to us, it doesn't matter what we think if the judge says 60 days in jail.

52:34There will be a lot of people that are disappointed. I think anybody, I think anything less than six months is going to have JFC saying she got off easy. And appeasing the public masses is obviously not one of the goals of our criminal justice system. However, deterrence is. And this is something that I've talked a lot about in some in these like celebrity cases where celebrities are going to jail. You often see that the sentences are harsher than people would otherwise expect. And some people will say, well, that's so unfair that because this is a public case, it's a harsher sentence. But when you look at the goals of our criminal justice system, one of them is deterrence. And that's for the common public good, not just the benefit of the defendant. And so to the extent that there are more eyeballs on something and that leads to a slightly increased sentence, that's not unfair or bad. That is part of our justice system because part

53:35of the goal here is to deter other people who are sitting in their homes saying, you know, maybe I'm going to tell my boyfriend I'm pregnant and, you know, go to court and file a paternity suit. Because, you know, if I get caught, the lady that got caught for doing that twice, you know, she had to do some probation. Big deal. You know, so I'll take the risk. If that, if, if, if giving her a year in jail would make that person at home say, you know what, I don't want to mess with this. I don't want to go there because I see that it's taken seriously and punished accordingly. That is a proper and valuable goal of sentencing and criminal justice. Very well said. Good job. Thank you. Now, I wanted to end this and talk about another celebrity case that's happening right now that you were able to get your hands on and read what's going on. And that's Jack's Taylor and Brittany Cartwright because these two have been sniping in the media and social media for the longest time. But within the last week,

54:38Brittany has been granted a temporary restraining order against Jack's, Jack's a couple days ago, filed one in return and he was granted a temporary restraining order against her. She can't be within 100 yards of him and I think the same. He can't be within 100 yards of her. But you have read both of these TROs. Fill people in on what's going on here, what you think about this and kind of where you think it ends up. I assume TRO means that there is going to be a sentencing hearing for them to both show up to see if it becomes permanent on. Yeah, not sentencing, but a full hearing and evidentiary. Yes. So they've both been granted a temporary order, which again in California, the legal standard is assuming what you say in these papers are true. And the other side is no opportunity to rebut it. Do you deserve a restraining order? They both met that standard according to the judges and something interesting to know. It was two different judges, both of whom I actually know, which is interesting. Two different judges in

55:45California who granted these temporary restraining orders for each of them, both well respected, you know, they were excellent lawyers, well respected jurists. You know, one of them is the daughter of a very prominent judge in California, extraordinarily smart both women. And because even though they have a divorce ongoing, when you file a restraining order like this, it often gets sent to someone so that they can decide on it quickly, even if they're not your judge. And they were both given temporary orders, so there will be a hearing on their requests for cross orders. I think that this is an example of how the, I think these restraining orders right now, are an example of how the restraining order system has gotten out of control in California. And this is not to say that nobody was abused. This is not to say there's never been any abuse in that relationship. It's not to say that nobody is abusive or was abusive. But what's happening

56:48here is things have escalated in a divorce and restraining orders are being used as weapons. That's what's happening. I don't know a nicer way to say it. It doesn't mean that the allegations aren't true. Some of them, some of them are proven some of the allegations because a lot of the allegations are based on statements made publicly by the two of them as they relate to their divorce. And that's really the crux of the current behavior that's being complained of. Is they both complain that the other one is publicly trashing them or speaking to them inappropriately during exchanges of crews. There's no allegations that anybody punched anybody, you know, or threatened to kill anybody recently. Right? Those type of allegations are from years ago. And now they're upset that the other one is, is, you know, trashing them in the media. And Jack's claims that this only happened because Brittany found out he had a girlfriend. And

57:48it was somebody that she thought she could trust. It was a former publicist. And that's when all of these allegations started. Now, whether that's her motivation, we don't know, but he's right about the timing. These allegations were not made. And this whole back and forth didn't start until that happened. And they need to, they both need to stop is really what's going on here. They both need to stop trashing each other publicly. This is just not, they need to go finish their divorce and do it quietly. I understand their public figures. They can talk about how they're struggling. But they've, they've both been just going out there trashing each other. It's not, it's not good for anybody. So what is the restraining order? What like, why does she not need to be within a hundred yards of him and him with her? If these are things that she brought up, apparently, she talked about the things and we've heard these through the years. We've actually seen some of

