Perez Hilton’s Psychotic Break, Patrick Clancy Conspiracies, and the Reflecting Pool Case Reversal

Welcome to In The Well, our latest episode. I'm Mark Jarvis, I've got my friend.

“And actually, I'm kind of living his life”

on the Orange County next to the beach. Matt Murphy, Orange County, former Orange County, homicide and sex crimes, prosecutor, it's stored in there.

Now his finally come over and see him the light

and come over to the defense side to defend all the falsely accused. Matt, how are you and where are you? I'm in am against it in New York right now. Not far from the beach. It is not, as I said, it's not pipeline here.

But surface just good enough to get in the water. So having to get time, home in a week. Well, I love it. And I was thinking of you this morning as I was out on the pier

watching various people and various stages of their surfing morning

and I thought about you and this talking here. One of the stories that is just so troubled people this week

“and I wanted to get your take on it obviously was this kind of what?”

I think they call it moderator, mal-function, which was live streaming. Paris Films, apparently one looks like a suicide it's in. It was in the middle of a break. I think for a psychological psychiatric break for lack of a better

term and raised all kinds of questions I guess about what they were doing in order to try to stop that and obviously like a slow-speed car wreck people tuned in and it was awful to watch. I guess for lack of a better term, I don't know if you saw this. Yeah, I saw it.

The video is still available on X, I think. YouTube shut it down and this is one of those things where something horrible happens on live stream and I'm trying to find it on X. I found some Christian site, Mark that was calling it a demonic possession. It was apparently so bad and he did it via cutting.

And it may be think about, you know, June is men's mental health month and it's also a pride month and all the corporations and everybody, you know, they celebrate pride month and we get, it seems like that's where a lot of our attention goes. The parties, the parades and the fun and everybody sort of forgets that about

the men's mental health part and male suicide is something that people don't talk about enough and this is a guy that, you know, he's got a lot of followers. He's a lot of support and yeah, it's just absolutely tragic and then there's been some criticism too in apparently the way that it was handled and they apparently there were there been accusations of a delay.

They're trying to get mental health counselors there and it just seems like kind of a big mess, but it made me think of, I'm sure you know a lot of people, Mark, like I have friends of mine, you know, almost, almost everybody I know who is suicide it and taking their own life has been a man, I don't know if any brother who did it. I was just going to say college by roommate and college, not when I was ruling

with him, but guys close thereafter took his own life in kind of a crazy way and there's

“been, I've represented families of people who have taken their life, I think a”

mere St. John's son represented him and I think about the care team of family and I mean, there's just, it cuts across, I mean, it's one of the things about mental health. It cuts across every kind of demographic that you would want, it's an issue that

explains everyone, it's kind of why I never understood could the kind of backlash towards

mental health defenses because if you understand that it hits every family or one degree of separation or somebody you know or somebody you admire, it's a, it's a, it's a nettle some kind of a issue. Yeah, it really is and it's, you know, the statistics, I was, I wanted to pull him up, I didn't get a chance to do it before we started, but they are, they're shocking, how many, how many men it's something like one suicide every minute. It's, yeah,

this is one of those things, it's like a, he's a famous guy, celebrity, you know, I saw a lot

it's very difficult for their families to accept it and, you know, for like the poor moms

or dads that just can't believe that they're, that they're, someone do it, they, they a lot of times find refuge in the idea that it's foul play and I can't tell you how many of those investigations that I got involved with over the years because the, the poor parents, it's almost like they were desperately hoping that somebody else had done it, so they wouldn't have to, so they wouldn't have to deal with it. And I told you about that case, right, it just

smiths murder charge once because it was a, it was a young woman who got choked out by her fiance and he was a, he was a choker, he'd done it to multiple other women and he, they got a big argument, neighbors heard it, he really did choker. There's marks on her neck, bruised strap muscles, particular hammering all the classic signs of a strangulation duck, but she came to one up and swallowed every sleeping pill in the world that night and I, you know, I personally had to break

it to her mom and it's just, man, it is so tough, especially on a family, so hopefully he makes a, you know, it's interesting. The, not one, not two, but three straight LA County sheriffs

