CESTERNINO AND WIENERKUR ​v.

 
UNIVERSAL PICTURES ET AL.  
 

   MAY TERM, 2020    

  

SUPREME COURT OF ROB AND AKIVA

NEED A PODCAST 
CESTERNINO AND WIENERKUR ​v. ​UNIVERSAL PICTURES ET AL. 

No. 1–1. Argued December 28, 2019—Decided May 19, 2020  

Syllabus  

In December of 2019, Rob Cesternino and Akiva Wienerkur put a 

viewing and discussion of the 2019 Universal Studios major motion 
picture release “Cats” onto the Rob and Akiva Need a Podcast Wheel. 
The topic never came up on the Wheel despite being given multiple 
slots and was taken off the wheel on January 11​th​ 2020 for “no longer 
being relevant” after the motion picture was no longer being 
theatrically released.  
 
It remained a debated topic for several months, and on May 4​th​ 2020, in 
the Facebook discussion thread for that night’s Patron trivia game, 
listener Addison M. asked Rob the question “How many signatures on a 
change.org petition to force Cats onto the wheel?” Rob then verbally 
responded “500.” Addison went on to create the petition and in 
subsequent weeks received the requisite number of signatures per the 
verbal agreement with Rob.  
 
On the RAANAP podcast released May 10​th​ 2020, Rob and Akiva 
discussed whether this meant that they should put it back on the Wheel 
as a separate idea, put it as one of the options for the Crappy Movie 
Diaper, or discuss the motion picture briefly during the mailbag 
segment in another podcast. On the podcast released May 16​th​ 2020, 
they relitigated this argument, could not come to an agreement, and 
subsequently submitted it to the Supreme Court. 
 
 
Verdict 

Justice Joshua Lehmer delivers the following verdict from a unanimous 

court.  
 
Section 2.a.i of the RAANAP constitution states “An idea is added to 
the Wheel when both hosts agree to add it.” At the current time, there 
is no rule or amendment in the constitution that allows for an idea to 
bypass this rule and be added onto the Wheel without the consent of 
one or both hosts.  
 
While Rob did respond to Addison M.’s question on May 4​th​ 2020 in an 
affirmative manner indicating that he himself agrees that 500 
signatures puts a viewing of “Cats” onto the Wheel, Akiva was not 
present at this Patron Trivia Night and did not agree to this 
arrangement. As aforementioned, there is nothing in the current 
constitution that allows for an idea to bypass Akiva’s lack of approval. 
 
 
 
 
 
 CESTERNINO AND WIENERKUR ​v. 
UNIVERSAL PICTURES ET AL.  

Although not yet reflected in the constitution itself, 23 minutes into 

the March 6​th​ 2020 podcast about the document’s ratification, Rob 
and Akiva speak verbally about the effects of a Wheel idea gaining 
support via online petition. They both end up verbally agreeing that a 
petition that reaches 100 signatures or more will result in a Wheel 
idea being formally reconsidered and brought up again on the 
mailbag for further discussion. At no point was any verbal 
commitment made to definitively putting said idea on the Wheel or 
any subsection of the wheel without approval from both hosts. 
 
Given the evidence, the Supreme Court rules as such:  
 
(a)​ ​Under the current rules and constitution, Rob and Akiva are not 
required to watch or discuss the 2019 motion picture “Cats” in any 
capacity (be it mailbag, Wheel entry, or Crappy Movie Diaper) 
without the consent of both hosts. 
 
(b)​ ​Given that it was discussed verbally during the ratification 
podcast but never officially added to the constitution during that 
period or in any subsequent amendment, the Court strongly 
recommends that an amendment to the constitution be proposed 
addressing what happens when a podcast idea does not have approval 
from both hosts but receives a predetermined requisite amount of 
signatures on an online petition, and that Addison M.’s 500 signature 
petition is eligible to be applied retroactively once such an 
amendment is in place.  
 
(c) Per the verbal agreement established in the March 6​th​ 2020 
podcast, the Court recommends that Rob and Akiva give “Cats” one 
final reconsideration on the next podcast to be added to the wheel 
with both of their consent.  
 
It is so ordered. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CESTERNINO AND WIENERKUR ​v. 
UNIVERSAL PICTURES ET AL.  
 

Opinions 
 
Justice Lindsay the Otter delivers the following concurring opinion 
 
(In regards to the idea of discussing “Cats” or any other future idea as 
part of the mailbag instead of a Wheel entry) Adding proposed ideas 
to the mailbag is not in line with the original intentions that the 
mailbag be a place to discuss future episodes. That would be are 
effectively changing the purpose of the mailbag. There is no 
precedent that certain ideas get relegated to a mailbag segment 
rather than the main section. I think that the show is clearly outlined 
into two sections. The purpose of the mailbag is to discuss business at 
hand and future ideas and future ideas should not be squeezed into 
the mailbag segment based on the intentions, foundations, and 
precedent of the podcast. 
 
 
Justice Jason Curtis Rivera delivers the following concurring opinion 
 
Rob and Akiva said specifically on the ratification episode that a 
petition will make them reconsider an idea, nothing more. As the 
Supreme Court we can only uphold the constitution, so if there is no 
rule there, we cannot make them do it. We do strongly recommend an 
amendment to the constitution that outlines what happens if a 
petition gets the required amount of signatures. 
 
 
Justice Katie Kleber delivers the following concurring opinion 
 
I agree with the other justices. We do not have the authority to make 
Rob and Akiva place Cats on the wheel but the consensus is that it 
shouldn’t be placed in the mailbag. If they want to honor a verbal 
agreement about watching Cats if a petition of 500 signatures is 
obtained then they both must agree to it. To prevent future confusion 
on the topic of petitions, an amendment to the Constitution should be 
made. 
 
Justice Ryan Maharaj delivers the following concurring opinion 

Rob Cesternino as a host and co-founder may have appeared to have 

the authority to enter into a valid contract with Addison M., but 
Cesternino could not enter into any contract that violates the 
RAANAP Constitution. In the future, one host making a promise that 
they cannot keep because they didn’t consult with the other host may 
have to be referred to the Punishment Tribunal for entering into an 
invalid contract that was in violation of the RAANAP Constitution.