58:51it play out on television that he seriously does have anger management problems. We are all aware of that. So, and that's why I'm saying it's not that there's never been an abuser in this relationship or that she was never abused. I am not saying that. It appears she was. But what on his side is saying, because it seems like because she got hers granted, that's the only reason he filed his, just to basically retaliate against her because is she really a threat to him? Doesn't seem like it. Right. I mean, I'm, I'm low to say no because you never know. But his restraining order is largely based on not that she's a threat that she's going to punch him tomorrow. But on the fact that he claims that she's trashing him publicly and thereby disturbing his peace, which again, under California law, and this is nobody's fault except the California legislature unfortunately, is domestic violence. And his, in his restraining order, his attorneys submitted a

59:57lengthy legal brief, which is uncommon. It's not, it's not bad or good, but it's uncommon to submit a legal brief along with your restraining order application detailing the recent case law where California appellate courts are reaffirming that the law is that if you say mean things about people on social media, that's domestic violence. And that's a function of the law and how the courts have interpreted it here in California. I don't necessarily disagree that in certain circumstances, that could be true. I certainly believe that somebody who spends all day long sending thousands of posts and messages on social media, not directly to the other person, but to the entire world all day long hundreds of thousands to their family, to their friends, clearly that can be abusive, even if they don't send them to you directly. But these one-off messages, like, I'm going to post the euro loser. And then like three weeks later, I'm going to

1:00:59post that you stink. I don't believe that's, that should be domestic violence. But in California, the law says it is. So there's not a lot to do. Yeah, the issue really, so in your opinion, based on reading both of these TROs, when this hearing happens, do you think one of these two, if not both of them, are able to come out of that hearing with a permanent? So it's, it's complicated in California, because if you're going to grant cross restraining orders, if you're going to grant both sides a restraining order, there has to be a finding that they were both primary aggressors. And that neither of them were being reactionary, or not retaliatory because that's a little different, but then neither one was really responding to the abuse of the other. I would say at this point, I don't have enough information to make a determination if they could each prove that these

1:02:00independent instances, and probably the evidence is not in their restraining order applications. Because normally you don't have to prove that the other person was a primary aggressor to get an initial restraining order. I don't know enough about the entire timeline to tell you whether one or both of them could prove that the other one is primarily the aggressor with respect to this relationship, and with respect to the alleged abuse. I can tell you that I do agree with both judges who granted the temporary orders, that the threshold under California law, which again, I disagree with California law, but I agree with the two judges who issued the temporary orders, that the threshold was met in California for the temporary orders to issue. Again, a function of California law and nothing else. So we just have to basically sit and wait. Do we have a hearing set date? A date set? So the interesting thing is, let's see, I'm going to open up the orders.

1:03:03If I saw something September 23rd or September 26th, I think that's somewhere. Hers was set for September 17th. His was set for, I think September 23rd. I'm trying to pull it up here. What did you just make it the same day? Number 24th. I believe that those will get consolidated into a single hearing at some point. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have two separate hearings. I think they'll get consolidated into a single hearing in the court where they're divorces pending. But by function of how these work in California, a judge just automatically sets a hearing date. They don't put a lot of thought into it. It gets done automatically by the clerk's office. So they, right now they have two separate dates. It would not be at all a surprise or unusual for that date to be moved for two parties that have attorneys and the capability to really present evidence at a hearing. You typically need more than three weeks to prepare

1:04:04for that. So I would expect to see the date not happen this soon. And actually in California, if somebody is seeking a restraining order against you, you have an automatic statutory right to at least a three week continuance for no reason at all. Just by virtue of the fact that you need more time. So I would expect them to take advantage of that time. I just really hope that somebody kicks some sense into them before that happens. Yeah, it just seems like again, there's and these two, I mean, are we've seen it play out on television, seen it play out on social media, I think just a lot of people are kind of just tired of it. And again, not to dismiss anything that's going on, it just seems like there's allegations flying all the time from both sides. If you just don't know what to believe and what is true. But if you are to lean one way, I mean, we know Jack's Taylor is verbally abusive. We've seen him be verbally abusive on television. So it's

1:05:07much easier to assume my gosh, if he's willing to put this on camera, what's he doing behind closed doors? Right. And one of the things that he's arguing is that he had a substance abuse problem, which he no longer does. And clearly, we have evidence of one person being domestically violent, right? Not recently, but in the past. On the other hand, it concerns me a lot that she asked for custody orders as part of her request for a domestic violence restraining order. She asked that the stuff that she's complaining about affect custody immediately with no opportunity for him to be heard. That's very, very drastic. He didn't ask for that. He didn't bring the custody into it. And the court denied those orders. The court denied the crews being a protected party, if you will. Right. So the court was not willing to find that protection for crews was necessary