“have told me, and I remember the first one was Lee Baca, and then Jim McDonald said the same thing”

he's not, as LA PD, but that they run the largest mental health facility in the world, aka LA County

jail. And you know, we always think of twin towers as being where they house all the mental health,

and it's really kind of a misleading because the mental health connection to the criminal justice system is you know, is overwhelming, and then when you factor in the kind of, I love the terms self-medication or substance abuse, and which came first, you know, chicken or the egg, you can sit in a courtroom as you have, and I have a zillion times, and I have actually mentally played the game. How many of these cases that I called are mental health or substance abuse

related, and it's almost invariably 95 percent of the cases outrun through the system. At least,

“right, at least. Yeah. Yeah, and especially, man, downtown LA, I think the official number of”

homeless people is 60,000, but it's way higher than that. That's a joke of a number. That would be aspirational. I thought you had this for you, right? Yeah, I mean, it's just miles and miles and they're all, and like you said, chicken or egg, I think a huge percent of them are our addicts that have kind of drugged themselves into mental illness, but you know, that's another thing like for the empathetic among us that really want to help, that's the defund the police crowd cuts from directly from them,

and I'll help their receiving in the jail, right? Nobody really really thinks about that, but I hope Perra is helping, you know, and this is one of those things that should cross all political divisible, like you said, it's universal, right? It's across all racial, all socioeconomic lines, and, you know, hopefully he makes a speedy recovery, you know, there are those, like Crucobin,

who will attempt multiple times before they finally do it right, and hopefully he gets to help

Perra's holding gets to help that he needs. Yeah, I got it. What about now, there's a couple of cases going on. What a, I knew been commenting left and right. What's the, what's the case of the week for you this week? Well, there's, there's a couple of really interesting ones that one that we talked about in Florida with the Mormon woman that got the hitman, that, that is, that is interesting to me, that's with your buddy Jose Bias. Jose. And that thing that judge came in and

made kind of a limited ruling concerning how much cell phone access the defense could have to the widows phone, and that is, that is still a really interesting issue to me, because you're talking about victims' privacy rights versus a defendants, a defendants' right to gain all meaningful

“discovery, and the, the, the, the DA made, I think they're a really good call on that. They came,”

they came off the death penalty. And for those who don't know, I sat on the Special Circuit Committee in Orange County for 15 years. We saw the death penalty less than 4% of the cases that that was outlawed by before it. And I thought that was a really good ruling by her, or if you were called, your, your thought was, well, hey, in a death penalty case, the defense should be able to access

if you're talking about potential execution. But now they, they've taken that from the table,

“which is really interesting on that, the privacy versus defense rights, I think that's, I think”

that slides the ruler over a little bit. I think in my opinion, favoring more of the privacy side since she's not looking at the death penalty, and she is probably looking at a potential proharing one day. I think it changes the equation a little bit. So that thing is still ongoing. There are, there are so many interesting cases right now, Mark, I think the coberger thing that's happening. We, we both talked about that. I've seen some of your commentary on it

with him. And the, we talked about it last week too. That, that attempt to withdraw his plea.

I think that, um, we both, we'd have a better chance flying a vagus tonight. And, uh, yeah, exactly. And, uh, just spinning, spinning. I mean, he got in a pointed lawyer, but I don't even understand.

“I guess there is a procedural window. And so he filed this proper attempt within the procedural”

window, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me at all. I really don't quite understand it. Then I'll tell you another one that I don't understand this case at all. You know, my friend Janine Piero Piero is the, uh, US attorney in charge of DC. So, uh, Senate confirmed.

Long time friend of the president. And, uh, she, there's nobody who's going to say that she's

soft on crime. I mean, I've known Janine since Westchester County, D.A., since she's being a judge. Since, you know, I was probably, she had some, uh, with the involving her husband and personal issues there and everything else. I've watched the entire and a spectacular, uh, TV career. I mean, making, you know, kind of seven figures, although she untie me for pointing that out.

“And then she indicts this gentleman former Olympian, I believe, David Hurn for the bandellism”

of the reflecting pool. The president, the reflecting pool was kind of a pet project next to the ballroom by the president. And then apparently, though, if you believe what's Piero reported, she gets after the indictment or the filing of the charges. She then gets information. And I don't know if it was Norm Eisen, who was the lawyer for David or well, or part of his team. But she gets information and it's apparent that Doug Bergen, who is in the cabinet and, uh, Secretary of the

Interior, who presumably has, uh, the, uh, jurisdiction, the reflecting pool. And it looks like it's contractor air. And so she does what I think. Don't let me put words in your mouth. But every good prosecutor should do when faced with this, uh, this, well, it doesn't look like bandellism. I was misled. I no longer have confidence. I'm just missing the action and the president went ballistic. Saying she was a, I do see it. She choked. I don't agree with it. I'm on it. And they've got her

and some people are so patty. They've got pictures of her pulling a, um, kind of a cart out of the white house with a box and they're going out. She had to pack up her things. Let me explain something to you. Just because you're the US attorney for DC does not mean you're housed in the white house. I mean, she's housed that the DC, um, uh, uh, uh, an USA or a United States attorney's office. And my guess is that when she's rolling a box up, she's probably showing the president. Don't, don't blame

me, uh, you know, take a look at where, uh, and what you were misled about, you know, garbage in garbage out when it comes from information. And now somebody is talking about, or may have already done it. They're going to record it to the, to the discipline area authorities. And I said, I mean, I do lost your mind. She does the right thing. She dismisses the case after she indicts it. And now you're going to want to discipline her for doing the right thing. And my point was,

you know, if you're Trump or if you're counseling Trump, I'd say, this is what you wanted to do. This is what you wanted, um, what's his name, the DA in Manhattan to do where they were coming after you out in Brad, when you realize your cases for shit, you stand up and you do the right thing in my role. No, your, look, you are, you've been doing this for a long time. And a lot of

keep an open mind. And you must, it's always to do the right thing. And you're going to believe

to the absolute letter of the charge. You're going to believe in absolutely every enhancement.

“And you've got to, you have to subjectably be 100%. And if you entertain a doubt,”

it is your sacrosanct ethical obligation, um, damn the torpedoes, damn the criticism, damn all that stuff. You have to go into court and dump it. And, you know, that's the job of a good prosecutor. And we talk about this all the time, Mark, and we're going to keep talking about it. Prosecutorial power and politics are a very, very toxic cocktail. Oh, and, and, and look, on, you know, in, in Trump's defense on this, our country is so crazy right now that it's like,

we've kind of a point that people who hate Trump, everything he does that is good. It's like, I had friends when Barack Obama was president that I, that I'll leave their names out, but, you know, plenty of things that he did. He really believed it was best for United States. We can disagree, but these guys were like, I'm against anything that he does. Anything that Barack Obama does, I'm against. And at what point does that just become being against what's right for

America, right? Same thing right now with Trump. Like, Trump does some good stuff, guys, and, and you can hate him. But when it, when it comes down to like a project like the, like the, like the reflective pool, I mean, we've seen it. It's like Trump does it. There are people who would want to destroy it. You can, and I can understand why that would get his backup, but at the end of the day, all of that stuff has to be non-existent in the mind of a prosecutor

with a criminal case. And Mark, how many times have we seen it over and over again, where, like, you, you brought up the example of funny wills. Man, that, that case blew up. That was a bullshit case, sorry. Um, and by the way, for those, for those in the comments who slam based defense or defense