1:06:10on a temporary basis. Now, again, I don't, this is not to say whether protection is necessary, but they both have competent attorneys who put everything forward. And the court said, even if I assume everything you say is true, Brittany, crews doesn't need any protection from his father. Like you, I'm giving you a temporary restraining order, but, but not crews. Hmm. And I just, I think this is so bad for the kids. Kid. It's just for the kid. It's so bad for kids in general when this happens in this circumstance, it's so bad for crews. Yes, especially since, you know, a lot of this inviting that's been going on has to do because crews we know is on the spectrum. Right. And even that's being weaponized on social media by kind of both parties. It's just, the whole thing is, is ugly, but obviously we'll be, we'll be following it and we'll be seeing what happens. So at this point, I just hope we're filing it. I

1:07:14hope we're following it by having to dig up information from here on out as opposed to this all being aired out because I just don't, I don't think there's a benefit to doing that right now. Yeah, no, there isn't. And anyway, we're going to wrap this up for people that are listening to this obviously on Thursday. Just know that Rachel is double dipping today. Rachel is also on my sports daily today and she will be every week for the next, including today, 19 weeks of the NFL season because we are doing a NFL survivor contest show that's going to air every Thursday on the sports daily. It's also going to be in video form. So all of them will be on the sports daily that comes out audio wise on Spotify or Apple podcasts. And then it'll also go up on my YouTube channel after my weekly podcast goes up as well. So this is podcast 5 11 with you and then about, I don't know, probably around, I don't know, 10 Eastern time, maybe 10 30 Eastern time in the

1:08:19morning, every Thursday, the video will go up as well of our sports daily conversations. And you do not need to be a huge NFL fanatic because I'm not in order to enjoy the weekly survivor podcast. I know that your daily sports podcast goes into a tremendous amount of detail about the sports and everything, which is wonderful. But even if you don't like that much detail, you're still going to enjoy this. Yes, it'll be fun. And you can tune into that today. It will be in your podcast feed. Well, the audio is already in your feed. If you're listening to this podcast, the audio is already in your feed. The video will be up, like I said, around 10, 10 30 AM Eastern time every Thursday. So again, Rachel, thank you so much for joining. I appreciate it. And we will be in touch. See you. You got it. Thank you so much to Rachel for coming on. Really appreciate it. Good stuff there. Yeah, she is not convinced. And a lot of people, I mean, she's not the only one. There's a lot of people not convinced that while Laura did plead guilty

1:09:23to four felony counts, it's one thing like Rachel said, just to say the word guilty, but not have to openly say the words, I fake the pregnancy to Greg, a lesbian, I fake the pregnancy with Platon, I manipulated them. I lied to them. It's just like, okay, I'm guilty to these charges. We'll see. It was the first step. I know Clayton was happy that Laura did this. And she obliged and he thinks it is the first step. And yes, it is a first step. But if she gets up there at the sentencing or anytime afterwards and says, I was coerced into doing this, it was a smear campaign against me. These guys still did this to me. She loses all credibility. And look, nobody's going to believe her because we've basically said the same thing about her for three years. I think the route she should go is show contrition, apologize, realize your mistakes, admit that you made people's lives miserable and you manipulated coerced people and have lied for three years. I think that'll go a long way with a judge as opposed to just getting up there and saying,

1:10:28like, oh, it's a smear campaign. Everyone's after me, all this stuff. Really good conversation with Rachel. You heard what she said. So I think it's, I think that's the route that Laura should go. Will she? Most people doubt that she will. Anyway, thank you all for listening. Really appreciate it. Follow me and Apple podcasts also rate and review. But you got to hit play. It's the only way it counts as download. As I said, in the open, DailyRotter was posted an hour ago. Sports Daily was also post or daily around it was posted earlier this morning. Sports Daily posted an hour ago. But now every Thursday, you're going to get the sports daily in video form, 9.45 AM Eastern time on my YouTube channel. It'll go up myself and Rachel Juarez talking about NFL survivor contests. Anyway, thanks again for listening. I really appreciate it. I'll talk to you tomorrow. See you!

1:12:00Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary, not available in all states.