“lawyers, remember that case blew up. Finally, we'll just flip not because of the prosecutor or”

somebody in the prosecutor's office. The defense lawyer, our comrades here actually merchant doing an incredible job. I mean, an incredible job. That's, and that, that was, that is, that is the legal profession that it's financed with Ashie Merchant, smoking, making it all stand. And I mean, it's one of the greatest moments of American jurisprudence, where you ever in a cabin with Fanny Os, and it's like that they play that Jeopardy theme, ding ding ding ding as

he said there for like a minute. And he's like, uh, ever, that was, he was a real estate lawyer or something like that. He had no business with that. Mark, they had dead. I think it was 28 code of

Fanny Os. He never seen what he was saying now. And you know, I have what's so funny, she's

going to slap me or maybe her husband will. When we were in Vegas, I was chatting late late at night, early boarding hours with her and her husband, and her husband was her partner. And, um, and I was telling Ashley, I just became a fanboy, uh, uh, for watching her, what she was doing because she was just a machine. She was exactly, but by the way, if you're ever accused of a crime, do you want the pot in plant or do you want an Ashley merchant who's there just like a laser? And she was

like a laser focus, but the backstory was, she kept going to her husband as the partner said, I got to blow somebody and he kept saying, no, you need more. I got to blow someone and she would

keep coming back and keep coming back and he would keep saying, no, you need more. And finally,

when she rolls it out, you know, kudos to the bulk of them, what a great partnership, because when she rolled it out, I mean, there was no coming back from that. I mean, talk about a reversal of fortune on a criminal case. It was, I mean, you could, you could exhibit a of what a good defense lawyer should do, could that it did do? Yep, that her work on that cross examination, knocked down 28 Boeing pounds. And, and look, in my opinion, love, I'm hate I'm politics aside here.

She really did treat Donald Trump unfairly in that. And I mean, I know, and it was like, and we have to be able to separate our politics from what's from fairness. I mean, and that is the job of a prosecutor and you're right. It's exactly what all of those codependents in that totally unfair case would have wanted a prosecutor to do the right thing. And, but man, people dig their heels in

“and they, and they fight and, and look, I think that that's an emotional thing, because there are”

so many people who out there who wouldn't vandalize the reflective pool, because Trump had something to do with it or Trump wanted to do it. With so many crazies out there, I understand the emotional reaction. I hope that the president thinks better of that because she really is, it's exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do. I mean, I, it's a plaque on both their houses. He should not be criticizing

And I also, to those on my side of the aisle, I always say my ideological and political side of the

“side, shame on you for curing disciplinary action or her. I mean, I, I had told somebody the other day,”

I mean, Jeanine, I would defend Jeanine for free on the disciplinary side, because it's an outrage that they would, and I would consider that. And I would help you. And, and it, and if in a right and wrong, your fairness sort of way, we have to get away from all these insane politics, guys, we just do that's exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do. Good for her. I could not agree more. So next, Mark and I are going to discuss the Lindsey Clancy trial. Please stay tuned.

Welcome back to In the Well. Mark, you and I have both been following this Lindsey Clancy case

at a Massachusetts. This is the woman who has been charged with murdering her three kids, and then she jumped out of the window. And apparently, it's now paralyzed. We've got a lot of drama

“in court. Her husband came out and testified on her behalf. He's publicly forgiven her.”

And I don't know if you've seen this, Mark, but there is a new conspiracy online that, um, which is absolutely fricking bonkers, that he's just wondering if he's wearing different shoes, but what do you take it away on that? Okay. So I, I so wanted to hear your take on this, because you have so little patience for conspiracy theories when it comes to this. Yeah, right. I mean, is there, as soon as I saw this online, I said,

Murphy's head must be exploding. So take it away. I'll let you frame it. No, it is, it's like, you're right, Mark. It drives me insane in UI, because I spent 26 years trying to filter the loon out from my jury, right? Like, that's the juror that hangs the jury. The one has to be smarter than everybody else. The one that's not listening that they know better. Hey, the shoes are different. That must mean, and they're off to Kuku Land. And, but now in the modern era, it's kind of fascinating,

um, it's a fascinating time we live in, because it seems like every high profile case, there has to be some Kuku conspiracy theory, um, and it's just, I mean, it is, you know, if it was one or two people of you went think, but it seems like so many people jump onto this stuff. So this is, uh, this is a guy that, um, forgave his wife for the strangulation death of his three kids. He is suing the doctors and the medical professionals that, uh, according to his lawsuit,

over prescribed a bunch of medication to her or she had prosaxes, she was suffering from postpartum. Um, and, you know, he, he, he didn't, you know, he didn't make a universal nation of friends by coming out and doing that, especially such an emotional thing. You've got, you know, the murder of three kids, I totally get it. So there's going to be people that aren't going to like him in the

first place, but that has apparently now gone down the rabbit hole into, hey, I bet he's the real killer.

He was, uh, he was having an affair. I've heard that. I've absolutely nothing to back that up. Truth wise, um, he, you know, he, he, he married a woman. There are, he's already remarried. So he was the one that benefited and I was going to win this big lawsuit. Um, he must have done it and said his wife up. And guys, there is zero rational evidence that I have seen that actually supports that in any way. And Mark, it is, it's like wildfire, um, every time, um, my, on my real

and I, I keep getting new, new, little snow. Like, uh, I, by magic AI because they think I'm, I'm buying into it, I guess. Well, the, it's because, you know, why in the, in the, in the way that they, the AI understands us, they know you watch some of these because your head wants to explode.

“And so it thinks that somehow you're interested in it. And it reminds me, I think I don't”

remember if I told you this on an episode of In the Well or when we were talking, uh, offing, but my father used to tell this story when he was a DA and he was in lane pasture at one point, a little valley. And he's prosecuting a guy. And the guy, the defendant, or the accused got on the stand and testified that he did what he did because there was a transistor that was implanted in his cavity. And that beamed him orders as to what he had to do. And so pops gave an

is they wanted a transistor radio. So they didn't see tests whether or not the defendant had a transistor in his mouth. And he's, you know, that's just fast forward now to there's electrodes implanted in my brain that are affected by low flying aircraft, fast forward to now. It's startling is circling over me and that has affected me. I, it's a, it's a mental speaking of the mental health. It's a function of the mental health relationship to the criminal

justice system. And unfortunately, uh, it's exacerbated by the ability to find others and feed on this stuff. Yeah, look, it's, and this is a really interesting case that that raises some very serious issues. So for the viewer, there's a, most agencies, what's known as the Macnon rule,

“which essentially that's what California has. So to establish a criminal insanity, first you have”

the penalty phase where you prove that the person did it, then you go into what's called the sanity phase. And if they understand and recognize the nature and quality of their acts,

then they're legally saints. So the, the example we always given, I know Mark has heard 10,000 times.

You got an angel in a devil that, you know, that old trope, one is telling you to do some bad, one is telling you to do some good. And if you, if the devil pops up on your shoulder and says, go stab that person over there, or I'm going to blow up the world and they go do it. That means from their mental illness, they have committed an act, but they still know it's a human being. If the same scenario is, hey, that's not a person, that's an alien, go stab the alien, or I'm

going to blow up the world, then they can be said to not understand the nature and quality of their acts and they can be found legally insane. Massachusetts uses a stricter standard for the, for the

prosecution. And they have the burden, never shifts to the defense in California, it shifts to

the defense essentially to prove insanity, right? In California, in Massachusetts, the prosecution bears the, um, bears the burden, the entire time. And the language is different in Massachusetts. And it's like, it, it's, it's way more squishy and difficult to understand. I'll tell you Mark, I read it. I'm like, even I don't know what this means. And I've done what it means is, we're with, you know, with insanity defenses, I, I couldn't wrap my head around the, the incident.

So you know, it reminded, it's so funny you said that because when I was doing the research on it as well, because I was trying to understand, she's very ably defended. And, um, I was wondering, do they keep it squishy? So it's kind of like what the US Supreme Court many years ago did with obscenity. I know it when I see it. And they want to just keep it squishy or flexible or fluid

enough. So that it gives jurors the ability to basically kind of channel that tonshings, which is,

do we want this person punish or do we want this person to get help or do we want, you know, yeah, I mean, there's a, a lot of the law operates that way, if you will, a lot of the law, basically says or gives you permission or gives the jurors permission to kind of do what they think intuitively they want to do, which is justice. Yeah, it's an interesting thing to because they,

“it's not bifurcated in, in Massachusetts, right? So, you know, which is that you should explain”

that because that's a key distinction. I think it really is. So basically, you know, bifurcated system for the viewer, you've got, you have the jury on the same case. So if it's a murder with a mental defense, the jury goes back, they get all the same instructions, they deliberate, and they'll return a verdict of guilty. And, you know, it to get it to the penalty phase. So, so I think mark that up for a lot of jurors, that kind of slakes the, you know, their sense of justice a little

but they've done something. They know now the person's going to be held accountable in, in some form. And I, I think that frees them up a little bit more to be a little more open-minded in the, in the sanity phase, in the sanity phase, they're going to hear expert testimony, they're going to hear people come in and they're going to, I think, I think that helps the defense a lot of times. Oh, do I, Massachusetts, it appears, it is one thing. And I don't know if the jury is going to,

is going to understand what happens if they find her not legally responsible due to these mental health problems, because, and to be honest, Mark, I'm not even sure how it works in Massachusetts. I've done a little bit of light research on this, trying to figure out like, what does the

“court do if it's a one shot conviction or a quittle, you know? And I, I don't, I think the court”

loses jurisdiction over it. And she might get out of it. I know that's where I'm Massachusetts.

I don't know, man, the jury apparently did a jury viewing of the house, they, they went into the basement, where at least, I think two of the children were, were found, maybe all three, before she jumped out the window, you know, I don't know how to read this one, Mark. If I, if I had to, listen, by the way, did you listen to that 911 tape? It's horrifying. It's haunting, if this, for all you conspiracy theorists,

“the only way, I think that you could go down that rabbit hole is if you had not listened to that”

911 because that 911 is haunting, horrifying, horrific, any hatred you can think of. I just, especially when you know what's coming kind of, and you, you're not ready for it, even though you know how it is. Yeah, I mean, imagine that you walk into your house and you find your three beautiful kids. And, and according to his testimony, she, she'd been having all these mental health

issues. There's a journal that was introduced, her diary basically talking about some of her

intrusive thoughts. And the prosecution's position is, this is a rational woman who is undergoing mental health problems. Kind of going down that mental illness does not equal legal insanity argument. The defense on the other hand is saying, look, this is a good woman who's struggling with these issues. And so they're, they're, they're each arguing things from her diary. But according to him, she was, she had the best day she'd had, almost like a, you know,

like the, going back to the suicide. A lot of times people, once they've made the decision, they're going to do it. They're, they seem like they're doing better for it there too, before they actually, you know, and their own lives. And this almost sounds like one of those things. She took one of the, one of the kids to the doctor earlier that day. And, um, and all of her text messages to him seemed like she was like, his wife was coming back. She sends him out to pick up food. And he

comes into the worst scene imaginable. And that 911 call is horrifying. Um, it, it really, it's disturbing me. And you and I mark, I don't know how many thousand we've seen. So listen, this is this one. Yeah, it really is. It's in the, so like I say, if the sky's an actor, it's a, it's a, it's a, what's your prediction? Where do you think it goes based on, I just think they're going to, I, I think that when you've got the father, him, up there testifying, what interests is this

jury, vindicating, and more importantly, what is the prosecutor doing? You don't be always

going to slam the prosecutor, but what is the prosecutor think they're, who's interested in vindicating? This is somebody who obviously needed help didn't get help and, and arguably, uh, was miss, and was miss, uh, calibrated, sort of speak on the, the dosage, whether it was the pharmacological or the, the practitioner who knows, but what a tragedy. I just, I'll say not. Yes, sorry, go ahead. Now, I'm just going to say a sickening, if I, and we see this periodically,

it's one of the reasons these cases get traction, because it is a car wreck that you can't pick

“your eyes away from. I remember Andrea Yates, I remember the, I think it was Susan Smith. I mean,”

go through them, when they happen, they've burned in your mind, because it's just, it undercuts, civilized the community when a mother takes her children's lives. Yeah, and there's a, and there's a whole range, right? We're talking about human beings. So some people really legitimately are suffering from that postpartum, we had one in Orange County, uh, that Jeff Robinson, who I know, you know, he dismissed, and he, because he, he researched,

he did a Gini Piero. He, um, he believed that she was reacting so badly to the Prozac, that was a Prozac thing, that they, they, they, they dealt it, um, very, very rare. I think another thing that's going to help her on this, um, and I just finished that thought. Some people, Susan Smith, I don't think there's a redeeming quality or feature in her soul if she even has one. So there's, there's some truly evil women that kill their kids, because they're sick of them, or in convenience,

or whatever. So it's, it's important again to, to treat everybody as an individual, everybody's a

“statistic one. But I think another thing that's probably going to help her mark is that she's in”

a wheelchair. And I think some of the jurors are going to look at that and go, okay, well, she has paid a hell of, of a penalty already. Um, I don't know what her prognosis is, but I think that that also is something that they will feel like there's been some justice done already in her failed

suicide attempt where she, you know, jumped off out of a second story window, which is a bad

way for anybody to kill themselves, um, because you might just want to paralyze like her. So

that the, that the, that the father, the, essentially the victim, now. He's the victim. There's

“absolutely no one, the only surviving one. Um, but I, I don't know. Um, yeah, I, it's going to be”

interesting to see it, like he said, it's a train wreck and a, it is, it's a horrible no matter what happens. And I just, those poor kids, it's just, it's awful. Yeah. Well, coming up next, we're going to the tales of in the well, although this week I may have, uh, a more personal one. So stay tuned. Okay, so the tale this week, I'm going to, but it's talk about, uh, something personal to me, uh, we have, um, a tastes map, uh, Brian

Friedman, I actually are okay with so. And we represent, uh, Rachel Levis, who is suing Tom Sandeval, and Ariana Maddox, and for those who don't know, uh, from Vanderpump rules and reality TV, Sandeval had apparently taped her, uh, having an affair, um, and then somehow Maddox got ahold of it, somehow and amusing it loosely, sent it to her and it caused quite a storm. They didn't anti-slap. Now, this is interesting to me because, uh, we wanted to trial

court and we just won yesterday at the court of appeal in the two to one opinion, and who knows it may, uh, it may get appealed again, but I've had this instance now, more than once, where people, and, and I don't get it, frankly, where you commit a crime, and then when you get sued for committing the crime, uh, in this case, revenge form, um, in another case that I have, involving the so-called October surprise, uh, involving the, uh, mayoral election, uh, that put Caribass in the

office where we represent Kevin Day. We don't, there was a little wire tapping, and then you file an anti-slap, uh, against the person who is the victim, and it is mind-boggling to me, and I bring this up interestingly because I just talked to somebody who told me, and I didn't know this, and I wanted to throw it up to you, do you know that in Arizona, I'm told now that the anti-slap statute, for those who don't know, it's basically where you call a timeout, and you say, hey, Judge,

you can't proceed at least in California on this civil case, because it implicates public policy and the right to free speech. But in Arizona, I'm told they've expanded it now to criminal cases.

“Wouldn't you love to have an anti-slap statute in California that applied to criminal prosecutions?”

But apparently, that's the case. So, uh, and you ever thought about that or, or doubted?

I've never even considered that mark, but that is, that is a fascinating concept, right? And

right now, it is such a hot topic, right? With social media, because people, people hit the air waves, and certainly some speeches protected, and some speech is not protected, and it is, you know, also, cancel culture comes into that when it comes to damages, too, it doesn't mark like an alley exactly. That somebody said something terrible can have huge career implications, and the damages can be through the roof. So, it's, um, you know, we talked about this a little

bit not to lose the viewer and the technical stuff, but, um, there's a thing called Cal Acca, which now, California, for what, probably the last 10 years, requires a search warrant to get into people's cell phones. So, we are in a, it's a weird blend between our personal privacy, especially text messages, and you know, like, I've talked about my fan base football league, but that and making defamatory statements, and this is a, um, you know, the, the law is evolving

all the time to kind of keep up with, uh, with technology, and it seems like the laws always a few

steps behind, um, so yeah, that's a, that's a really interesting concept. It's so interesting that you've done the through line there, because there's a recent notice case in the last month that's

“talked about that. There is the, the Arizona statute that got expanded, and I think it was out of”

the 2024 election, and then you've got this published opinion as of yesterday morning, and you've

who was already early argued, and I think it's about time that the, this idea kind of this,

“what I think is kind of antiquated idea, that you can't kind of set some bright lines on this,”

that you can just kind of say anything you want. There's a difference to my mind between being an absoluteest when it comes to free speech, and then being able to do revenge porn, you know, I mean, I don't, I don't think that you can wrap yourself too closely in that distinction.

Yeah, and for the, any guy who would post revenge porn, you know, it's, especially in the modern era,

you're, you're, you're gonna get sued. You're gonna, like, you're gonna get arrested. There's even a federal statute now, Mark. We're right. It's, that things can go after you, like, you know, yeah, it's, uh, you know, there's so much to it. There's like that 200,000 years of like of a romantic partners, um, hating each other, right? And then you've got modern technology to boot, and yeah,

“the law, it's gonna be really interesting to see how it develops, I think.”

Well, as I often said about you, Matt, if you had been a prosecutor, you know, 400 years ago, you would have provost-prost-cuted Romeo for being a soccer junior, it's probably what I'm loving you. Yes, well, and I want to thank the viewers. I've been mad as mentioned it before, but, uh, it's the, this show is extended. Uh, I think not only our expectations, we had a very low bar, but I think everybody else's. And, uh, and it's because you guys listen and want to hear us tell stories

“that by the way, if there wasn't Natasha here orchestrating this, we'd be telling the stories anyway.”

So thank you for that. That's right, Matt. For entertaining me as well. I appreciate it. Okay, guys, uh, thank you again to my co-host Mark Urrigos, and thank you all for tuning in to in the well. This is the, um, the anniversary of the MK True Crime one year. Uh, it's been remarkably

successful. I just saw Mark 2.4 million downloads of, of, of our friends on the crew, uh, with

Johnna and Mark and Dave and all the, all the rest of the, the people that we got to eat up with this. Right, Ashley and the whole crew. Yeah, and what a blast it has been. It is, um, I, for the viewer, we, we got to go to Vegas for CrimeCon, and we all got to hang out, and what an awesome group of people. So, but mostly thank you all for supporting us. It's a, it's a, it's a ton of fun. Our numbers keep growing. And, um, yeah, uh, and feel free to send us comments.

We, we believe it or not. Um, Mark and I read the comments. We read the comments. I don't start to be nice because you'll hurt our feelings if you're not, but um, um, uh, I don't mind. If you're, if you're sarcastic and snarky and clever, I got it. If you're just kind of like, oh my god, you know, he defended this guy or that guy, anybody can do that. Come on, step up your game. Keep it, but please keep it kind. Mark and the question in the May, uh, I hope,

everybody has an awesome weekend, and we will see everybody next week.